Orders of the Day — Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill

House of Commons, 4 May 2004.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst in the Chair] — Clause 1 — Constituencies and Regions

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 5 to 11.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Commencement (No.1)—

'(1) The provisions of this Act shall come into force by order of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) until the appropriate date of the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Mr. Haselhurst, I rise to—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

My apologies, Mr. Chairman, are all the warmer as I am one who should know the procedures as well.

The Bill when first hatched may have been considered a little blip in the Government's business programme, or, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson),

"the legislative follow-up to a political fix"—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1180.]

Along with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends I enjoyed my right hon. Friend's comments on Second Reading and found them very, very interesting. In supporting some of what he said, I think we must ask what public interest the Bill serves when we seek to gerrymander a constitutional agreement made in Scotland, by Scotland, for Scotland? What are we seeking to do with the Bill? It is not a tidying-up exercise of some constitutional arrangement. It destroys fundamentally the consensus achieved in Scotland in support of the Scottish Parliament in the 1980s.

The Bill will be passed tonight with the Government's comfortable majority, against what the then Secretary of State for Scotland and first First Minister described as the settled will of the Scottish people—the Scotland Act 1998. The consultations have been much vaunted, yet it was not explained why there had to be two, or that the first bash had to be extended for six months because little interest was shown. It appears that sometimes there can be a thin line between consulting people and canvassing support for causes.

To those of my colleagues who do an exceptionally good job in the Scottish Parliament, and who do not get credit for their work but criticism, for reasons known better to those who seek to criticise them—and to anybody who may question my motives in forming my view—I want to make it clear that I am on their side. Those who thought of this fix to save the 129 MSP jobs were not looking after the real interests of MSPs. They were not serving the good governance of Scotland. They were involved in what my right hon. Friend said—a political fix—and were not thinking through its consequences.

I caution my colleagues if they think that the Bill will serve such causes, whether or not it saves a few careers of a few senior politicians. If so, they have failed to read the small print, because the consequences of the Bill will be that we have at least four different electoral systems in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, to his credit, identified that early, and has accepted, as we all do, that the status quo is not defendable. If we are not to support the Scotland Act 1998, I say to my colleagues in Holyrood that it will be replaced by something that is far worse.

Our colleagues on the Opposition Benches, both here and in Holyrood, will be arguing for full proportional representation—single transferable vote for parliamentary elections. Those who propose that are thinking of narrow political interests, not of what is right for the people of Scotland. I am delighted to take on the charge, because the Labour party has had historically, and still has, huge support in Scotland, which, by the way, is well earned. I do not disguise other motives by saying that the people are better served when they have a representative on whose door they can knock, to say, "I've got a problem."

If the Bill is passed tonight, the boundary changes are made at the next general election and there are 59 MSPs instead of 72 or 73, the consequences will be quite interesting. On Second Reading I gave the example of the Lanark and Hamilton, East constituency, where there would be one Westminster MP, three first-past-the-post MSPs, 16 list MSPs and 20 councillors. The Scottish Parliament is now discussing the STV system, and talking about halving the number of councillors in Scotland. There would then be twice as many MSPs as councillors in one constituency.

That does not stack up. That is why I am telling my colleagues in Holyrood that the 1998 Act represented the settled will of the Scottish people. It is what we campaigned for, what we had a referendum on, and what we were comfortable with. For some reason, however, people in high places outwith the governance of the people and the Parliament decided that it was better to keep 129 and accept all the consequences. I think that all the consequences are dire, and that Back Benchers like me have a responsibility to say so. When it happens, people should not be able to point the finger and say "Why did you not tell us this in Parliament?"—for I doubt very much that there will be many plaudits for those who support the measures we are discussing.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

My hon. Friend has stressed the issue of the settled will of the Scottish people. Surely one of the biggest arguments against multiplying the number of election systems still further is provided by the present list Members, who flounder around in our constituencies sending press releases with absolutely no local relevance just so that they can get a snippet into the newspaper, and sticking up surgery notices in villages where they may or may not turn up for half an hour before turning up in another village 40 miles away. Should we not be dealing with that problem rather than producing yet more systems and yet more confusion for the electorate?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I understand and sympathise with what my hon. Friend says, and might even go as far as to say that I agree with much of it, but I remind Members that it is all too simple to pick out the easiest argument and take your eye off the ball. We do not know who wanted the 129 MSPs to remain, but they took their eyes off the ball. I am talking about what is right for governance. The 1998 Act was thought through, and was part of a consensus on the constitutional convention.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Is it not interesting that as soon as I mention the constitutional convention, the first Member to rise is from the Scottish National party, which wanted no part of it?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The hon. Gentleman speaks of a political fix and a consensus. The "political fix" includes some notable names, including the Scottish Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Electoral Commission. All those people believe in the 129: there is a consensus. I have heard no one speak in favour of a reduction in the number. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can say who supports it.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I have tried to draw a distinction between canvassing and consultation. The political fix was fixed long before the SNP had an opportunity to get on board.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the SNP had plenty of opportunity to take part in the constitutional convention and to formulate what was going to happen? It just chose not to do so.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

The constitutional convention was a difficult process for many of us. Some of us were dragged reluctantly to the table to agree to the electoral system—[Interruption.] Perhaps we were dragged kicking. We did not want anything to do with proportional representation. We know the dangers of proportional representation and of giving the 5 per cent. the power to say how the 95 per cent. will be governed. We know what we get from proportional representation. People say that votes under that system are fair. Well, they are unfair. It is power to the minorities, not to the majorities.

Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned power to majorities and minorities. Does he accept that in Scotland all political parties are minorities in that no political party got anywhere near 50 per cent. of the vote?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I accept that no system is absolutely perfect. Every system will always have problems of legitimacy, but first past the post has more legitimacy with the electorate than anything else. We are about to have an election on a proportional representation system. The last time we had European elections, it was a closed list. This time, it is an open list. Talk to some of my constituents, or even talk to me and ask what the difference is. There is not much difference between the two. It is a fix. Who are people voting to elect? Are they electing someone to represent them? They certainly are not under any list system.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Has there been a change in the proportional system for the European elections? The hon. Gentleman says that it has moved to an open list. It is still a closed list as far as I understand it.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Is it a half-closed list or a half-open list? The hon. Gentleman has just proved the point. It is confusing him and it is confusing me. The election before the previous one was first past the post. Then we went on to a PR system. Now we are on the new system. Turnout was 24 per cent. in 1999. Here is a wager. If turnout is more than 24 per cent. in the June election—and I will try to ensure that it is—the tea in the Tea Room is on me. That is how confident I am.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I ask hon. Members not to tempt me. I do not intend to speak for too long. I just want to make a few points, and the more I am tempted, the longer I will be. The constitutional convention got consensus. Everyone was okay. We went for a referendum and thankfully all the parties got together then and we got the vote.

I remember that there was a huge row. I do not know what the rows were like in the Opposition parties but in the Labour party it was quite difficult. In fact, a Front-Bench spokesman resigned when the Prime Minister announced that we were going to have a referendum to entrench the will of the Scottish people.

I remember going to the Scottish executive committee of the Labour party to hear the Prime Minister when he came to put his case—I was on the Scottish executive committee then. I supported him then overwhelmingly. The biggest reason for supporting the referendum was that one of our greatest concerns during the whole debate in favour of a Scottish Parliament was what guarantee we had that what we gave the people of Scotland with one Government could not be taken away by another Government. In other words, we were worried about the Tories. If we gave Scotland a Parliament, would the Tories take it away or change it? The biggest argument for a referendum was that it would entrench the will of the Scottish people. Once that was done, no Government would try to amend it. However, the first attempt to amend it has come from our own Government.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

My hon. Friend is arguing strongly that the Scotland Act should not be changed with regard to the 129 MSPs. However, his name is attached to every single amendment that effectively calls for an end to the PR system for the Scottish Parliament. Surely there is some inconsistency. On the one hand he does not want to change the number of MSPs; on the other, he is happy to call for the abolition of PR.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

He is just a lawyer.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

He is a courageous lawyer to intervene on me to ask about PR. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) who used his casting vote to give us PR when the Scottish Labour party would not have supported it. Perhaps we would not be having this debate were it not for my hon. Friend. We would have had the Scottish Parliament, because we had a big enough majority in 1997 to deliver it. We would have had first past the post, and a Labour Government in Holyrood. I admire his gall in intervening on that subject.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I realise that, eventually, my casting vote will be engraved on my hon. Friend's heart: he seems to remember it long after everyone else has forgotten. If someone had to use a casting vote, it suggests that at least half of those involved were also in favour of PR at the time. Leaving that aside, will my hon. Friend answer the question that I posed in my previous intervention?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

It should not be difficult for my hon. Friend to work it out but, as a lawyer, he may be confusing those who were for, those who were against and those who were in between. He may have found out on his travels that I have been, am and always will be for first past the post. I have never been seduced by any proportional representation system. If it had been left to me, the Scottish convention would not have gone for PR. Had I been in my hon. Friend's position, we would not have had PR. I think that we are being pushed towards a full PR system, away from the compromise of part first past the post, part PR. If so, I am on the side of first past the post and I will do what I can to argue that case.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am always interested in the views of the hon. Gentleman on PR. For the comedy value, will he give us his view on the decision of his colleagues in Holyrood to adopt PR for local government so enthusiastically?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Thank you, Sir Alan, for rescuing me from myself, if nothing else. The amendment seeks to delay the enactment of something that will have consequences for local government. Many of my hon. Friends—although not too many of them, because we could never have enough—are experienced in local government. I am fortunate to have been in local government for 14 years and I know the value of local government from having been in it and seen what it can do.

As hon. Members know, I do not make too many party political points, but during the years of the Thatcher Government we had two institutions that we could go to for defence. We had the trade unions, which were important at the time, although Baroness Thatcher was set against them, and we had local authorities, which protected us in some good measure. It took the Thatcher Government a long time to damage the local authorities, although they abolished the metropolitan councils and did away with the Greater London council. It was important that we looked to our local authorities and that is why I value local government; I have been in there and I value it. The people who value it more, however, are the people who rely on it more. As I said earlier, we do not want to have a situation where no one goes and knocks on people's doors to get them to respond. PR would do away with all that in local government.

John Barrett (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

rose—

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am going to move on, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I want to support my hon. Friend and bring him back to his amendment. There is unnecessary division here, because there seems—I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree—to be a remarkable degree of consensus in the Chamber. The consensus in favour of maintaining coterminous boundaries has extended, not decreased, since our last discussion. The nationalists, who tended to ridicule the principle last time, are now signed up to coterminous boundaries. No one on our side supports what is going through. The Tories oppose it. There is remarkable consensus, which my hon. Friend will want to build on. The only people who support the measure that is going through might be a couple of Liberals and perhaps the Minister. Everyone else regards it as a load of old rubbish.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful and supportive comments. He is absolutely right. Coterminosity is the key to anything that we do. Without it, I do not know where we would be. Perhaps it is difficult to get our heads around the issue, and perhaps we are just using figures and not thinking it through, but we should seriously try to imagine life as a Westminster MP with 10 councillors and 20 MSPs, with everyone going down different roads on the same subject. What we have is a war between the political classes, with members of the chattering classes starting to score points off one another.

