Westminster Hall
Thursday 20 July 2006
[Mr. Martin Caton in the Chair]
Boundaries, Voting and Representation (Scotland)
[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 924, Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Huw Irranca-Davies.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow, Central) (Lab): I am delighted that today’s debate, which has such importance for the people of Scotland, is being chaired by an hon. Member from another proud Celtic nation.
I thank the Minister for making Government time available for the House to debate this important matter. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had asked for a 90-minute Scottish Grand Committee debate on the report from the Arbuthnott commission, so we were pleased to be offered a three-hour debate instead.
The Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, also known as the Arbuthnott commission, was established by the Secretary of State in May 2004 to consider the consequences of having four separate voting systems for elections in Scotland and having different constituency boundaries for elections to Westminster and to Holyrood. The Commission was established in the wake of the Scottish Affairs Committee report entitled “Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change”, which followed the Government’s decision to retain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament at 129 and the provisional proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to reduce the number of Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster from 72 to 59.
After an 18-month inquiry, the commission published its report, “Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland”, on 19 January 2006. The commission’s main recommendations included one that the current mixed member system for electing the Scottish Parliament should be retained, but with open lists to increase voter choice.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a democratic deficit when people are allowed to stand not only in the list but in the constituency? Someone who stands in the constituency and loses can then become a winner, and in some minority parties losers could become not only winners, but leaders.
Mr. Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing an important point to my attention. I will address it later in my speech.
The
commission also recommended that constituency and regional boundaries
for the Scottish Parliament
should be based on local authority areas rather than Westminster
constituencies, with the regions revised to better reflect natural
local communities; that candidates for election to the Scottish
Parliament should not be prohibited from standing in a constituency and
on the regional list; that clearer and more positive roles should be
developed for constituency and regional MSPs; that the single
transferable vote system should be introduced for European
parliamentary elections; and that Scottish Parliament and local
government elections should be held on different days.
In February this year, the Scottish Affairs Committee took evidence from Sir John Arbuthnott, the chairman of the commission, and from one of its members, Dr. Nicola McEwen. During the evidence session, members of the Committee raised several matters of concern about the commission’s report, including coterminosity of Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries; the remit of the commission and honouring the devolution settlement; the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament; the boundaries and size of Holyrood constituencies; Scottish local government elections; wasted votes; the multiplicity of MSPs representing Scottish Parliament constituencies; voter confusion; dual candidacy for elections to the Scottish Parliament; and elections to the European Parliament.
Those are the facts. I am sure that if they catch your eye, Mr. Caton, members of the Committee will to express their own concerns, but I would now like to make a few observations on my own account, rather than as the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am greatly concerned that the Arbuthnott commission has simply not resolved three fundamental issues. The first is the complicated and confusing system that we have in Scotland, with four different voting systems for the four different types of elections. We have STV for local government elections; proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament; a mixture of first past the post and a list system for elections to the Scottish Parliament; and first past the post for elections to the House of Commons.
Mr. Devine: Does my hon. Friend agree that first past the post is the best system?
Mr. Sarwar: I have never been keen on first past the post and prefer proportional representation, but the mess that I witnessed during elections to the Scottish Parliament with list membership means that I now have serious reservations about proportional representation in our country.
All
hon. Members will share my concern about the falling number of people
who bother to vote in elections. Part of that reluctance to vote must
be due to the confusion caused by having different systems for
different elections, and the fact that, for elections to the Scottish
Parliament, electors have two votes: for a constituency MSP and for a
list MSP. The Scottish Parliament has introduced the single
transferable vote for local government elections, and it clearly likes
that system, so why does it not ask Westminster to introduce STV for
Holyrood elections? If it is good enough for local government, surely
it is good enough
for the Scottish Parliament. Has the Minister received a request from
the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation so that STV will be
used in future elections to the Scottish
Parliament?
Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): My question is about the change to STV in local government elections. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about local representation on councils? The break between voters and councillors is something many of us are worried about. At the moment it is clear who people can go to and who is responsible for ensuring that council services are delivered in their area.
