Scottish Parliament (Candidates) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I commend the alacrity and enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock in his determination to debate matters arising from the Arbuthnott commission report. This is the second time I have paid him that compliment in a very short period. This is the fifth parliamentary occasion so far since the report was published on 19 January that a debate has taken place on some aspect of it. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asks when we will have a full debate on the report. He is a senior member of the usual channels—I am not, so I pass the question back to him. The Government do not block a private Peer’s measure on Second Reading but we must make our position clear on such occasions. As the Secretary of State for Scotland has noted on more than one occasion, the Government have no plans to reopen the Scotland Act. That would apply either for the purposes of my noble friend’s Bill or for any other immediate purpose. We do not think it right, therefore, that this Bill, focusing as it does on a single matter linked to the Arbuthnott report, should be taken forward. As we have heard, the Bill aims to prevent candidates in elections to the Scottish Parliament standing as constituency members and as additional members on the regional list system. This would reverse the position in the Scotland Act. It is undeniable that the dual candidacy provisions have determined to some extent the views of political parties in Scotland about how to field candidates. I can therefore understand, up to a point, why the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, wished to focus on this issue. However, perhaps I may set the Government’s position in a wider context. The Arbuthnott Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems reported on 19 January. Its report reflects some 18 months of deliberations, including submissions of evidence from a range of bodies, meetings held across Scotland and a structured programme of discussion and exchange with political parties, electoral administrators and local authorities, as well as Members of this House. Where do the Government stand on the findings and proposals in the Arbuthnott Report? First, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said on the day of publication, we believe that the report contains a number of interesting recommendations, which will be considered carefully and responded to in due course. The Secretary of State added that the report provided an opportunity for full consideration and debate on the proposals. Parliament alone is certainly seizing that opportunity. I am sure that we will have another opportunity shortly with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The Secretary of State went on to say that should the Government decide to take forward any legislative changes arising from Arbuthnott, these could not be made before the Holyrood elections in 2007. That is the Government’s position on the timing of, and context for, taking action related to the commission’s report. The report contained 24 recommendations, some of which are for government to consider, but others come within the ambit of the Scottish Executive or Scottish Parliament and the Electoral Commission. As the Government have reached no view on the recommendations in the Arbuthnott report, I am unable to provide today a critique of the merits or otherwise of the specific measures which relate to changes to the electoral system. The Arbuthnott commission set out the reasons for reaching its view and I need not repeat them here. Your Lordships have already heard comments both supporting and dismissing the report’s arguments on this point. Much of the debate today has borne out the basic point that I made at the start of my remarks that there must be few recommendations in Arbuthnott that would command universal support. This is not necessarily a judgment on the soundness or otherwise of their substance. It simply reflects the fact that, when it comes to constituency boundaries and electoral systems, parliamentarians in this House and the other place, as well as the wider voting community, tend to have a broad range of views. For this important reason—I am delighted that I am amusing my noble friend Lord Rooker—governments have traditionally sought to build on any consensus that may emerge when constructing electoral systems. At the same time, government cannot shy away from taking difficult policy decisions where consensus may not exist. In the course of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, claimed that the Arbuthnott commission had misinterpreted its remit. He did not go on to define exactly what he meant. However, I am aware that some commentators have argued that the commission gave an excessive emphasis to ““respecting the principles of the devolution settlement””, which formed part of its remit. It has been argued that the commission construed this as a barrier to considering voting systems beyond those with elements of proportional representation. The Government do not accept that the report is flawed because of that. We accept that the essential nature of the devolution settlement means that proportional elements are part of the picture. However, there are ways of delivering an element of proportionality in the voting system other than the recommendations that the commission made. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is probably room for debate and discussion on this matter as we consider the report’s findings and analysis. I now reach that part of my short speech to which all noble Lords are looking forward: the Government of Wales Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, described this as his trump card. I was immensely flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said he was looking forward to what I said on this matter. It was a matter that the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Roberts, and practically all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have mentioned. The question is whether the provision will require candidates for the Welsh Assembly to stand in either constituency seats or for regional lists. Everybody is claiming that this ought to be the basis of the electoral system in Scotland. The Government do not accept the automatic assumption that electoral systems for the different devolved administrations need to be wholly identical. To the extent that such systems are part of the devolution settlement, there is already what the constitutional experts would call ““asymmetry”” between the various settlements. It is perfectly reasonable to argue, therefore, that there may well be variations in the electoral systems tailored to suit the particular requirements of the different devolved administrations. Indeed, we see a pertinent example in the introduction of a new voting system for local government in Scotland, which would not necessarily attract support for replication in the rest of the country. Devolution means that differences emerge that stand on their own merits. This has been a useful, relaxed, amusing and interesting exchange of views on matters connected with elections to the Scottish Parliament. I have no doubt that there will continue to be further consideration and debate on Arbuthnott, and this can only be a good thing. However, on the specific issue of banning dual candidacy at elections for the Scottish Parliament, there is no prospect of government support for reopening the Scotland Act for this or any other purpose at present. I would therefore have to express strong reservations about the benefits of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, proceeding further in this House.