If we have gone into politics to do anything, surely it is to serve—to serve our communities and to help our constituents. They seem to be well down the pecking order when we discuss this constitutional reform and we need to put them back up it. The No. 1 priority on our agenda should be how we serve them, not how we find a political fix that suits all parties.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am trying to get to the root of the hon. Gentlemen's amendment. If, as the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) suggests, the Bill is a load of old rubbish and there is little support for it across the Chamber, why is it being introduced and what does the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) think that that says about the power balance in the Scottish Labour party?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I shall resist the temptation from the hon. Gentleman, but I shall say this: the Bill deserves the criticism that it has attracted and my right hon. Friend was right to say that there are not many people who argue its case, although a few loyal souls have put their heads above the parapet. Perhaps that tells the story better than any speech in the House of Commons.

To seek enactment of the Bill before the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is evidence that the Government are in difficulty and are seeking shortcuts to cement this political fix. I commend the amendment and the new clause to the Committee.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Unlike the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), I wish to speak to the amendment. I support it not for any reason that he gave but because I hope that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity—this window of delay—to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is consulted and gives its consent before any changes are made to its voting arrangements or how its membership is determined.

It would be almost inconceivable for such a significant change to be effected without consent. If the Scottish Parliament is to make such changes work, it needs to be on board. The idea that the House could impose them on a possibly unco-operative Scottish Parliament is simply not tenable and should be rejected out of hand. It would be almost impossible for a working relationship to continue in such circumstances.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that Westminster should not impose a system of election on the Scottish Parliament without its consent, does he also take the view that the Scottish Parliament should not impose a system of election on Scottish local government without its consent?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Scottish local authorities are fully engaged in the debate about the single transferable vote. The Scottish Labour party has just enthusiastically accepted proportional representation for local government and it should be congratulated on that big step forward. Labour Members should be cheering that to the rafters.

Tom Clarke (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as I always do. I have a closer link with the Scottish Labour party—if I may say so, with my modest local government background—than he has, and I can find no support for PR in local government anywhere in Scotland. Of course, you would rule me out of order, Mr. Cook, if I referred to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that they will bear that view in mind.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I can detect no support for PR for Scottish local government on the Government Benches here, which is truly remarkable given that it is now Labour party policy. We are witnessing the emergence of two different Labour—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I have no wish to inhibit the enjoyment that is evident in the Chamber, but the Committee has already been admonished to the effect that it is seriously endangering any debate on clause stand part if that enjoyment continues in the same vein. We are not debating PR anywhere, so can we please make our comments more specific to the amendment?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Of course, I shall return to the amendment, Mr. Cook, but it is interesting that there seem to be two Labour parties emerging: Lanarkshire Labour in Edinburgh, and London Labour down here—and never the twain shall meet.

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am not enjoying this at all, Mr. Cook. I want to get away from this banter and recognise the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If, for whatever reason, the nationalists are supporting an amendment calling for postponement until 2006, is that not a point of the utmost seriousness? As the nationalists are the official Opposition in the Scottish Parliament, and they support the amendment, and the Tories support it, and the vast majority of my colleagues support it, why on earth is the measure being driven through today?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That is a very good question, and the right hon. Gentleman can put it to his Front Benchers if he wants to. I have said clearly why I want a postponement until 2006. I want the Secretary of State to be able to consult, and seek consent from, the Scottish Parliament. That should be a prerequisite for any change in membership to, or voting arrangements for, the Scottish Parliament.

We know that the membership, voting arrangements and constitution of the Scottish Parliament are matters reserved to this House. I have heard no good reason why that should be the case other than, "That's just the way it is." We should remember this House's record on these arrangements. It put in place, and enthusiastically adopted, the additional member system. It has not exactly covered itself in glory in dealing with these issues, perhaps because it got them wrong before. Let us think about giving the decision to somebody who might get it right, because we certainly have not got it right here so far. We have had the additional member system for only five years, yet we already have had seven amendments to try to put right a decision that was clearly wrong in the first place.

The Scottish Parliament is perhaps unique among European legislatures, in that it has no right to determine its own voting arrangements and voting system. I have looked at some European legislatures, and even the most modest domestic regional assembly has the right to a say about its membership and voting arrangements. The Lander in Germany, for example, are responsible for their own constitutions. They can determine their own size, which can vary from 51 members in the small Saarland region, to 231 in the most populous area of North Rhine Westphalia. Surely, that is right. Is it not a sign of maturity and responsibility that any self-respecting Parliament worth its salt should have that responsibility and key function?

All hon. Members will agree that the Scottish Parliament is now a fully grown institution. It is well into its second term and is the predominant and pre-eminent political institution in Scotland. The people of Scotland expect the Scottish Parliament to clarify and personify the national voice. Surely it should be allowed at least a say in its membership and voting arrangements.

A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to be with several hon. Members in Dover house, where we heard about the new Scottish social attitudes survey. During that session, we heard the key concerns about the performance of the Scottish Parliament and discovered that the Scottish people are several steps ahead of us politicians. They want increased powers for the Scottish Parliament—[Hon. Members: "No, they don't."] Hon. Members say that they do not, but they should look at the Scottish social attitudes survey. Every survey commissioned in the past couple of years has suggested that more than 50 per cent. of the Scottish people want increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That is a matter of fact. Given that the Scottish people want increased powers for the Parliament, we should at least make sure that we consult, and seek consent from, the Scottish people in respect of the Scottish Parliament's voting arrangements.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I, too, was at that presentation. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, at the end, the Minister warned against interpreting statistics too selectively. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that one conclusion of the survey was that support for devolution has increased since the referendum, whereas support for independence continues to slide?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

We are debating particular systems and I will continue to put the case for independence, just as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless continue to put the case for devolution. Who is in the best position to assess the requirements of the Scottish Parliament in terms of its size and membership?

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

The hon. Gentleman has wandered away from the amendment. He started by saying that he supported the amendment, which would in fact postpone implementation of the changes. Will he take a little time to tell us why his party thinks that the changes should be postponed, rather than focusing on his own amendment—it dealt with the role of the Scottish Parliament—which was not selected?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have already done that. I want this delay and window of opportunity to be used by the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In not addressing the amendment, I would be entirely consistent with the hon. Member for Clydesdale, who spent 25 minutes before he even got close to addressing it.

I can sense that I am stretching your patience, Mr. Cook, so I will conclude. As I said, who is in the best position to assess the voting requirements for membership to the Scottish Parliament? Is it this House with its increasing and developing hostility to the Scottish Parliament—as evidenced by the remarks of some Labour Members today—or those who work in the Scottish Parliament who are accountable to the Scottish people for the decisions that they take? Surely those who live and work there and who are accountable to the Scottish people should be responsible for the voting and membership arrangements of the Scottish Parliament.

The Secretary of State is happy to have his new commission report jointly to him and the First Minister. I congratulate him on that, because it shows that he is prepared to see a role for the Scottish Parliament in all of this. He obviously sees the Scottish Parliament having a role in developing arguments about its voting and membership arrangements. All I am asking for now is to have built into the Bill his acknowledgement that the Scottish Parliament has an important role and the fact that consent should be sought before bringing about any change to its voting or membership arrangements.

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I shall be brief. I did not intend to speak at all, because I said my piece on Second Reading. However, I see some glimmer of hope in what we have heard so far, which we should build on. I am not interested in the banter or why the Scottish National party is supporting the amendment. However, the fact that it is doing so is of considerable significance, so we should examine the amendment to see whether something productive could emerge from it.

I shall briefly outline the sequence of events that led us to this point. The Government made a commitment to reduce the number of Scottish seats at Westminster. That is settled and agreed: no one disputes it. The logic of that position, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was that the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament should be correspondingly reduced. At that point, the fix that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) described took place. There were discussions and it was concluded—wrongly, in my view—that the political imperative was to retain the 129 MSPs, so an amendment to the Scotland Act would be necessary.

I believe that the fix was arrived at not because the overwhelming burden of Scottish opinion was in favour of 129 MSPs, but because the other political parties would perceive it as bad faith if the number of MSPs were reduced unilaterally by a decision taken at Westminster. That is why the unsatisfactory compromise facing us—to cut the number of MPs at Westminster without reducing the number of MSPs at Holyrood—was arrived at.

I understand how that was all agreed, and I have already said that I believe that it was the wrong decision. I also understand the difficulty of escaping from it if the charge of bad faith could be levelled again for not implementing the agreement, but what we have today is something quite different. From a range of standpoints, virtually everyone in the House has come to accept the absurdity and lack of reason in what is being done.

At this point I shall revert to my speech on Second Reading, in which I made it clear that I do not approach the matter from a party political or even a constitutional point of view. The only direction that I come at it is from the interest of our constituents—a fact that seems to have been totally overlooked in the calculations of those who created the fix. What is being created is gratuitous confusion, misunderstanding, cynicism and, in some cases, real deprivation for our constituents. In particular there will be gratuitous and quite unnecessary confusion over constituency boundaries—where it has never existed, was not envisaged under the Scotland Act and about which no one in Scotland has any interest in creating now.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We may be talking slightly at cross purposes. Our argument is that there is a consensus—certainly in the Scottish Parliament, where everyone except the Conservatives agree—that the 129 MSPs should be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is arguing—I think, persuasively—that, when it comes to designing an electoral system for the new Parliament, those in charge of the process of producing, hopefully, a more satisfactory system than the present one should be the Scottish parliamentarians themselves.

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I fully understand that. I understand the SNP's reasons, which are slightly different from my reasons. I do not necessarily disagree, but I have different reasons for opposing the proposal and for supporting my hon. Friend's amendment. That, however, is a secondary issue. The point is that the SNP is supporting the amendment, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) made crystal clear. I was so interested that I requested confirmation in an intervention.

What the hon. Member for North Tayside is saying should be of interest to the Government. Any postponement would be made not out of cynicism, but for the reasons that I am setting out. Presumably, the statement of policy that the Scottish nationalists have made is the same as what they are saying in Edinburgh. The proposal has the support of the official Opposition in Westminster, and of the great majority of those Labour Back Benchers who are involved in the matter. Surely, therefore, it should be possible to hold some all-party discussion about how we go forward. Why does there have to be this lemming-like procession towards an outcome that everyone knows is wrong? The victims of that outcome would be our constituents.