Mr. Sarwar: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A constituency link with the elector is vital. However, my concern is that, because we have elections on the same day for both local government and the Scottish Parliament, if the Scottish Executive think that it is a good idea to have STV in local government, people will ask why it is not a good idea for the Scottish Parliament. Introducing STV in the Scottish Parliament and in local government would at least reduce confusion for voters when they go to the polling station.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con): Is it not true that most Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament are, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), totally opposed to the introduction of STV? Is it not the case that STV is being forced on the people of Scotland by the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Sarwar: I do not speak on behalf of Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament. I believe and agree that there is a coalition in Scotland with the Liberal Democrats, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Labour members and activists who I have spoken to in my wards and my constituency are totally opposed to the introduction of STV in local government elections. If elections to Holyrood and for local government are to be held on the same day, surely it would make perfect sense, in order to reduce the voter confusion that I mentioned, for the same voting system to be used for both types of election.
Another matter that the commission does not address is the coterminosity of constituency boundaries for elections to the Parliaments in Westminster and Holyrood. The present system has led to the current situation, whereby there are 11 MSPs interfering in my constituency of Glasgow, Central. Four of them were elected by first past the post, and seven from the list. That situation is unacceptable and must change.
Ms Katy Clark: Are my hon. Friend’s constituents similar to mine in that when they think about which MSP they should go to with their problems, they think of their directly elected MSP? One worry about the move towards single transferable votes for councillors is that it will not be clear to whom constituents should go. Perhaps, rather than the Scottish Parliament moving to a system with more STV, we should review how councils are elected.
Mr. Sarwar: There is a great deal of confusion among electors. Indeed, some do not even know who their constituency MSP is because the boundaries are not coterminous with the Westminster constituencies. The additional list Members are adding to the confusion.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is undoubtedly complex that 11 MSPs cover his parliamentary constituency, that would be manageable if each of them were responsible for a finite geographical area? Does he agree that the problem is not with the first-class MSPs who have been elected to particular constituencies, but with the second-class MSPs who were elected on the assisted places scheme who then pretend to represent the city as a whole, and cause confusion?
Mr. Sarwar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The unfortunate reality is that the Arbuthnott commission has not dealt seriously with the two classes of MSPs, and has not come up with clear roles for list and constituency MSPs. That is causing the problem.
Mr. Devine: The original vision within the Scottish Constitutional Convention was that list MSPs would have an overview of their areas—Lothian, Glasgow or wherever—but that clearly has not happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that a way around the problem might be that instead of people having two votes—the first being for the party of their choice and the second being for another party—perhaps they should have one vote only?
Mr. Sarwar: I think that my hon. Friend has seen my speech. He reminds me of everything that I want to address later. I shall certainly cover that very important point later.
Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept my point about first-class and second-class MSPs? Is it not noticeable that many second-class MSPs stand in the first-past-the-post elections and try to become first-class MSPs, but that none go in the other direction? No first-class MSPs seek to become second-class MSPs?
Mr. Sarwar: I shall address that point later.
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): What is going is clearly an absolute outrage. Who is responsible for creating this dog’s breakfast in the first place? Who should be held accountable for what is going on in your seat in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland?
Mr. Sarwar: The previous Secretary of State for Scotland was fully aware of all those problems. That is why he established the Arbuthnott commission and instructed it to consider the issues and report back. The issue that we are discussing is something that the commission did not address.
David Mundell: Will you address in your remarks the interesting concept that has been brought up about first and second—
Mr. Martin Caton (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members’ use of “you” when they should be speaking through the Chair is creeping into the debate. Will everybody remember not to do that?
David Mundell: I am sorry, Mr. Caton. My old Scottish Parliament habits are creeping back. I apologise profusely.
Will the hon. Gentleman address the interesting concept that has been raised of first and second-class MSPs in the Scottish Parliament? I am particularly interested to hear about that distinction because he will know that we were recently told, on the Floor of the House, that Westminster would not be workable if we had first and second-class MPs, so how is Scottish Parliament sustainable with first and second-class MSPs?
Mr. Sarwar: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman, who is an important member of my Committee. I used to value the Conservatives in my Committee at £1 million, but now, with inflation, I think it has gone up to £1.4 million.
