John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab): I am aware of the time and will do my best to leave sufficient time for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett). In an attempt to stop Members intervening to ask who I have talked to lately, I say that I base my input tonight on the debate that I have had with members of my party and of my electorate and on my experience overall in campaigning, since 1978, for a Scottish Parliament. The first question I asked myself when I was putting my speech together is, “Why open the Act?” I asked the same question when I made my submission to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland. I have had great difficulty in coming to terms with that, so I have great sympathy with Opposition Members. I could mention private conversations that I had with the late Donald Dewar, but I will not do that-instead, I will quote from what he said at the time, which can be read in Hansard by any Member who wishes to do so. When the House of Lords tabled an amendment on whether 129 MSPs should remain for ever, he said:
“In the White Paper, we made it clear that the size of the Scottish Parliament would change to take account of changes at Westminster so as to maintain common boundaries.

I should reassure the House that the Government have thought long and hard about the implications for the Parliament of a reduction in its size. We do not believe that such a reduction will make the Parliament less able to carry out its key roles in scrutinising effectively the Scottish Administration’s work and enacting legislation.”-[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 381.]
Suddenly, we find that the Government have changed their mind about that. Having said unreservedly that they could conduct business in the Scottish Parliament with fewer than 129 MSPs, we now find ourselves faced with a fait accompli, which, regretfully, I shall have to go along with. That does not mean that I am fully minded to walk through the Lobby with my party tonight-I have still to make that final decision. I will not vote with the Opposition, however: I could never walk through the Lobby with the Conservatives, and my father would turn in his grave if I did so.

Mr. Peter Duncan: I am sorry to point out something that might be too difficult for the hon. Gentleman to contemplate, but to assist him in his dilemma, I remind him that in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs he voted with me in order to implement the Scotland Act 1998. I wonder whether he could consider doing so tonight.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not know how he conducts his business in Select Committee, but I take the view that I am there to represent the whole House, so I do not consider issues along party political lines, and vote as such. Obviously, other Members do not do the same.

If we are going to pass the Bill-as we obviously are, because the vote of one Member from Glasgow, Anniesland will not make a big difference-it is regrettable that it was not undertaken properly. As many Members said, there is a great deal in the 1998 Act that needs to be sorted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the commission. That is a very good idea, and it is an even better idea to bring it forward immediately. When my right hon. Friend was asked when it will be implemented, he did not answer. That is of paramount importance in getting rid of any anomalies that may be in the system before the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2007, which is my No. 1 priority in terms of supporting the Bill in future.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who unfortunately is not in his place, did little to persuade me to support his party tonight-in fact, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from selective amnesia. In the debate in which the late Donald Dewar spoke, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who is now chairman of the Conservative party, said:

“The first thing that will be required to make the Scottish Parliament work properly is stability, but what is guaranteed by what he is defending is instability.”-[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 387.]

This is a role reversal, because my Government are talking about maintaining 129 MSPs, whereas Conservative Members, who supported that at the time of the 1998 Act, now oppose it.

One would put that down to political-

Mr. Hood: Chicanery.

John Robertson: Self-interest is one term, but chicanery is a good word and I thank my hon. Friend for it.

The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), blamed her for the figure of 129. Again, I revert to what Conservative Members said when the Scotland Act 1998 went through Parliament. They supported that figure; they cannot simply change their minds. They appear to be indulging in very opportunistic politics nowadays. They cannot simply change with the weather: either they have principles or they do not. Someone once said that a Tory cannot eat principles.

My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Paisley, North stole my thunder and my speech. They have obviously been looking over my shoulder. There is no point in telling hon. Members about the number of voters in Glasgow because everybody now knows. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale mentioned the number of list MSPs in his constituency; it was probably fair that he was the first to mention them.

Why do we need two ballot papers if we have a list system? Why can we not have one ballot paper? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described the second vote as natural. Having one ballot paper would change that and the Secretary of State should consider it. At least that would mean that 77,000 ballot papers would not be wasted in Glasgow and we might save one tree in the Amazon, if only for a year.

We should consider the matter seriously. If 77,000 people go through a ballot paper that is half a mile long and to the trouble of casting their vote only to find that it means nothing, that is not democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) talked about 130,000 votes.

Hangers-on and opportunists stand outside my polling stations and tell people, “That’s okay, vote Labour. It’s your second vote we want. Don’t worry about it; you’re voting Labour on the first vote, so they won’t worry about it.” That completely misrepresents the system. I want members of such parties out of the political system because their politics matches their underhandedness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) made some excellent points. He mentioned people who come to our surgeries and talk about, in effect, coterminosity. They ask, “Who do I go to?” They might want to discuss health and say, “Mr. Robertson, can you help me with this?” I say, “Yes. Give me your case. I’ll take it.” I forward it to the MSP. Should I forward it to eight MSPs or give it to my hon. Friend the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow, Anniesland because I know that he will take it up and attend to it properly? The electorate do not understand the difference between a councillor, an MSP and an MP and they do not care. They care about delivery.

When I stood for Parliament, it was on a Labour party ticket. The ballot paper did not say, “John Robertson, sometimes a member of the Labour party” or “part-time Labour party member”. It said “the Labour party”, and I am under no illusions: those three words were the only reason that I got elected.

Mr. Tynan: That is why you will vote with the Government.

John Robertson: I may have to do that-my hon. Friend talks me into it.

Proportionality has been mentioned often and I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will refer to it. I am sorry but I did not go into politics to worry about proportionality. I entered politics to worry about delivering for the people of Glasgow, Anniesland and this country.

Mr. Lazarowicz : Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Robertson: Make it quick.

Mr. Lazarowicz: Can my hon. Friend tell the House why he was so keen on the Conservatives being able to run this country for 18 years on a minority vote, damaging Scotland in the process? [Interruption.]

John Robertson: I think that somebody said “Judas” from a sedentary position-[Laughter.] My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I do not agree with him, and he knows that.

I want to mention the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who has done sterling work throughout the evening for the English national party and has told us many times about his 100,000 electors and how that was the equivalent of four seats in Scotland. It would be only four seats in Scotland, as I have just checked the figures, and those would include Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles-I will not say its real name, as I do not speak Gaelic-and Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. That would take the number to well over 100,000. I do not think that any other Conservative Member has an electorate of that size, so his argument was somewhat disingenuous. I had a bit of sympathy with some of his points until he adopted the English nationalist pose-his party will have to watch that. If the Conservative party wants to be part of the United Kingdom, it must remember that this House represents all the people of this country. It does itself no favours by attacking Scottish Labour Members for voting on legislation that goes through the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will return to the main debate.

John Robertson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got carried away with the moment. I shall move on quickly, as I have about three speeches to make. It is terrible because we always leave the best to last-in this case, I am not talking about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.

One of my hon. Friends mentioned having a referendum. The legislation was put together on a referendum of the Scottish people. Let us be honest-they did not vote because of the system that would be introduced; they voted with their hearts because it was about getting a Scottish Parliament. We all worked hard and we worked together. The SNP, in my constituency in particular, was of great help during the campaign for a yes, yes vote. I have no doubt that that collaboration helped to make the vote bigger than was expected. At the end of day, however, it is important to me that we should not give away power to another party. My job is to represent the people of Glasgow, Anniesland and to do my best for the people of the United Kingdom, but it is also to represent my party and my party’s policies. That is what I want to do, and I do not see why we should give that up to another party, so that, in effect, the tail wags the dog. As far as I am concerned, proportionality should not even be on the agenda.

Filed under: speeches by admin