A lifeline has been thrown today, and it should not be blithely ignored. If the Committee ignores it today, I hope that those along the Corridor will take note. There can be no justification for going ahead with a plan that no party in this Chamber supports.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

I follow my right hon. Friend's logic in supporting the amendment, which would postpone the implementation of the legislation. However, he said earlier that he wanted a different system, so it seems that he is arguing against the result, rather than the time scale. If, after a postponement of a number of years, the same proposals were brought forward again, would he oppose them?

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

With respect, that is not even an interesting hypothetical argument: it is just a hypothetical argument. We are talking about something that could happen years from now. I have always maintained that no logical system of voting practices in Scotland would contain the provisions that will be driven through the House tonight.

I have no problem with the Scottish nationalist amendment that would introduce a system of single transferable votes based on contiguous constituencies. However, that is just my personal view. If the introduction of the Bill were to be delayed, all-party talks could be held and a logical structure for Scottish constituencies arrived at. There are plenty of formulae available for avoiding all the pitfalls in the Bill.

Even at this late stage, we should build on the wide consensus that exists. We should not drive through a Committee of the whole House a measure whose real victims, I repeat, would be our constituents. The only winners would be the tiny minority of politicians with a vested interest in not losing face through backing down on this matter.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am glad that I was able to hear the Scottish nationalist spokesman announce his party's change of policy on the matter. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who wants to amend the Bill in a way that would render its format acceptable to him and his colleagues. Clearly, the Bill was drafted in a very expert manner. It took a long time, and the aim was to restrict as much as possible the debate on any amendments that might be tabled. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman has come up with a proposal that should be of interest to hon. Members of all parties in the Chamber.

There is a consensus across the political spectrum, on both left and right—among Back Benchers and, I respectfully submit, most Front Benchers too—that the Bill is a shambles. No one wants what it proposes, and the result is chaos and confusion. Everyone knows that it will have a hugely detrimental effect on election turnout, yet we are expected to wave it blithely through the Chamber.

I have great sympathy for the amendment, and for the endeavour of the hon. Member for Clydesdale to secure a postponement. The amendment would allow another opportunity for reflection. The incidence of U-turns among Government Front Benchers has become somewhat frequent lately, so perhaps there is a chance that the Government will make another—who knows? That would be a U-turn on a U-turn, as the whole Bill already amounts to a U-turn on previous Government policy.

This is an opportunity for Labour Back Benchers to engage more productively with the Minister. I counsel them against falling out with anyone, but if we cannot get all parties in Scotland to recognise that we are sleepwalking towards an electoral system disaster and feel unable to do anything about it, there is something deeply wrong with how we organise politics in Scotland. We all know that disaster is looming. The amendment gives us a chance to take some time before we take an irreversible action.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Why should we not want to wait to formulate a decent Bill and why do we have to rush into things? The consultation organised by the Government was a sham and a waste of everybody's time; the Labour Members who did not take part knew that. I want the Minister and the Secretary of State to take that fact on board and, in the words of the song, "Tae think again". They should do a proper consultation.

It is my opinion, unlike the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), that the Scottish people do not have the feeling that they did for the Scottish Parliament. We won their hearts and minds for the original vote, but the fine detail was not discussed then. Today, we are discussing fine detail, and the amendment gives us a chance to take another look at that. Why anyone would not want to do that I cannot understand. My colleagues among Members of the Scottish Parliament certainly see the need to look at the matter again, and I am sure that Opposition MSPs feel the same.

I want to hear why the Liberals, who intend to oppose the amendment, do not want to make the Bill better. Why do they want to disrupt the whole Scottish political system and then, following a commission, do it all over again? Why would they want to do that twice, unless it was for political motives or so that they could put the Scottish people off voting? I would not put that past them; they have not distinguished themselves in getting out their own vote, whatever has happened with everybody else's.

We have to engage in a conversation, like the big conversation that the Prime Minister is having. We have to listen to the people. I agree that we have to listen to the Scottish Parliament; I have no problem with that. Then again, the Scottish Parliament also has to listen to us, and we have legitimate cause for concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has moved an excellent amendment that has the support of two of the Opposition parties and many Labour Back Benchers. I doubt that many people in Scotland feel differently from me. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment, to look again and to bring forward an Act that the people of Scotland can be proud of, rather than one that they do not understand.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I listened with great interest to the introduction to this short debate given by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). He made a full and eloquent speech, and I waited for him to explain his amendment. I waited quite a long time, and I am not entirely certain—it must be due to my powers of comprehension rather than his eloquence—that I fully understand what he seeks to achieve. As I understand it, the amendment would simply delay the Bill's provisions until 2006.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

The hon. Gentleman has been unkind to himself; he has understood exactly what the amendment would do.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that I have read the papers correctly. I shall not disappoint Labour Members, because I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with his proposition. Like the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I believe that this is an important matter that goes to the heart of how the people of Scotland are represented. As he rightly says, it is our constituents who will benefit—or suffer—from whatever we choose to do this afternoon.

However, I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in that I believe that this modest Bill is highly desirable. It will retain the status quo and will not make any great changes to the voting system. It contains nothing that was not foreseen during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. All that will happen is that the status quo of 129 MSPs will be preserved, which was the will of all those who spoke in the Scottish Parliament when the issue was debated.

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

On balance, would the hon. Gentleman prefer the status quo or a variant of the status quo based on contiguous boundaries?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I would have liked to have had time to deal with the matter properly in this Parliament before the next general election. Given that the Government did not consider the matter early enough in this Parliament, we are left with a choice between contiguous boundaries at some point in the future—which would not happen under the present legislation—or the chance to preserve the status quo. The best option is to preserve the status quo and to seek to have an input into the commission that the Secretary of State has set up. We will have to see what conclusions the commission reaches after input from all interested parties on the issues of coterminosity and the best voting system for the Scottish Parliament.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amendments would significantly change the membership of the Scottish Parliament and the way in which it is constructed? They would do away with most of the additional Members and mean that two Members would be elected from most constituencies. We do not know what we will have by the end of the debate, because these amendments could change the face of the Scottish Parliament fundamentally.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

If the amendments were successful, my party's position on Third Reading might well change. However, at this point and given the likelihood that the Bill will emerge little changed, my party will support the Bill.

The Bill—including clause 1—would not have any impact on the voting system. I hope that it is not uncharitable to point out that one effect of new clause 1 would be to delay the implementation of the changes that the Boundary Commission recommended for elections to this House. That might be one aim of certain Labour Members.My party sees no reason for delay and we wish the Government's proposals to be enacted. We want the status quo at Holyrood to be preserved, which is the settled will of Scotland, and we want the commission to do its work as soon as possible. We will provide our input into that process and await the results.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) mentioned the commission and how it will be conducted, as well as the issue of timing. The amendment is all about timing. When the result of the first consultation became known—other hon. Members have given their opinions on its validity—part of the fix was a commission at some vague and unspecified time in the future. That was then moved forward and promises were made that the commission would be set up quickly, that it would report quickly and that its recommendations would be implemented quickly.

However, if the commission is to be set up almost immediately and if it works hard and produces a report that may be implemented—as we have been told—before 2007, why are we making changes to the system now? We might have to change it again before 2007. Either the suggestion that the commission will report and that its recommendations will be enacted by that time has been put forward when there is no guarantee of success, or we are duplicating work that will be done later on in any case. In such circumstances, clarity from the Government about their intentions is essential.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. By way of introduction, I will restate the two commitments that underpin the Bill from the Government's point of view. We are committed to reducing the number of Westminster MPs to 59, as a result of the boundary commission proposals. We are also committed to maintaining 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. Those are the twin pillars that support the Bill.

I hope that colleagues will accept that we did not approach those issues in some Machiavellian way but that we actually consulted the Scottish people through the organisations that represent them. I put that on record so that we do not read in Hansard that somehow real people out there were not consulted. In total, there were 237 responses to the consultation; of those, 21 were from councils, including COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There were responses from the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Parliament groups, 27 individual MSPs and so on.

Colleagues who have studied the history of the consultation know that there were responses both from civic and political Scotland before the Government made up their mind to maintain 129 MSPs.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

My hon. Friend entertained us at Second Reading with the impressive list to which she has just been referring, but can she tell us who responded to the first consultation—the process that she had to extend for six months?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I am glad that my hon. Friend raises the alleged extension of the consultation process. I assure the Committee that the consultation process was not extended; it ran from December 2001 to the end of March 2002—exactly as planned and announced. It is regrettable that we seem to be talking about the claim that the process was extended because in fact it never was.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Can my hon. Friend inform the Committee whether there was a great upsurge of opinion in the consultation to support the position set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

It is fair to say that some people supported the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale. I should like to put on record the fact that my hon. Friend has been entirely consistent. His response to the consultation stated that he thought there should be a reduction in the number of MSPs and that the Scotland Act 1998 should be enacted in its entirety regardless of any other factor. He has been wholly consistent in his approach and for that I congratulate him.

Helen Liddell (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I may have missed this point when my hon. Friend was going through her list of people who had replied to the consultation, so can she tell us how many Members of this House replied and how many were opposed to the maintenance of 129 MSPs?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that some Members who responded to the consultation asked for the Scotland Act to be enacted in its entirety, but the overwhelming majority of those MPs who responded wanted the Scottish Parliament to maintain the position at 129 MSPs.

Anne Picking (Labour, East Lothian)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as I have said many times, there are consultations and there are meaningful consultations? Some of us said vociferously that the consultation should consider the whole voting system, that the voting system and the Act should not be considered in isolation and that we should deal with the bigger picture. We now see the folly of our ways, as we seek to justify what we are trying to ramrod through today, even though it is not based on a meaningful consultation.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I fully appreciate that some colleagues are struggling with this, but we cannot avoid the fact that a consultation exercise was held on preserving the number of MSPs. I accept that some of my hon. Friends think that the consultation should have been wider, but it took place within the remit and context laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) at the time, and we have the results of that consultation process.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

rose—

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I will take an intervention from the leader of the Scottish National party because I am particularly interested in the position that the SNP has adopted this afternoon.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am glad that the Minister is doing so because, unlike others, our concern is not with the figure of 129—the result of the consultation was overwhelming—but with the fact that the Bill is subject to amendment that would fundamentally alter the electoral basis of the Parliament. The Secretary of State can set up the commission, but will the Minister assure the Committee that she thinks it inconceivable that an altered electoral system could be imposed on the Scottish Parliament without its consent?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that we have established an independent commission to consider some of the concerns, including those about electoral matters and—dare I say?—some of those raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends about coterminosity.

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

My hon. Friend makes play of the consultation process that took place and the fact that that resulting decision seemed to produce the figure of 129. Does she believe that that consultation process resulted in the decision to reduce the number of MPs to 59?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the very purpose of the consultation process was to consider whether there was support for maintaining the number at 129 in the Scottish Parliament, essentially to decouple the number of MPs in Westminster and the number of MSPs in Scotland.

