|
Mrs. McGuire: I thank hon. Members for their cross-party support for the order. I alluded in my opening speech to the difficulty Members of Parliament have in considering what is effectively their working base—the constituency that elects them. I reinforce the comments made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson); it has not been easy for colleagues to have to put themselves before an internal party selection committee. That that is not technically part of the order, but we should recognise that colleagues will not be returning to the House, not because of the will of the electorate, but because we, their colleagues, and they themselves have participated in a decision in Parliament that effectively removes them from the next election. We should not underestimate the political and personal difficulties that that can pose for individuals.
That takes me to the first question posed by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger). The differences to which I alluded were about those in all parties. As we moved towards the order, people had different views from the boundary commission on what should and should not happen: whether its recommendations should have been delayed; and whether it should have come up with the numbers it did. The differences are behind us now, and everybody agrees that the report was robust and transparent, and that it would be inappropriate to reopen the arguments.
I will deal with one or two of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater about local authority preparations. Local authorities in Scotland have been kept apprised of developments. They work closely to ensure that they have a professional electoral administration. The Scotland Office has had no representations about any concerns that local authorities may have. In one or two areas, a constituency crosses two or three local authority boundaries and the returning officer has yet to be determined, but that will be quickly dealt with once this order has been made and the Secretary of State has dealt with a subsequent order, which needs no debate and no decision by this House.
Responsibility for educating the electorate rests with the Electoral Commission. All of us recognise that the commission in Scotland, and, I suspect, throughout the United Kingdom, takes its responsibilities seriously. In fact, it not only looks to educate the local electorate before the election, but produces numerous reports. We have just seen its report on the outcome of the European elections and the way in which they were managed. I am not sure whether there will be any UN observers at elections in Scotland; nor am I quite sure how robust the electoral
Column Number: 12
process is in Bridgwater, and whether UN observers are needed there. There may well be some UN observers floating around as part of the international approach to elections, but I do not think that they will be in Scotland or any other part of the UK to do anything specific, but as part of exchanges.
I believe that I have dealt with all of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater. He used the word anomalies, but this is not an anomalous situation: all that we are doing is reconfiguring the electoral map of Scotland. There are no major anomalies.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made a modest political point about the size of the Scottish Parliament. Having been around a long time, I remember that at one point the Scottish Liberal Democrats wanted it to be even bigger: they wanted something like 200 seats, and certainly at least 144. For them to accuse us of trying to politicise the size of Scottish Parliament is a little disingenuous.
Sir Robert Smith: I just suggested that had the Government listened in 1998—they nearly did, but could not at the last minute—they might have found things were more tidily and easily organised, rather than their having to do things back to front now.
Mrs. McGuire: Had we listened to the Liberal Democrats in 1996, we would have had 200 Members of the Scottish Parliament, and I do not know how that would have made things neater and tidier. I suspect that we will have more time in which to engage in such political banter over the next few months.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the independent process and the fact that it resulted in a good report. I also recognise what he said about local government wards and that, under the new system in Scotland, there may have to be a review of how the boundary commission, which will then be under the aegis of the Electoral Commission, does its work. I will not anticipate how it will go about that part of its business.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Moray. He asked what will happen if the measure does not go ahead, but we do not anticipate that happening. We hope that it will be overwhelmingly supported by the Committee today, and it will then quickly go to the other place for consideration—by 1 February, I believe—after which it will go to the next appropriate Privy Council meeting. As I said, we expect the matter to be finished by mid to late February. I suggest, therefore, that it is too early yet to pulp any election leaflets that hon. Members may have had printed with their new boundaries in mind.
It has been helpful to the process that the boundary commission has since December 2003 been very public with its views and recommendations for Westminster boundaries, notwithstanding the fact that we still had to deal with Holyrood boundaries. In terms of
Column Number: 13
Westminster boundaries, most of us have been working within the situation that the boundary commission reported in its 2003 interim report.
As I said at the outset, this is, in many respects, an historic moment, in which the devolution settlement is recognised, as is the fact that the legislative role of Scottish MPs has changed in relation to Scotland. We are fulfilling the promise that we made in the Scotland Act to reduce the number of Scottish MPs at
Column Number: 14
Westminster as a result of devolution. I ask hon. Members to support the order so that it can swiftly be sent to another place and enacted as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 2005.
Committee rose at four minutes past Five o'clock.
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman: Mr. Nigel Beard
Browning, Mrs. Angela (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
†Doran, Mr. Frank (Aberdeen, Central) (Lab)
†Dowd, Jim (Lewisham, West) (Lab)
Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. David (Wells) (Con)
†Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian (Bridgwater) (Con)
†MacDonald, Mr. Calum (Western Isles) (Lab)
†McGuire, Mrs. Anne (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)
†McKenna, Rosemary (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
†Picking, Anne (East Lothian) (Lab)
†Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham, East) (Lab)
†Robertson, Angus (Moray) (SNP)
†Ross, Mr. Ernie (Dundee, West) (Lab)
Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con)
†Smith, Sir Robert (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
†Stewart, Mr. David (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber) (Lab)
†Strang, Dr. Gavin (Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Mark Etherton, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
| 