The British Parliament is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We can discuss many issues, but we cannot afford to have two classes of MPs in the British Parliament. My view is very clear. The nationalists at least know what they want to do—they want to break up the union and to divorce themselves from Britain—but the Conservatives are helping the Scottish nationalists’ cause by saying that we should have two classes of MPs. Conservative Members on both the Front and Back Benches should know that we should have one class of MP only in British Parliament.
David Mundell: Whatever the hon. Gentleman says on that, why is he perpetrating the view that there are two classes of MSPs?
Mr. Sarwar: I do not think that anyone is saying that the people on the list should not participate in or vote on legislative issues in Scotland. Nobody in the Chamber thinks or advocates that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I do not know why Labour Members will not recognise or acknowledge that there are two classes of Members of Parliament in this House. There are Members like ourselves who represent Scottish constituencies, and Members such as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) who have a full say on all the issues, such as criminal justice, health and education, in their constituencies. We do not have a full say on those matters in our constituencies, so we are clearly of a different class from the hon. Member for Broxbourne. The absurd thing about that is that although I cannot have a say about those things in relation to my constituency, I can in relation to the constituency of the hon. Member for Broxbourne. That is the absurdity; that is the two classes of MP in this House.
Mr.
Sarwar: That issue does not concern only Scotland and
England; we face that issue in relation to Northern Ireland, Wales and
Greater London. If the hon. Gentleman feels in his heart that we should
not
break up the Union, he will think differently and will not appreciate
the Conservative point of view that there should be two classes of MP
in the Westminster Parliament.
Ms Katy Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that if English people wish to opt for some form of English regional government, that is a matter for them? The purpose of this place is to be a Parliament for all the nations of these islands. That is essential to what we are debating today.
Mr. Sarwar: Yes, if the people in England want devolution for the regions and want to bring power closer to the people, nobody is preventing them from taking that option. In fact, if Conservative Members of Parliament want to opt for devolution and want people to be in charge of their own destinies in the regions, we would be happy to support them.
As you will know better than I do, Mr. Caton, the Government of Wales Bill seeks to rectify a similar situation concerning elections to the National Assembly for Wales. The Bill includes clauses to prohibit prospective Welsh Assembly Members standing in individual constituencies and on a regional list. I am pleased for the people of Wales that such sensible legislation has been introduced—well done. I have no hesitation in following a good example, wherever it comes from, be it Wales, England or any other part of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Bill becomes law shortly in Wales. However, if dual candidacy is not considered acceptable for the people of Wales, why is considered perfectly acceptable for the people of Scotland? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer me on this issue.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the whole issue of dual candidacy would cease to be relevant if the Arbuthnott Commission had recommended, as it should have done, STV for Holyrood elections? Everybody would be elected on the same basis, but the system would still be proportional and would therefore fairly represent the views of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Sarwar: If STV is to be introduced—it is involved in the coming elections—it would be a positive step forward: we would at least have the same class of MSPs elected the same way.
Ms Clark: I am slightly concerned by my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the whole of the Scottish Parliament should be elected by single transferable vote. We already know that the list MSPs that we have tend to focus on a small patch of the areas that they represent. They tend to focus on part of the huge area for which they are elected. They choose such areas, and it is not a matter for which they have any responsibility. Large parts of Scotland may find that they effectively do not have MSPs who will truly engage with the issues of those communities if everything were to be elected by STV.
Mr.
Sarwar: The Arbuthnott commission has addressed the issue
and recognised that there is a problem, but, unfortunately, it did not
come up with any solution. That is the problem. I am not a great
advocate of STV or any other system; I am saying that
it will be confusing for our electorate in our constituencies if we are
to have four different systems to elect four different bodies. That is
my prime concern.
I have some suggestions to make if everybody is happy for STV to be involved. My suggestion for rectifying the interference by MSPs is simple, but would be effective. Two Westminster constituencies could be joined together to make one Holyrood constituency. The new units would elect four MSPs by STV, which would mean a total of 118 MSPs, and I would contend that that is a sufficient number. I am sure that some hon. Members will say that it is more than enough.
Mr. Davidson: May I suggest to my hon. Friend and neighbour that he is making an assumption about my view? I have reservations about reducing the existing number of MSPs; my anxiety is maintaining the constituency link. While I can see the point of joining two constituencies together and having such areas elect four MSPs, would it not be even better if we simply had two Holyrood MSPs for each Westminster constituency, to be elected on the basis of one man and one woman from each constituency, thereby giving a gender balance and reducing the number of MSPs?