Let me move on specifically to the amendment because it is important to reflect not just on what has been said today, but on what the amendment would mean if it were agreed to this evening. Amendment No. 8 would remove the provisions that introduce schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, which makes provision to deal, if necessary, with the period before the functions of the boundary commission for Scotland are transferred to the Electoral Commission. The proposed replacement—new clause 1—would give the Secretary of State the power to bring the provisions of the Act into force, but only after the commencement of section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Section 16 of the 2000 Act relates to the transfer of functions of the boundary commission and allows the Secretary of State to transfer the boundary commission for Scotland's functions to the Electoral Commission

"at such time as the Secretary of State, being satisfied that they have no further functions to perform, by order directs."

The Government previously said that the current boundary commission's functions would not transfer until it had completed its reviews. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale believes that the amendment reflects that.

However, the amendments would delay the Bill's enactment until after the boundary commission for Scotland had reported to the Secretary of State on its current review, had been formally wound up and had its functions transferred to the Electoral Commission. If the amendments were accepted, the order required to implement the boundary commission's report would have to include a provision for amended regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament election as well as that for a reduction in the number of seats at Westminster. The amendments would therefore proportionately reduce the number of Scottish Parliament constituencies for the time being since, at that stage, no power would exist to decouple them from Westminster seats. That is why I find the Scottish National party's position utterly perverse.

If SNP members support the amendment, they will vote for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That is not the case.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

If the hon. Gentleman is right, I should like to hear him argue with greater force than he expressed in his contribution.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to restate my earlier point. If the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) were accepted, such a fundamental change to the voting arrangements of the Scottish Parliament would have to be a matter for that body, which would have to consent to it. It is ludicrous to say that we can sign up to something that could change fundamentally the nature of the Scottish Parliament.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises which amendments we are currently debating. I tell him in all sincerity and generosity that if he and his party vote for the amendments, they will vote for a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament as a consequence of not decoupling. That would be the result of the amendments, which make no provision for maintaining 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Here comes the cavalry.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

A few seconds ago, the Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State had given an assurance that, if any change were made to the electoral arrangements, either through his commission or amendment to the Bill, it would be inconceivable to impose it without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That is the position that she outlined. [Interruption.] A few seconds ago, she said that the Secretary of State had given that assurance. I merely ask her to restate what is already on the record.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

It is unwise to put words into my mouth. I said that the commission would consider a general consensus throughout Scotland as part of developing consensus on moving forward on coterminosity and voting systems.

I revert to the perversity of the SNP position on the amendments. I repeat that, if they were accepted, the boundary commission's report would have to include a provision for amending the regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament elections.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the consensus that the Under-Secretary seeks through the commission or through amendment include the Scottish Parliament, on which the electoral system is being imposed? Will she say that it would be inconceivable to impose a new electoral system without the consent of the Parliament that will use it?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

The hon. Gentleman continues to fail to understand the fundamentals of the constitutional arrangement under which we currently work. The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, is part of the constitutional settlement that established that body and is reserved. That is the top and bottom of the matter. However, having said that, I want to make it clear that, during our discussions on the matter, we have ensured that representatives of the Scottish Parliament, whether through its political or Executive structure, have been involved in the consultation. Earlier, I read out the list of those who were involved.

Brian Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Are not the principles of this debate more important than the legalistic mumbo-jumbo about the precise translation of amendments provided by lawyers? If there is consensus among the nationalists, the Tories and the vast majority of the Labour party that there should be a delay until this whole thing has been considered holistically and we have achieved a rational outcome to the discussions in the interest of all our constituents, does my hon. Friend not agree that that consensus should be built on rather than being swept aside, which would be the effect of driving the Bill through?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I do not accept my right hon. Friend's analysis. He and I go back a long way in terms of dealing with so-called mumbo-jumbo in motions and amendments, and I know that he and I were always of the view that what is meant by an amendment is what is in the amendment. I am trying to point out to him in the gentlest possible way that what is in the amendment might not be what he intends to happen. Perhaps, however, I am doing him a disservice; it might well be what he intends to happen.

We have made a commitment to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament at 129. The consequence of the amendments would be to reduce the number of MSPs. That is not mumbo-jumbo, as my right hon. Friend has suggested. It is the reality of what would happen if the amendments went through, because we would need to undertake a reorganisation of the regional boundaries. If we intend to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, it would be ludicrous to reduce it by accepting the amendments, only to reinstate that number at some future date.

I accept that I have perhaps not managed emotionally to engage with some of the arguments that have been made, particularly by my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, may I say to them in all sincerity that they need to consider what is stated in the amendments? Their effect would be to reduce the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament that the Government have made a commitment to maintain at 129.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I have enjoyed our exchanges in this debate. However, it would appear from the Minister's contribution that the lady is not for turning. I am disappointed by that, because I had a feeling earlier that there seemed to be consensus, certainly on her own Benches. She might win the vote if the matter were pressed to a vote in the Lobby, but she has not won the hearts and minds of members of her own party tonight. I had thought that she might say something in her summing-up that took cognisance of some of the points that have been made.

I do not wish to challenge my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am pleased to have received her congratulations on supporting the Scotland Act 1998—I thought that we had all supported it. I supported the figure of 129 on Second Reading because that was the way matters were moving. However, we are now talking about the electoral system, and about how we can preserve the consensus. Perhaps I have not understood my amendments, as my hon. Friend has suggested, but where does it say that the result of putting off the enactment would be to alter the figure of 129? There has been no mention of that, and it is not my intention. Therefore, I am rather disappointed.

I was hoping that my hon. Friend would offer the olive branch of offering to consider some of the contributions that have been made, especially from the Opposition Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has a point. While I am pleased to be corrected on the existence of a second consultation—there was just the one—I am led to understand that the motions were set in train long before we started going out to consult. There were consultations going on about keeping the 129 long before the formal consultations started. I would like those consultations to carry on.

There is no argument about the 129. I am not arguing against it; nobody is arguing against it. We are arguing about where we go from where we are now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said earlier, if we have not got the message over to our Front Benchers in the Chamber tonight, I hope that some further consideration is given to the matter when the Bill goes down the Corridor.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Two aspersions have been cast on the hon. Gentleman during the debate—I am sure innocently, of course. It was suggested, or at least implied, that perhaps he seeks to retain the number of MPs from Scottish constituencies at its current level. Then it was suggested by the Minister that his amendment would rule out 129 MSPs. Can the hon. Gentleman say explicitly that neither was his intention in framing the amendment?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Not at all. Not for the first time in my life, I am innocent. I stand wrongly accused, Mr. Cook. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who has followed my contributions on this matter would never conclude that it was ever my intention not to support the cut to 59. That is not what this is about; it is about the good governance of the Scottish Parliament and of electoral systems in the country that we are here representing.

This is where I take issue with Scottish nationalist Members: they do not have total ownership of representing Scotland and we Labour Members represent the Scottish people in equal share to anybody else who is a Member of Parliament here. How we are represented in Scotland is as much my concern, even though we are down here representing Scotland at Westminster. I happen to have a family in Scotland; I happen to live there; I happen to have roots there.

It is so important that what happens in Scotland is done in the best interests of the Scottish people, but what I am seeing here tonight is not good governance. The Bill is not about that or about doing good for the people of Scotland. I think it will harm the electoral systems and, through that, the people of Scotland. That is why we are so passionate about these matters.

The Minister could have her victory in the Lobby, but—let me put it this way—it would not be a total victory. I shall not push my amendment to the vote for one or two reasons. First, I would not wish to embarrass some of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who passionately share my views, but who may be compromised by that. Also, I want to give the Government an opportunity not to trap themselves in the corner in which they have put themselves, but to come out of it.

I hope that there are some discussions as the Bill travels down the Corridor; if we in the Chamber have closed minds, I hope that consideration is going on elsewhere. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

No!

Schedule 1 — Substitution of Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'Shetland)' to end of line 14.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—

'(2A) For each constituency provided for by Article 2 of the Schedule to the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/1037) there shall be two Scottish constituencies'.'.

No. 3, in page 3, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'eight' and insert 'two'.

No. 5, in page 3, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

'(3) Six members shall be returned for one region and five members shall be returned for the other region.'.

No. 7, page 4, line 41, at beginning insert—

'( ) The Boundary Committee for Scotland shall submit to the Electoral Commission a report with recommendations on the arrangements to be put in place under paragraph 1(2A) above.'.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

As we saw earlier, politics is not a pure science. On the basis of the previous debate, that is perhaps more the case in respect of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill than other Bills that have been before the House.

In my estimation, the Scotland Act 1998 got some things wrong, but I believe that the position would worsen if this Bill were passed and that it would compound the problems created by that Act. From talking to hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I have identified the fact that both in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland there have been real problems with that Act—not least because the existence of the added list Members has created mayhem in the Scottish Parliament and in the constituencies of both MSPs and Members of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have examples of that.

David Marshall (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on touching on what is a sore point with many of us. In the city of Glasgow, for example, the 10 constituency MSPs can only raise cases relating to their own constituency, yet the seven additional Members can raise cases in all 10 constituencies. Not only that, but they raise reserved matters that are nothing to do with them. It is a prime example of mischief making. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking steps to remedy that.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he and others have said to me over the period of the Act's existence, there are real problems in respect of added list Members. Members from every party in the House that is represented in Scotland have told me that.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

But that is not what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting in his amendments. He is suggesting expanding the range of list Members, who will have more say in more people's constituencies if his amendment is accepted.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

As I develop my speech, it will become apparent to the hon. Gentleman that I have addressed that issue. At that point, if he still does not agree with me, he can intervene again.

I am conscious of the fact that you, Mr. Cook, are a stickler for the rules. I will turn immediately to the amendments themselves. I emphasise that the figures that I have mentioned are based on the current review, which is expected to deliver 59 Members of Parliament. As things stand and as I think every hon. Member knows, that number is now conclusive. We are talking of 59 Members. My proposal is based on that number and not on any other.

I have been made aware of some technical problems with regard to the amendments but, as I have already emphasised, my figures are based on those recommended by the Electoral Commission. I accept that the amendments may not be technically perfect in their own right, but having checked with the draftsman and others I have concluded that they are competent to be debated and voted on in the Committee. After all, they have been recommended by the Electoral Commission as the basis on which to calculate.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if any technical adjustments are required to his proposals, the best way to proceed is not to defeat the amendments but to make technical adjustments in another place?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

That is a possibility. My hon. Friend is right. That is what I will try to convince those on the Front Bench to accept, if that is required.

A number of hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has just entered the Chamber, are on my side and support the amendments. Some 24 Members the length and breadth of the Committee support the idea that we need to look at the boundaries within the Scottish Parliament as well as within Westminster.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

If the chairman of Heart of Midlothian is lined up for the amendments, there must be something to be said for them. None the less, how many Members of the Scottish Parliament has the hon. Gentleman consulted, given that it is their electoral system that he is changing, and how many have come out in favour of his proposals?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

That is not my responsibility but the responsibility of others. The consultation was open to MSPs. What is fundamentally important—I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened—is what my constituents and his think about the proposal. My constituents will be concerned about the matter today, but when the changes come about they will become even more concerned. Of that there is no doubt. I will expand on that issue as we move through the debate.

What I am trying to say more than anything else is that we should not allow ourselves to sleep walk into things again, as we did in 1998. By virtue of what we have today, I am clearly of the opinion that we should address the issue with far more purpose than we have to date.

The amendments call for Scottish Parliament and Westminster Parliament constituency boundaries to be coterminous. That is as far as they go. I do not go any further, although I could. I do not discuss the voting systems that we could create. I do not do anything in terms of gender balance. I say nothing of some of the other elements and problems.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I accept that the amendment says nothing about the voting system, but does my hon. Friend not accept that, in moving to a system of two-Member constituencies and of hardly any top-up Members, we will inevitably move away from the proportional system that was included in the Scotland Act? Is that not the effect, and indeed the intention, of his amendments?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I would not expect anything less from the architect of PR north of the border, but I will develop the argument. I have perhaps allowed too many interventions, but I stress that I am not dictating terms. In the previous debate, it was said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) was perhaps dictating terms, but I am leaving it open.

Without coterminous boundaries, we will create complete confusion as well as additional bureaucracy for political parties, the structure of elections and electoral rolls. That will cause mayhem and the measure has not been thought out as it might have been.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Is my hon. Friend aware that I represent 15 wards at the moment, but that that will rise to 19, whereas the MSP for the same area will still represent 15? In effect, two constituencies with the same name will represent two different places, which is an absurdity.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

That further example reinforces my argument. Difficulties will be created for the party structures, as well as for returning officers. Most importantly, it will create havoc for our electors. That is more important than anything else and needs to be addressed. There is no doubt that that is the major complication of the existing system.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that all this havoc and chaos was predicted in 1998 during the passage of the Act, as can be seen from the debates on Second Reading, Third Reading and Committee? Everyone knew that this would happen if we strayed away from coterminous boundaries. It is the Government who have done the U-turn, in an embarrassed fashion, to create the second pillar to which the Under-Secretary referred in her speech.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right, but I return to the most important plank in my argument—namely, the creation of problems in the minds of the voters whom he, I and other hon. Members represent.

I have seen the confusion in the minds of the public. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that he had gone to a polling station and met an old woman who asked how she should vote. We are moving towards four different forms of election, which is wrong and ludicrous. This measure must be thought about carefully by the Under-Secretary and those responsible.

It is patently obvious that the existing system is not working, and we need to know the commission's timetable. I am not indicating in the amendments what form of voting there should be, and I leave the options open for further discussion. I have said that I do not want to construct a form of election.

The report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), contains much that I feel should be adopted as the way forward. The report is worthy of more consideration by the Government and I look forward to a positive response from the Under-Secretary.

Not everything about the Bill's Second Reading was bad. The best part was when I heard the Secretary of State bring forward the commission to this side of a general election. By doing that, he gives me confidence that sensible changes will be made. We heard about the commission and that it would be implemented shortly, but I have not heard a single thing since that statement. How many people will be on it and whom will they represent? Who will chair the commission? I certainly hope that it will not be the chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. What discussions have taken place with other parties? I have had no indication that there have been such discussions, and that is a fundamental point.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Does my hon. Friend think that there is a danger that the commission could be filled with professional people such as lawyers, rather than working people?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I will not rise to the bait, although it would be better if there were no lawyers on the commission; it seems that it will be full of lawyers.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

These are legitimate questions that the Under-Secretary will be answering shortly. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not prescribing any electoral system, but as I understand the amendments, he wants 118 people elected at constituency level and 11 elected at list level. We can argue the pros and cons of that, but how can he maintain, with this unaccustomed modesty, that he is not prescribing an electoral system in his amendments?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

There are different forms of election within constituencies, as well as potentially different boundaries. I have had discussions with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—perhaps these were off the record but should now be put on the record—that suggested that some things might be attractive even to the nationalists.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

On the question of the make-up of the commission, some have said facetiously that lawyers, people from Edinburgh or others of that ilk might be on it. It would be unusual if that were the case. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes easier to get the verdict one wants when one picks the jury? It is important that the commission is seen to be independent of Government and of those who appoint it.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

I trust that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard my hon. Friend making the very point to which I am seeking an answer. I would rather that the great and the good appointed to the commission are of a mind to take on board the point that he made.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

This will be the final time.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in those circumstances.

On the question of the commission, in which decade does my hon. Friend expect a decision or recommendation from it to be implemented? Does he expect a decision to be implemented in this decade in time for the 2007 election, or in some future decade?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

My hon. Friend has been reading my script. Before I come to that point, however, I should like to finish my point on the commission.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said in the debate of 9 February:

"Surely there can be unanimity in the parties in Scotland: whatever the perceptions of marginal short-term political advantage or disadvantage, we do not want to legislate to establish an electoral system that we all know will work to the practical, and in some cases serious disadvantage, of our constituents."—[Official Report, 9 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 1182.]

Of all the statements made during that debate, that is one that hon. Members should bear in mind.

My final point on the commission, which has already been alluded to in part, is that we need to establish the time scales. The next Scottish Parliament elections will be in 19—or, rather, in 2007; let us not go back, although some of us would perhaps like to go back to 1998. Can the Minister give us some idea today of the time scale for the commission? I should like specific answers to specific questions, and perhaps the Minister will address them when she winds up. The most important question to be answered is whether a decision has been made on whether the relevant Act will be in place—because primary legislation will be required—in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections.

If we require primary legislation from the commission's eventual conclusions, I am a little concerned about the need for the commission. After all, this place has the responsibility—and should have the responsibility—to take such decisions for itself. Although I am posing questions about the commission, my major question is whether we need to have a commission at all. We could take decisions here that would bring the whole matter to a conclusion, and we could have done that today. If I may be partisan for a minute, my party has a massive majority, and could have chosen, on the basis of the facts before us, to drive through proposals that would lead to a common-sense position: that taken by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and by every single institution in which I have been involved. That is where the nub of today's debate should lie.

On Second Reading on 9 February, the Secretary of State, on announcing that he would be setting up a commission, said that it would be possible to propose a particular solution but that we would need a consensus. I argue against that. Why do we need a consensus when we have such a majority? After all, we are the elected Members who can take the decision, and we have a majority Government here. We do not need to go colluding with anyone else in Westminster; we could take the decision here today if we could table and accept the right amendment. We could vote on that; that is what democracy is all about, so far as I am concerned.

John Barrett (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the Committee on what percentage of the vote that majority was delivered?

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

That is the system in operation here, and we should take cognisance of that in this place.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

As someone elected with 53 per cent. of the vote, I have such a majority.

There are alternative systems, and surely the most important issue being raised today is accountability. That is what is missing from the current proposals. When I go to the electorate, they will know all the problems that I have had and will determine whether or not I am accepted. That is the same for my MSP colleague, who is elected on a first-past-the-post basis. That is the big issue, and it is the same whether the system is alternative vote or first past the post. There are alternative systems available.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I support him 100 per cent. in what he says.

As a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, I noticed over the years that we seemed to take everything that it said on board as being set in tablets of stone. I do not accept that any longer, because of my working knowledge of the system in operation. I warned about that before, but I was willing to go along with it. Now, however, my clear opinion is that there is absolutely no doubt, on the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) just said, that there must be an attachment to a particular constituency. There must be a clear indication to those who elect us that we are their property. We move away from that when we talk about the situation created by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There are those here who think that that convention is a sacred cow. I have to say, however, that much that it proposed caused damage, not good, in terms of governance north of the border. We should all be aware of that.

To sum up, when I constructed my speech I was of the opinion that it was possible that we would get some sort of flexibility from the Front Bench, and I am looking for that tonight. On the basis of what I hear and learn about the commission, I am concerned that when its proposals come before this House, they will require primary legislation. It will be difficult for such primary legislation to be included in a Queen's Speech and debated in this House before the 2007 elections, so I wonder about the time scales. We also need to know whether and when the commission will be reporting. Will that be before the end of this year, or at the beginning of next year?

In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I commend the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for introducing this group of amendments. They are a valiant attempt to improve the Bill but, in his heart of hearts, he might well think—and perhaps he will not be reticent about saying so—that this Bill is, arguably, incapable of amendment. It is a bad and unnecessary Bill. It is not necessary to introduce this measure at this time. The Scotland Act was passed in 1998 and there is absolutely no requirement to do anything to resolve the problem of coterminous boundaries.

George Foulkes (Labour/Co-operative, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a humble seeker after truth. He has made the self-denying ordinance not to vote on any English legislation. Can he tell me, then, why all his English colleagues trooped through the Lobby a few minutes ago to vote on purely Scottish legislation?

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The right hon. Gentleman—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The hon. Gentleman would be best advised not to respond to such a tantalising—[Interruption.] I am protecting the Committee.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you, Mr. Cook. Perhaps we can engage in that subject later.

The fact is that the Bill that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South is attempting to amend is unnecessary. Like me, he will recall the comments of Henry McLeish, who said:

"we also believe that the Parliament could operate effectively with fewer Members, and that there are good arguments for maintaining the linkage in constituencies."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 223.]

Lord Sewel went further when he said:

"In the White Paper, we explained that we believed that the integrity of the Union would be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1336.]

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

If we trawl through history, we can find a number of changes of position over the years, but how can the hon. Gentleman claim consistency for his party? If he looks at the report of proceedings in the House on 11 November 1998, he will see that, throughout the debate on the Lords amendments, his Front-Bench colleagues took the position that coterminosity was not that important and that it was right to stick at 129 Members.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Of course, in the long and involved passage of the Scotland Act 1998, we can find quotations in all directions. I am pointing out the magnitude of the Government's U-turn. It is beyond question that they have gone back on their commitment to implement the Act unamended.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the late Lord Mackay was a valiant defender of the Scottish Parliament's right to set its own number of constituencies?

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am happy to confirm that the Conservative party made that argument in both Houses, and we take no lessons in consistency from the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has waved the white flag on 129. Like me, he opposed the political fix in principle, yet the amendment would allow a stitch-up to let things proceed with some kind of amicability on the Labour Back Benches. Scottish Labour Members have capitulated. The amendment does nothing about the fact that there is a widespread view that there are simply too many politicians in Scotland.

Michael Connarty (Labour, Falkirk East)

I do not agree with that last comment, as surely it is a question of the quality of representation, not the numbers. The hon. Gentleman is skirting around the fact that the amendments deal with a fundamental point with which his party agrees: that there should be a better arrangement for the electorate. As it is clear that the Government want to press ahead with 129, following a consultation, it is best to have something that makes sense to the electorate, and not simply to oppose everything on principle, just to wreck the Government's Bill.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am coming to some constructive points about the amendment.

I share some of the concerns that were expressed about the commission and its open-ended nature. The Scottish Conservative party has declined the invitation to nominate someone to the commission, on the basis that it is unnecessary at present. The problem that the commission is being set up to solve is that of non-coterminous boundaries, but the fact is that the Bill will create those boundaries. As the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said on Second Reading, the commission is being set up to solve a problem that is yet to be created.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly said that I should be more positive about some of the general themes in the amendment, and I propose to do just that. The amendment goes some way towards offering an electoral framework that we would support, but perhaps the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has shied away at the last minute from some of the more direct first-past-the-post elements that we both instinctively favour.

First past the post creates better elections and engenders better results. We in the Conservative party believe that some of the stagnation in recent Scottish Parliament elections is due in no small part to the proportional system creating a disenchantment with elections and we strongly favour returning to a system that is more focused on first past the post. We would encourage the Government to consider any such possibility carefully in the months and years ahead.

George Foulkes (Labour/Co-operative, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I have just realised what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. The Conservative party has declined to nominate someone to the commission, and now he is arguing for first past the post. Surely, he should nominate someone to argue that case within the commission. He is guilty of a total abdication of responsibility—typically Tory.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The right hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. Perhaps he did not fully understand me the first time. We take the view that the commission will have its place in time, when the Bill has been enacted, but we have not given up on successfully opposing its passage. If the Bill is not enacted, there is no need for a commission, because we will not have non-coterminous boundaries.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me how his party in the Scottish Parliament feels about first past the post, or PR for that matter.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We are on record as supporting first past the post. We argued for it in proceedings on the Scotland Act 1998 and will continue to do so.

George Foulkes (Labour/Co-operative, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I really am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I note from the amendment paper that his party has tabled no amendments whatever. He has made no constructive suggestions and has said that he is not nominating someone to the commission, in the vain hope that the Bill will be defeated. The Government have a huge majority, so that is absolutely stupid. Surely he can now say that the Conservatives will nominate someone to the commission. To do otherwise is outrageous.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I do not agree that there is only a vain hope of defeating the Bill. To my recollection, only one Labour Member spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. Every single other Labour Back Bencher was directly critical of it. What will be different is if on Third Reading we can tempt them to follow that through and join us in the Lobby.

We believe that the decline in turnout in Scottish Parliament elections has a direct correlation with people's concerns about proportional systems. We believe that the amendment could have been more precise in offering first past the post, although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South has some imaginative ideas for first-past-the-post constituencies.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to all my inquiries, he has the absolute, full and complete support of all the Conservatives on the Back Benches behind him? Is he further aware that it would be absolute nonsense to table amendments to a Bill that is absolutely unnecessary? Does he agree that the best sense of all is to give the people of Scotland a chance once again to decide whether they want to keep this assembly—or whether they would rather not?

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's company in the Committee tonight. He holds up the esteem of Conservative Back Benchers with aplomb, as usual.

The imaginative proposal for two small constituencies per Westminster constituency offers interesting possibilities. It would allow for a more local voice in the Scottish Parliament, could create a greater link with councils and councillors and could well resolve some of the difficulties with constituencies overlapping council boundaries. It could help with local public service issues, as small constituencies could reflect distinct interests. In my constituency, Wigtownshire and Stewartry face very different issues, and perhaps the two-constituency idea could form the basis of some agreement.

Under the amendment, there would be a reduction in the number of list MSPs from 56 to 11. One of the ironies of Scottish Parliament elections is that the Scottish Conservatives, who were among the greatest opponents of the list system, were among its greatest beneficiaries.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

A tragedy.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Perhaps the Scottish Conservatives winning the first by-election of that Parliament made that tragedy somewhat more legitimate.

There is considerable resentment among Labour Back Benchers about the role of regional and list MSPs. They were sceptical during the passage of the 1998 Act and I suppose that nothing that has happened in the past five or six years has convinced them that it is other than a bad system, badly implemented, and they feel compromised by it. As I said in an intervention, this issue says more about the power struggle within the Scottish Labour party than about how we govern Scotland. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South suggests a reduction in the number of list MSPs, but that will not eliminate the problems caused by arbitrating in disputes between list MSPs and constituency MSPs; simply having 11, rather than 56, does not eliminate the problem.

The hon. Gentleman proposes that the number of Scottish Parliament regions should be reduced from eight to two. That has a simplistic attraction in that it is simple to administer, but it would reduce the commonality of interest across those regions. He has not been specific about how the two regions would be created but, for argument's sake, Glasgow in the west of Scotland could be one region, and Edinburgh in the east could be the other. If so, I look forward to hearing whether Edinburgh or Glasgow should get the additional Member and the repercussions in the press that will result from that argument.

Alternatively, the division could consist of one region comprising the urban central belt and the south of Scotland and another comprising everything north of Stirling. In such a case, regional and local interests could be marginalised. For example, no one from the south of Scotland might be elected, with all the Members coming from the urban central belt.

Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-operative, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although many of his arguments against having two top-up constituencies are valid, the rules of the House—given the Bill that was introduced—meant that it was not in order to table an amendment proposing only a single list for the top-up? Indeed, the Bill made it impossible for hon. Members to suggest that there should be no top-up Members whatsoever. The amendments are making by far the best of an extremely bad job.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said during my comments on the first group of amendments, this Bill is a clever drafting job. A lot of effort went into its drafting to preclude debate any wider than the Government wanted. It is perhaps unfortunate that we have not been able to discuss some of the issues that he and I want to discuss, even if the Government do not.

The amendments are designed to engage voters with a system that might be more local to their needs and that provides the opportunity of overlaying a first-past-the-post election system. However, it misses the main point by cementing into the Bill the fact that there will be 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is not what the Scotland Act 1998, or the deal that was done with the Scottish public, is all about. The reality is that the Government have gone back on their commitment and I regret that nothing in the amendments gets us close enough to addressing that fundamental problem. The Scottish public believe that there are simply too many politicians and that fact outweighs some of the superficial advantages of the amendments. On that basis, unfortunately, I cannot support them.

Helen Liddell (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) because I know that they are driven by his desire for coterminous constituencies. Coterminous constituencies are vital to the way in which we go about our business. The electoral system should be devised not for our comfort and convenience, but for that of our electors.

A fundamental change took place in May last year in the discussions on the coalition agreement, in that it was decided that there should be proportional representation for local government. I shall not go into the ins and outs of whether I find that attractive, but it does mean that four different systems of election will be available to our electors.

On polling day last year, a friend—he was not a lawyer but a consultant physician—phoned me as he was about to vote. He asked, "How do I vote Labour twice?" I said, "There isn't an awful lot of point in voting Labour twice because this system is so skewed that it doesn't work properly." The problem that we face is the fundamental flaw in the electoral system that was chosen for the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe for a minute that the Scottish Constitutional Convention envisaged the system operating as it is currently being operated. It did not see it as a life-support system for rejects and retreads who could not get elected first past the post. That is not what proportional representation is supposed to be about.

Although I said that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South and other supporters of the amendment, I regret that I cannot support them in the Lobby tonight. They have failed to take into account the important announcement by the Secretary of State about the establishment of a commission. Given the four different systems of election available in Scotland, even a commission that consisted 100 per cent. of Edinburgh lawyers—God forbid—would conclude that change to the nature of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament has to come about. It goes against reason that we should not try to achieve some rationality in the system of election.

I am disappointed in the Scottish Conservatives for not seeking to be part of that commission. They appear to want to have their cake and eat it. They say that they want first past the post, yet they—along with parties even more minor than them—are among the biggest beneficiaries of the present system. They are not prepared to consider a more rational view of electoral systems in Scotland because it does not fulfil their own self-interest.

Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories' refusal to join the commission is the politics of the petted lip? It is a question of, "It's my ball, and nobody else is playing if you don't agree with the rules."

Helen Liddell (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

My hon. Friend can always think of a good Lanarkshire expression. Certainly, if I were running a ménage, I would not invite the Scottish Conservatives to join it.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I may be one of the few hon. Members on this side of the House who knows what the right hon. Lady is talking about. I accept her point about not wanting to miss the bus, but this commission is being set up to solve the problem of non-coterminous boundaries. Until the Bill becomes an Act, we do not have a problem with non-coterminous boundaries. As and when the Bill becomes legislation, we will talk about the commission.

Helen Liddell (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

One of the key issues that emerged from the vast majority of replies to the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament was the broad consensus on the figure of 129. That consensus sprang in some instances from self-interest, but in others from the fact that we have achieved a constitutional change in Scotland, reversed a system that existed for 300 years and introduced a new one, the most remarkable aspect of which is its stability. Well may the only Scottish Tory in this House mock that: the Scottish Conservatives were root and branch against devolution because they saw, during 18 years of Tory rule, the extent to which their lot in Scotland could be imposed on the rest of us, who did not want it.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The right hon. Lady talks about introducing stability, but the problems that the Government face stem from the fact that they are already changing the system. Their own Labour Members were with them, so there was a "consensus", as they like to call it, on their side. Now, however, they are moving the goalposts and that is what is causing the problem.

Helen Liddell (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The consensus was expressed by the people of Scotland through Civic Scotland and our own political parties—I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that what we are talking about tonight is Labour party policy—and there was clear evidence of support for having 129 MSPs. Some of my hon. Friends who oppose that may now regret not taking the consultation process more seriously. I repeat that it is significant that we are here tonight debating something that, despite its difficulties, is a comparatively minor part of the overall constitutional settlement. Since 1999, a stable Parliament has been in place.

Constitutional change has been brought about in a stable way, but there is an inherent anomaly at the root of our electoral systems in Scotland. The problem is that we have taken all the different electoral systems in isolation, failing to take into account their impact on our electors. We now have an opportunity through the proposals before us tonight—particularly the proposals recommended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to establish a commission—to let common sense reign. Let us sort out the mess that is proportional representation and get a system that is fair, transparent and comprehensible.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is a serious man and he has proposed a serious amendment, which merits sound argument. It is certainly worthy of debate. I should congratulate him in passing because the last time that I saw him outside this place he was awarded the "Keeper of the Quaich" medal for his outstanding service to the whisky industry—a well merited award, if ever there was one.

The effects of the amendment are principally twofold. The primary effect would be to create coterminous boundaries, which is a good thing. No one can argue against them; they clearly make for a much easier life. However, we should not become over-concerned about what they do. The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) made much of the fact that this is a problem of the Government's own making. The original Bill had the problem in it from day one, because it was structured with regard to the differing boundary commission reviews of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. That meant that, approximately every eight years and for a period of at least two years between the decision of the two boundary commissions, there would be non-coterminous boundaries. That was always in the Bill, so the problem of non-coterminosity is nothing new.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but were not the building blocks of the Bill based around coterminous constituencies? What does he say about the fact that we are dismantling those building blocks and going off at a tangent somewhere else?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I do not believe that we are dismantling the building blocks. Rather, the Bill addresses a provisional position to get from where we are to where we want to be. My point is that if the current Bill were left untouched and the status quo accepted exactly as envisaged under the 1998 Act, because of the different boundary reviews between the two Parliaments, there would be repeated periods of non-coterminosity from time to time.

I want to leave aside the question of coterminosity and move on to the second effect of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South, which is far more important and deserves to be considered seriously. That is the suggestion that each of the current Westminster seats in Scotland should be divided into two, with the remaining requirement for 11 Members being made up from two regions. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that drives a coach and horses through proportionality. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

I want to make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Labour Members who want a first-past-the-post system and face considerable difficulties in introducing it through this short Bill. Returning to first past the post is obviously what they seek. As I said, I respect that; they have been quite open about it. My objective—I shall expand on it when we debate the commission—is a fair proportional system. My hon. Friends and I have always believed that the single transferable vote system provides the answer.

George Foulkes (Labour/Co-operative, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The hon. Gentleman and certainly Lord Steel and other Liberals agree with us that the current system for electing the Scottish Parliament is crazy. Was not one of the principal architects of that system Canon Kenyan Wright? Is it not interesting that he has now come out in his true political colours as a liberal, so are the Liberals not to blame for this mess and dog's breakfast?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Much as I respect the right hon. Gentleman, he is quite wrong. The convention produced a number of principles and a practical way of delivering them. Key among those principles was that of proportionality. The House and the Government—of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member at the time—quite properly enacted those principles and the result was the Scotland Act 1998.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

The hon. Gentleman is right that proportionality was one of the key principles of the convention, but one of its other key principles was to have a gender-balanced Parliament. Why did the Liberals not keep their word on that?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I believe that proportionality in the Scottish Parliament is considerably better than it is here, so we are advancing in the right direction.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Can we clear up the point about who devised the detail of the electoral system? Was it Canon Kenyan Wright or someone else? Was it the Labour party or another party? Who was it in the convention who came up with the magnificent idea of having two votes, even in a list system?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am afraid that I am unable to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. We all accepted what the convention put forward when we debated the issues in 1998. The Bill was before the two Houses, but I must confess that I was in the other place at the time and I am not sure what happened at this end of the Corridor. What was accepted then, however, was broadly what the convention had proposed. That was right and proper. A critical element of what was proposed was that proportionality should be a key part of any electoral system. As I have said, my hon. Friends and I happily argue for STV, but at that time we accepted the system that had been recommended by the convention.

Much has been made of the fact that there are four electoral systems in Scotland. In fact, there are three. These are: the first-past-the-post system for this place; the closed list system for European elections; and the current system for the Scottish Parliament. There may be a fourth system for Scottish local government, and it may be—I hope that it will—STV. However, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We have devolved that power and it is up to that Parliament to take the decision. We have debated devolution many times, but the House must get used to the fact that we have devolved power to the Scottish Parliament. It not for us to argue about STV for local government elections, because the power has been devolved.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries)

I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about STV for local government elections. Will he be honest with the Committee and say whether he genuinely believes that STV will also be used for Scottish Parliament elections in future? That would reduce the number of different ways of electing people in Scotland.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I would hope that the input that I and my hon. Friends make to the commission—and the input from MSPs and all other interested parties in Scotland—might result in a decision to recommend to this House that STV is the best system. If this House brought forward legislation based on such a recommendation, we would support it. We must deal with the potential consequence of a possible future decision by the Scottish Parliament.

In an earlier debate, the Minister said that there are two pillars to the argument about maintaining 129 MSPs. As the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, many people want 129 MSPs to be retained in the Scottish Parliament. A variety of reasons can be adduced for that, and self-interest might be one. I believe that the committee system has been one of the successes of the Scottish Parliament, as it has helped to deliver better government for Scotland, and to encourage people to participate in government.

The maths is as follows: if one subtracts the number of Ministers from the total of 129 MSPs—and it can be argued that there are too many Ministers—and divides the remainder into the number of committees, one discovers that each MSP is already involved in 2.9 committees. Therefore, reducing the number of MSPs will clearly create a fairly impossible work load. There is considerable support—if not overwhelming support—for maintaining 129 MSPs.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

In a moment. The other pillar to the argument is that it clearly must be right to reduce the number of hon. Members in this House who represent Scottish constituencies. Given that we now have a Scottish Parliament, we do not need a level of representation that predates devolution.

Those are the two principles involved. If we want to enact them reasonably quickly, a holding Bill such as this one is the only way forward. It is obvious that the right way to proceed is to have a commission to deal with the likely consequences of having four voting systems, to replicate the work of the convention, to achieve a consensus and then to make a recommendation to this House in respect both of a future electoral system for the Scottish Parliament and of coterminous constituency boundaries.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I call Mark Lazarowicz.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

When the hon. Gentleman—

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am giving way.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I thought that I was giving way to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am very grateful, Sir Michael. After all that time, I was not sure that the hon. Gentleman would come back to me. He mentioned that each MSP was involved in 2.9 committees. Does he not accept that the simple solution would be to have fewer committees? Is not it the quality of legislation and of government in Scotland that is important, and not the quantity of the legislation that is created?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I do not accept that proposition at all. I certainly do not believe that legislation is the only thing that makes a Parliament good. The effective scrutiny of an Executive's actions are of paramount importance. One of the successes of the Scottish Parliament is that—in some ways, although not all—it is able to hold the Scottish Executive to account far more effectively than this House does for any Government.

However, I must say that I find the Conservative party's position on these matters almost incomprehensible. Other hon. Members have mentioned the comments made by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I mentioned them on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them today. However, it is clear that, when the Scotland Bill was being enacted, the Conservative party wanted fewer than 129 MSPs. When it was obvious that 129 would be the number, the Conservatives made absolutely clear their belief that the number chosen at the beginning should not be changed.

The Conservative party has done a complete volte-face, U-turn or whatever one wants to call it. I can have sympathy for the views of hon. Members of other parties who, even though they disagree with me, have held their views for a long time. I hope that they would accord the same respect—if I may put it like that—to me. However, I find the Conservative party's shenanigans completely inexplicable.

The amendments would not solve the problem. The Secretary of State has set up a commission, which must gather evidence from all parties. It is ridiculous that the Conservatives are not prepared to take part in it.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Yet.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Once again, they have elected to let down their few supporters in Scotland by standing on the sidelines instead of engaging in the game. They really are letting down the electorate, and they should rethink their approach on this matter.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying with interest. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) used the word "yet" when it was stated that the Conservatives did not want to serve on the commission. Are nominations for the commission about to be announced? Is the appointment of the commission being held up until that group decides to catch the bus?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I could not possibly answer for a Tory, but the hon. Gentleman makes the interesting suggestion that the Conservatives, having engaged in fun and games tonight and found a way to oppose the Bill, will do a prompt U-turn yet again and take part in the commission. That is perfectly possible.

I shall conclude by saying that it is right to have a commission to look at electoral systems. I hope that the Conservatives do perform a U-turn, as everyone should be represented on the commission. The appropriate time to discuss electoral matters will be when the commission makes its recommendations to this House. I hope that that will be sooner, rather than later. It is because of that that Liberal Democrat Members, if pressed, will vote against the amendments.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Thank you, Sir Michael, and I am sorry that I mistook the courtesy of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the conclusion of his remarks.

When the hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would effectively end the system of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament, he was greeted by a chorus of some Labour Members saying, "Hear, hear!" There is no doubt that one of the amendment's consequences would be to move away from the proportional basis for election to the Scottish Parliament, and that some hon. Members would welcome that. No amendment that would replace the present system with 118 MSPs chosen by the first-past-the-post method could lead to a system that was anything other than grossly disproportionate. However, one of the amendments being discussed would do just that.

I remind the Committee why we have proportionality in the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, the change in the electoral system for local government means that there is a case for looking at the system of proportional representation used for the Scottish Parliament. However, it is worth remembering why the principle of PR was adopted by all the various parties and interest groups involved in bringing forward the proposals that eventually resulted in the Scotland Act 1998.

The PR system was not adopted because of the immense power that I wielded in Labour party committee back rooms over a few months some 15 years ago. To say that it was would be to flatter my role in the political process at that time. The Labour party supported the electoral system eventually presented in the Scotland Act because, at party conferences over more than a decade, it had supported the idea of moving towards a proportional system. That was supported, and still is, by the vast majority of trade unions, including Unison, the biggest union in Scotland. It was also supported by a wide range of organisations outside the political process, and it was supported for a number of reasons.

Some people felt that some proportional system would be fairer than first past the post, which is an argument with which I have some sympathy. One of the arguments put against a Scottish Assembly in the 1970s was that first past the post would lead to domination, based on a small plurality of the vote. If that option had been put forward in the referendum for the Scottish Parliament, it might not have gone through. Others recognised that moving to a PR system would make it harder for the Labour party to win an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, but would also have the effect of stopping any other party, such as the Scottish nationalists, ending up with an absolute majority on a relatively small percentage of the vote.

There were many reasons why a number of organisations came together to support PR for the Scottish Parliament. Certainly, the idea that we should now reject the principle of PR, which would be the effect of the amendment, should not be adopted in the absence of broad consensus among the political parties and other organisations in Scotland. Clearly, there is no consensus for moving away from a PR system.

David Hamilton (Labour, Midlothian)

Not everyone agrees with the first-past-the-post system, but there is not only one proportional representation system. I believe strongly in an alternative vote system, which connects the Member with the electorate. It takes 50 per cent. plus to be elected through that system, which is an extremely good one. I wish my hon. Friend would stop justifying his position on the decision that he took some time ago, which has landed us with the problem that we now face. He can rewrite history as much as he likes, but at the end of the day, that is not what this is about.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

As we are going into history, which I do not want to overdo for fear of straying from the subject, my hon. Friend will remember that one of the strongest advocates of PR for local government was the National Union of Mineworkers, of which he was an active and leading member for many years. History can take us down a number of paths if we wish to follow them.

It is worth looking at the history because it reminds us that the experience of the Scottish Parliament has not led to a majority of the public moving away from support for some form of proportionality in it. The support among the public for that is as strong as it was at the referendum in 1997. I must tell some of my hon. Friends that it is not me, others who share my view or the Government who are out of step with Scottish public opinion on this matter, but some of those among my colleagues who argue against the principle of proportionality.

