Scottish Parliament (Candidates) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I was inevitably reminded of the atmosphere that used to be engendered in the Scottish Grand Committee, rather than that of your Lordships’ House, by the naked partisanship of the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, took when he rose to his feet. It was interesting to hear what he prayed in aid of his Bill. We are delighted that he has brought it forward, because it gives us a chance to ventilate some issues that are current in Scotland. The noble Lord demonstrated his naked partisanship by praying in aid such a principle as consistency only when it favoured his own case. There was never any attempt to make the settlements in Wales and Scotland the same. Even today, it might be argued that there is stronger opinion in Wales in favour of aligning the Welsh settlement with the Scottish settlement than the other way round. I also found his treatment of Sir John Arbuthnott and his report a little ungenerous, to say the least, considering the work that was done, the extensive evidence that was taken and the thought that obviously went into that report. That did not quite show the noble Lord’s normal fair-mindedness in these matters. The noble Lord’s Bill seeks to prohibit candidates for elections to the Scottish Parliament from standing for election both in the constituency list and in the regional list. What seems to lie behind it, as does the opinion which he seeks to meet, is the sense that the dual system gives an unfair advantage to parties which have been unsuccessful in winning the constituency seat. They may set up headquarters to campaign for the interests of their party fortified by the fact that they have representation through the regional list. There may be some grounds for grievance about that. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie suggested other ways of dealing with it. However, I cannot see how that concern is even to be mitigated by the passage of this Bill. The dual member system is not itself challenged by the Bill, only the way it operates. Parties other than those that are the winners are still going to raise their flags in the constituencies that they have not succeeded in capturing. Indeed, the whole cast of mind about winners and losers, suggesting that somehow the only winners are constituency winners, seems clearly tied to the past and the notion that the only legitimate kind of electoral system is first past the post. That does not lie at all well with the espousal of proportional representation. If the noble Lord is in favour of the Scottish devolution settlement and is not in favour of PR, then I do not know what his support for the principle of devolution is. It is PR that has made the settlement so widely acceptable in Scotland, and the fact that it does not provide a permanently entrenched single party system. So far from having been the means whereby the Labour Party enshrined the permanent majority for itself, as was suggested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the afflatus of PR has kept the Conservative Party above the horizon in Scotland. Without PR, it would have disappeared completely from the political landscape. Although I respect the strength of its arguments, I think that the Arbuthnott commission missed an opportunity in not proposing to introduce the single transferable vote, which would have resulted in a complete equalisation of parliamentary candidates and representation across the board—there would not have been different types of members in the Scottish Parliament. However, that was not the commission’s approach. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie that it is possible to ameliorate the dual member system in the way that he suggests. Indeed, it is in line with the Arbuthnott commission’s report, which advocates the open list system. I also beg to suggest that the motivation behind this Bill is more partisan than democratic. The choice should be for the electorates. It is not a totally unfamiliar situation historically to have people losing in one constituency and being elected in another at the same time. I recall that, in the Liberal landslide of 1906, Arthur Balfour was defeated in the constituency that he had represented for quite a long time. However, because of the dual candidacy possibilities, he was elected in the same election for the City of London. He continued to make sure that his voice and that of the Conservative leadership was heard thereafter. I do not think that there was much objection then on the grounds that a loser was being elevated to being a winner. These things have to be considered in the round; they have to be balanced. I am bound to say that the present system works well. The Government’s proposals for Wales, which are not directly affected by this Bill, will no doubt come before this House shortly and some of the same arguments will undoubtedly surface. Far from agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that we should accept that Bill and try to align Scotland to the Welsh situation, I prefer the view that the government of the day got it right, or nearly right, in Scotland and that the Welsh Assembly legislation should be viewed in that perspective.