Mr. Sarwar: An even better proposal came from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe), who is unfortunately not present. He suggested that if there must be a proportionality element, we could elect 118 by first past the post and 11 using proportionality.
If Holyrood insisted that it could not do with fewer than the current 129 MSPs, my solution would be that the large rural constituencies could elect five MSPs to represent two Westminster constituencies. In paragraph 4.34, the commission set out comprehensively the benefits of electing the Scottish Parliament by STV, citing, for example, that it would remove the problem of two classes of MSP, which has been mentioned many times during this debate, and that it would remove confusion over the use of a “second” vote. Unfortunately, the commission seemed to lose its nerve, and paragraph 4.35 raises a number of what it describes as
“weaknesses when compared to a mixed member system”.
One weakness mentioned was that it complicates the act of voting. What is more complicated than having four voting systems for four types of elections?
I believe the Commission missed a great opportunity, by not recommending the obvious solution to voter confusion. If we retain the current situation, the Scottish Labour party has made the sensible suggestion that voters should cast only one vote—my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) made a good point about that. The vote should be assumed to be also a vote for their preferred party. Paragraph 4.40 of the commission’s report quotes from the Scottish Labour party’s submission, which stated:
“There is potential to remove the need for a second vote and allocate the List MSPs on the basis of the constituency vote. This is a straight-forward measure that would simplify the voting system for those participating whilst still ensuring that the electoral system maintains significant proportionality.”
David Mundell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such a proposal was contained in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party response to the Arbuthnott commission? On this occasion, we are in agreement.
Mr. Sarwar: I am well aware that the Conservative party made a similar proposal. When we make proposals on which there is consensus with the Conservatives, I become a bit doubtful about whether we are doing the right thing. That is why I did not mention this proposal in my submission.
By reducing voter confusion, I believe we could maximise voter participation. My third fundamental issue is that there are two classes of MSPs, as many colleagues have mentioned: the constituency MSP and the list MSP. In paragraphs 4.23 and 4.24, the commission rightly highlights the less than clear role of the list MSP, and that constituency MSPs have accused list MSPs of cherry-picking individual cases, about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) made an eloquent point. The commission does not actually address the issue. The report is therefore disappointing, as it raises the problem, but does not seek to offer a solution.
The final point I would make is about the e-counting of votes. I hope that the Minister will use today’s debate as the opportunity to bring the House up to date on what is happening in this area. In particular, I would like to know who will take responsibility if e-voting does not work as well as intended? Will it be the Scotland Office or the Scottish Executive?
I am sure many other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I will now draw my remarks to a conclusion. As I said earlier, this is an important debate and I look forward to hearing what those on the Front Benches and other hon. Members have to say.
3.00 pm
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) who said some sterling things about STV. I hope to convince him to continue down that lonely path on the Labour Back Benches because I think he is on to something that could be fruitful.
I congratulate Sir John Arbuthnott and his commission on a good and measured report. It makes a number of useful and positive recommendations that I believe will help the cause of Scottish democracy. It also deals with a few myths that were beginning to emerge, particularly among Labour Members. It debunked those myths constructively and positively. Sir John was given the massive task of looking at boundaries, voting and representation in Scotland and trying to put the voter first. This is a good report and Sir John went about his business in the diligent and professional way that we expected from one of the most respected academics. It is a testament to him that we are still debating his report a few months later and kicking around some of the issues to ensure that we try to improve on some of his work.
The report is good, but we do not agree with everything in it and there are some issues that I wish he had included, particularly STV, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central mentioned, and some that I wish he had emphasised a little more. It is worth looking at the background and the context.
Arbuthnott was asked to produce his report because of demand by hon. Members in this House, particularly Labour Members. I clearly remember them coming to the House week in, week out, saying that something must be done and the matter must be looked at. They came up with stories of constituents who were perplexed, confused and anxious about the different voting systems, coterminosity and so on, and demanded that the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling) do something about it. To his credit, he acted on those concerns and asked Sir John Arbuthnott to set up his commission. It was important that the commission was to be consensual, cross-party and independent, and that was the case because all the parties were represented and all Scottish interests were reflected.