Bill Tynan (Labour, Hamilton South)

Unless I am wrong, my hon. Friend seems to be speaking about political expediency in the introduction of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament. We have to consider the electorate's participation in PR systems. Does he agree that turning to PR for the European elections has been an absolute disaster for turnout, but that turnout for the last Scottish Parliament election certainly did not suggest that PR was the answer as far as the people of the country are concerned?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am not for one minute suggesting that proportionality is any electoral panacea for Scotland or elsewhere. As with history, statistics can be interpreted in various ways. The drop in turnout between the 1997 and 2001 UK general elections, held under the first-past-the-post system, was even greater than the drop between the Scottish Parliament elections of 1999 and 2003. Different things can be drawn out depending on the argument one wishes to make.

The essential point, which cannot be contradicted, is that there is not a groundswell of opinion in Scotland for moving away from some form of proportionality. Given the introduction of PR for local government, which has gone through the Scottish Parliament and which will happen, no matter what, we have to consider how the different systems will mesh together. Although I was as happy 14 years ago to support the principle of proportionality as I am today, I actually spoke against the system of two ballot papers. Unfortunately and regrettably, as on other issues, my wise counsel was ignored by those who made the decisions. There we are; that, too, is history.

There is no broad consensus among political parties and other groups in Scotland, or among the population, if opinion polls are to be believed, for moving away from proportionality. If we are to change the electoral system, one thing we certainly cannot do is impose that change on the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament from Westminster. For reasons that we might go into later, I do not accept the Scottish National party's position that the right to change the electoral system should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, the spirit of any change in the system should certainly go with any broad consensus not just in this Parliament but in the Scottish Parliament and among the Scottish people.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

My old university friend might go the extra step by accepting the principle that a self-respecting Parliament should be in charge of its own electoral system. If he did that, he might gain a few friends in the House, which he seems sorely to need at present?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to help me to maintain my friendships on my own Benches. We could debate examples later of how Parliaments and regional assemblies elsewhere in Europe make decisions on changes to their rules. That would be of interest to at least three or four of us.

The principle that we cannot impose change by edict on the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish political settlement needs to be emphasised from the Labour Benches. Since the Scottish Parliament was established, a new political reality has developed. The Scottish Parliament and the political arena around it are well established and as greatly respected as any other political institution in the UK, including this Parliament. That is the nature of the devolutionary change brought about gradually throughout the UK. Politics are not centred here in Westminster, but are being devolved in a real and direct sense.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

If my hon. Friend would not mind, I shall continue for a moment. We must recognise that the view, which he recommends, that we can do what we want because we have a majority and can force change through the Scottish Parliament is fundamentally undemocratic. Of course there are times when Governments have to make difficult decisions that may be against the broad body of public opinion. That should not be done regularly, especially by political parties that wish to have continued electoral support.

Brian H Donohoe (Labour, Cunninghame South)

My hon. Friend has argued that the Parliament is doing well and is settled. Has he had any problems with added list Members?

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

No, I have not had any difficulties with additional Members and the activities that some of my hon. Friends have described. However, I accept that some additional Members have acted as he described, and that is one reason why we might seek to change the type of proportionality without abandoning it completely.

John Barrett (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the amendments the two new regions would have 56 constituencies, with five or six list Members in each? One of the main arguments for a decent proportional system is to avoid the risk of a minority extreme Government ever being elected again. After all, we speak on the anniversary of the day that Margaret Thatcher was elected to Government on 40 per cent. of the vote.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have made a strong enough case for proportionality already without being tempted down that road.

The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has had one of the consequences that those of us who supported it hoped it would. By establishing a Scottish Parliament, it was hoped that the case for devolution in the UK would be strengthened and the case for separatism would be weakened. That has indeed happened. As support for independence has declined, support for devolution has increased. It is no accident that the Scottish National party is now tearing itself apart over whether to embrace extreme independence or to make use of devolution. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament has sidelined the SNP and its demands for independence.

The irony is that the political victories that have been won by those of us who support devolution and the Union, and oppose independence, could be put at risk by those who would try to impose a political settlement on the Scottish Parliament—in terms of proportionality and number of Members—that would not be supported by our Labour colleagues or, indeed, by the vast majority of Scottish political organisations or Scottish society more generally. To follow the path suggested by some of my hon. Friends tonight would be to snatch political defeat from the jaws of victory.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

It will not surprise the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) to learn that I do not find his amendments attractive, for many of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), in a fine contribution. The amendments would cause as many problems as they seek to solve. My impression was that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South intended that those in first and second places should be elected for the constituencies, but the amendments provide no clear indication as to how he would arrange the election of two Members from one Westminster constituency. I hope that he will tell us when he winds up. Electing those in first and second places might be a good idea compared to what we might actually get.

On Second Reading, several problems were identified, especially by Labour Members, including those to do with coterminosity, a multiplicity of voting systems and the effectiveness—or otherwise— of list Members. Do the amendments satisfy those three basic concerns? They certainly meet the test of coterminosity, because they would be based on the new Westminster constituencies. Do they meet the test of the multiplicity of voting systems? No, they fail dismally. If we were to accept the amendments, we would have first past the post for Westminster, first and second past the post for Holyrood, an additional Member list system for Holyrood, STV for local government and the closed list for European elections. That is five electoral systems, so the amendments would add to that problem.

The third test is whether the amendments would address the problems created by the list Members. They would not do so, because—as I pointed out in an intervention—the list Members would be crawling over half of Scotland, making the situation much worse. On the three critical tests identified on Second Reading by Labour Members, the amendments fail two. That is not good enough.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Has the hon. Gentleman himself been guilty of crawling over parts of Scotland?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I represent the fourth largest constituency in the UK, I crawl over a fair bit of Scotland. I spend quite a bit of time travelling between Kinloch Rannoch and Brechin, although I prefer to drive because it is a more convenient and suitable way to get around.

I took seriously the concerns about coterminosity expressed on Second Reading. Labour Members may have a point, although they over-egg it. I have never had a constituent express concern about differing boundaries for Scottish Parliament elections and Westminster elections, but I agree that we are more effective when we work in conjunction with our Scottish parliamentary colleagues. Different boundaries might cause confusion in the electorate about whom to approach for assistance and advice. However, the problems would probably not be as bad as some Labour Members seem to believe—they appear to think that a lack of coterminous constituencies would mean the end of the western world as we know it.

The more pertinent point is the multiplicity of voting systems, and it must be addressed. If the amendments were accepted, we would have five systems. It is unfortunate that we have not had a real chance to debate the merits of the single transferable vote. We tabled amendments to that effect for this debate, but unfortunately they were not selected—I accept that there were good reasons for that. Surely STV would be the most elegant and sensible solution—[Interruption.] Hon. Members shout, "First past the post", but what has happened in Scotland in the past few weeks? Labour Members' colleagues in Scotland are now enthusiastic champions of proportional representation for local authorities. They are prepared to go on record to champion that cause, and I am sure that Labour Members here would cheer them to the rafters for doing so. The STV system will be used for elections to local authorities in Scotland, and it would make sense to have all domestic Scottish elections settled in the same way.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the voting record on the Scottish Executive is not the same as the voting record of Labour party branches and constituencies. In fact, if a vote were held among Scottish constituencies, as many as 90 per cent. would support first past the post, although that is not the case on the Scottish Executive.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Well, there we have it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into the Labour party's position. We have seen exposed not so much the divisions between London Labour and Lanarkshire Labour, but the divisions between Labour Members in Westminster. Apparently, there are also divisions between branches and constituencies and the Labour party nationally on this policy. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the differences between parts of Scottish new Labour, because it is very revealing.

It would be unfortunate to pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the Secretary of State's commission. We support the commission because we believe that it is a good idea. There is a job for it to do and we shall be judicious workers on it. We have provided our nominee well ahead of the time scale set by the Secretary of State—the Conservatives, unfortunately, could not do that. We at least are fully signed up members of the commission and we want to make it work.

It is fair and right that the case for STV is made at this stage, if only so that, after studying our debate today, the commission does not conclude that the only solution the Committee could come up with was the half-baked proposal made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South. As I said earlier, STV is an elegant and sensible solution, given the overwhelming conversion, which I have enjoyed watching, of Scottish new Labour to PR for local government.

Anne Picking (Labour, East Lothian)

There are some things that I cannot marry up. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has said that it would be wrong to impose an electoral system on a Parliament in a democracy, so why on earth would it be justified for us to impose—with the support of his party and mine in the Scottish Parliament—a PR electoral system for local government when people do not want it?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

What is behind that sentiment is very revealing and shows where the hon. Lady and her colleagues are coming from—they do not like this matter being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. They would prefer that decision to be in their hands and that is the real intention behind her question.

I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about list Members and about Members elected from the additional Members list. Labour Members have a point about list Members; they have not covered themselves in glory and there are issues in respect of their role. There is real disappointment that the list system has not worked, although as I reminded Labour Members earlier, the House itself decided on that system—perhaps that is a reason for giving the decision to the Scottish Parliament.

Labour Members also have a point when they refer—as several of them did—to the fact that 70,000 Labour voters in Glasgow could not elect one Member in the list. That is a legitimate point, but I wish that Labour Members would show some democratic consistency in applying that principle. What about the 40,000 SNP voters in Glasgow who secured 4 per cent. of SNP councillors in the city? That is equally wrong. It takes about 12,523 SNP voters to elect one councillor in Glasgow, yet it takes only 1,230 Labour voters to do so.

I accept that there are problems about all those wasted votes and that Labour Members have principled objections to that and to Labour votes being wasted, but they must concede that a first-past-the-post system for local authority elections will also give rise to problems of democratic deficit.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially to a Welsh MP, but is he not missing the point? The worst thing about the current list system is that a candidate can lose in the constituency but still come in by the back door under the list system.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The reason for that is because they do so overwhelmingly well under first past the post—that is why they are not selected. That is a key and legitimate point.

Michael Weir (Scottish National Party, Angus)

My hon. Friend might like to point out to Labour Members that Peter Peacock came third in Moray, yet he is a Minister in the Executive for their party.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

That is a very good point. We do not expect that kind of consistency from Labour Members; they seem to be concerned only with securing a first-past-the-post system.

Only STV will ensure that every vote counts. It will ensure that tactical voting will not take place on the scale that we experienced during the last Scottish parliamentary elections. If we had STV, there would be no second-vote Green; the Greens and the Trots would have to compete for the first votes like the rest of us. Surely, that makes sense.

Given that we could solve all the issues on voting systems for domestic Scottish elections, the only real opposition to STV would be if Labour Members were opposed to proportional representation per se. That is closer to the facts, because we have heard from their contributions that they do not want PR for the Scottish Parliament.

The commission has a big job to do; it will have its work cut out if it is effectively to square all the concerns that we have heard today. However, it must not be used as a fig leaf to cover the real differences that exist in Scottish new Labour. It must not be used to try to heal the wounds that have developed between Lanarkshire Labour and London Labour.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.