Scottish Parliament (Candidates) Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is Friday afternoon, so we must be dealing with a Scottish Bill. I must say to the Government that it would be better if we timetabled some of these debates at peak viewing times; we would get far greater interest. These are good debates, which I am enjoying—so far. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has introduced his Bill. He began by saying that he had been a great advocate of Scottish devolution and a great supporter of almost everything apart from the electoral system—the ““chancers’ charter””, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth reminded us he called it. The noble Lord said that the electoral system was manifestly wrong. But never in all his words could I discover, convincingly, why it is so manifestly wrong, apart from two problems: first, the problem of many invitations being sent out to the MSPs—directly elected and on the list system—which does not seem an insurmountable problem; and, secondly, the problem of a constituency office. Yet, as I said in my intervention, this Bill would not stop that. For example, if the noble Lord was elected directly to his former constituency and I was on the regional list, there would be nothing to prevent me from setting up a constituency office in Cumnock, Auchinleck or even in Mauchline, which is much nearer home. The Bill does not seem to deal with those fundamental problems. The Secretary of State for Scotland in another place said recently that he does not support any changes to the electoral arrangements for the Scottish Parliament before the next poll in May 2007, so I will be very interested to hear what the Minister says about the Bill. Whether or not that is the case, perhaps I may ask the Minister if we will have an opportunity in this House to debate the recommendations of the Arbuthnott commission so that we can deal properly with the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. In a few weeks, we will deal with the Government of Wales Bill, certain clauses of which will introduce the same measure in Wales as the Bill before us today would in Scotland. I am fascinated to know why the Government believe that a change is justified in Wales but not in Scotland. The Minister may argue that the practical experience of the electoral system in Wales differs from that in Scotland, but I am not so sure. The arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his colleagues in the Scottish Labour Party seem to be identical to those made by their Welsh colleagues. As I understand it, there are two principal motives for banning dual candidacy, or individuals standing both in a constituency and on their party’s regional list. The first reason is that it is undemocratic for a candidate to lose in a constituency but then go on to be elected via the regional list. The second is that it is an abuse for regional members to set up constituency offices and cherry-pick local issues with a view to raising the electoral profile for the next election. Neither of these is persuasive. I would have more sympathy for the first point—that losers should not become winners—if the electoral system were entirely first past the post, which is not what the Scottish people decided on in the referendum. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments here for or against proportional representation. We all have our views on it. Personally I am rather opposed, as I know is the noble Lord, but the fact remains that the form of PR used to elect the Scottish Parliament was part of the devolution package agreed by the Scottish people. It strikes me that if we are to have a form of PR, politicians should accept that the resulting political culture will be different from that which we are used to from first past the post. I think that I am correct in saying that most forms of PR involve having more than one person representing a particular geographic area: STV involves multi-member constituencies; party lists cover large geographic areas; and the additional member system involves a mix of constituency and regional members. Therefore, as the Arbuthnott commission concluded:"““Candidates coming in second or third place who are elected through the regional list are only ‘losers’ in the context of a first past the post, ‘winner takes all’ electoral system. This logic does not sit well within a proportional system and introducing it devalues and undermines the concept of proportionality””." Unless we are going to revert to a first-past-the-post electoral system, the argument that losers should not become winners does not hold water. Nor therefore does the second principal objection to dual candidacy hold water—that regional MSPs have been abusing the system by setting up constituency offices. In the first place, I suggest to the noble Lord that, even if we accept this motive for a ban, the Bill will not achieve its desired effect. The very nature of devolution results in constituencies having more than one representative and consequently competition between representatives—between MSPs and between the MP and MSPs. That happens in any case, as the noble Lord well knows. It is a departure from the tradition in this country of having one parliamentarian representing a specific area, but that is what devolution is all about. As ever in these matters, this is a state of affairs that was identified in advance during the passage of the Scotland Bill by my much-missed friend and colleague, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He correctly prophesied this on 8 July 1998:"““The problem with the additional member system is that it will be a case of ‘Oh well, why don’t you go and see Jimmy Smith who is a member of your own party? Why not go and talk to him? He will deal with you’. There will be some shuffling about. Or it may be said, ‘Oh, that’s not my expertise. The other regional member, that is his expertise. Why don’t you go to see him?’””.—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1281.]" What is interesting about the next exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who was the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through the House, is that it is even more illuminating and does not fit entirely with what it appears Donald Dewar was saying in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, defended the additional member system by saying:"““I do not believe that there will be a case of passing the buck. What will happen is that the individual constituent will have a choice of people to whom he can go. Again, that is to the good. The individual constituent will decide whether he wishes to write to, or see, the member of the Scottish Parliament who is returned for the constituency in which he lives, or whether he writes to, and sees, one of the regional representatives. The point is that regional representatives are also constituency representatives as well as those members who are returned in the first-past-the-post system. Both have constituencies. Nobody will somehow be returned to the Scottish Parliament on some sort of national list or something like that. It is the difference between individual first-past-the-post constituencies and regional constituencies””.—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1293.]" That is the advice that was given to us at the time by the Minister in this House for the Scottish Office. Therefore, the problems identified by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are no more than the inevitable consequences of this type of electoral system. If there is a problem with competition between regional and constituency MSPs, logically one should be arguing for a return to the first-past-the-post electoral system, which is perhaps really the noble Lord’s intention.