The commission worked diligently and I was particularly impressed by the way in which it sought the advice and views of focus groups and consulted all political parties. I think there were three meetings at Dover house to discuss those issues, and the report fairly and accurately represents the evidence.
Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned focus groups. Does he accept that the clearest finding from the focus groups was that the electorate preferred the first-past-the-post system because they find it easy, straightforward and preferable to any other complicated system?
Pete Wishart: That is one issue that came from the focus groups, although they also recognised in the same breath that STV would solve some of the coterminosity issues and the problem of different sorts of MSPs. When it came to the focus groups, there was a mixed bag for all of us. Focus groups were a good idea and Arbuthnott produced a good report. Although there are some recommendations that I do not agree with, the report was independent, cross-party and consensual, and the House asked for it. It was demanded by Labour Members. We accept Arbuthnott’s proposals because he did his job and he did it well.
We could compare Arbuthnott’s consensual approach with the Government of Wales Bill—we discussed it just the other evening—in which the Labour party imposed its will and its view on the unsuspecting Welsh public. The approach was entirely different. The Labour party could do that in Scotland, but if they tinker with democracy, change the voting arrangements and try to improve democracy, it must be with consensus and cross-party support. If a political party imposes its view on a democracy, there is a strong suspicion that it is doing so for its own, narrow, party political interests. That came across clearly in the Government of Wales Bill the other evening.
Mr. Sarwar: Anyone can accuse the Labour party of party politics. If we had a first-past-the-post system in Scotland the Scottish Nationalists would have only five MSPs. Is that right?
Pete
Wishart: Following the last general election, that
is right. If we secured around 20 per cent. of the vote we would have
five or six Members of the Scottish Parliament, but on the basis of
votes cast we are
entitled to many more than that. We must move on from the Jurassic dark
days of first past the post. Those days have gone and Labour Members
must get used to that, move on and accept that the future is
proportional voting because people’s votes matter. That is where
democracies around the world are going. It is time for hon. Members on
the Labour Benches to accept
that.
Ms Clark: In an earlier contribution, it was said that the Labour party introduced the voting system for the Scottish Parliament after many years of consultation in Scotland with a wide range of organisations. In the Scotland Act 1998, the Labour party was generous in the representation that it gave to other political parties and opinions. It could have gone ahead with proposals more akin to Labour’s representation at Westminster. Does the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) agree that in terms of political representation the Scottish Parliament represents Scotland and all its different views in a different way and that by having two sorts of MSP—
Mr. Martin Caton (in the Chair): Order. This is turning into a speech. Interventions should be short.
Ms Clark: I apologise, Mr. Caton. I will try to keep my point as short as possible.
One problem is that list MSPs do not have as big a job or as clear a role as constituency Members. Does my hon. Friend accept that that should be addressed?
Pete Wishart: I think the hon. Lady is on more solid ground. The point that I was making was that the Arbuthnott commission, the Scottish Office and the Labour party in Scotland went about their business in a different way from that of the Welsh Labour party, which simply imposed its view on an unwilling Welsh electorate. I congratulate the Government on the way in which they approached the matter and for making it cross-party, consensual and independent. That is why the report reached different conclusions from the provisions in the Government of Wales Bill.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, I do not accept that there are two different classes of MSP. I observe hard-working constituency Members of the Scottish Parliament, just as I observe Members of the Scottish Parliament who do almost next to nothing, and I observe hard-working list Members and list Members who do almost nothing. The difference in class is the difference in the quality of work from Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is the only distinction.
The way in which Arbuthnott approached the matter was positive and I hope that we see more of that sort of thing. We should try to do things consensually and with cross-party representation in future because there are many things we can agree on. I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central about proportional representation. There is growing consensus among some Labour Members, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National party Members about that, which could help to drive the matter forward, with a strong and vigorous case for proportional representation in future.
I know that
hon. Members are disappointed. I could sense that from some of the
interventions. The Labour
party in Scotland did not get what it wanted from Arbuthnott, but that
is just too bad. We did not get what we wanted, but we accept the
report and all its conclusions and recommendations. The Labour party in
Scotland should also accept it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |