Westminster Hall Debate on Boundaries, Voting and Representation (Scotland)
July 20, 2006 12:00 AM
By Jo Swinson MP
By Jo Swinson MP
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Like so many Scottish debates, and like Scottish questions, it has been lively and interesting. A great deal of expertise and consideration has gone into the Arbuthnott report; it was a thorough process. I congratulate the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), and the Committee members. I am not a member of the Committee, but I have read the evidence transcripts. They flagged up some interesting points, which were highlighted in the report and some of which were brought to our attention this afternoon.
I welcome many of the recommendations in the report, starting with the focus on community boundaries for elections. In general, it is a helpful step in the right direction, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, a focus solely on local authority boundaries can bring with it problems, not least because of the sheer number of voters represented. He outlined the issues for Argyll and Bute, and I would draw attention to my part of the world, East Dunbartonshire. It is one fairly small local authority but, because it has 80,000 electors, it is proposed under Arbuthnott's recommendations that it would have two Members of the Scottish Parliament. Next door in West Dunbartonshire, which is not much smaller with 68,500 electors, there would be only one. A lot of people would see that great difference as something of a problem.
We must remember that there has been a lot of local government reorganisation over the years. Let us hope that the Scottish Executive do not have the appetite suddenly to do it again. It has meant that community boundaries are not always the same as local authority boundaries. Areas in different local authorities but close together can have an affinity and share similar issues, whereas areas in the same local authority are often very different and face different challenges.
I welcome the recommendation that there should be greater clarity in the regional vote and particularly the moves to redesign the ballot paper, which have also been proposed by the Secretary of State. It will make things clearer for voters, which is particularly important considering the new voting systems that have been put in place in Scotland in the past few years. Making it as simple as possible for people to exercise their democratic right is vital.
I also welcome the move towards an open-list system for the additional list members, which will give power to the people and take it away from the party hierarchies, which currently decide who is to be at the top of the list. Different parties have different ways of setting the order of their lists; in my party everything is democratic and decided by single transferable vote. I understand that other parties have moved towards allowing every member in an area to vote on the matter, but that still means that a fairly small section of an area's electorate-those who are members of a particular political party-decide the order. There are many cases in which the wider electorate might want to choose a member who is further down the list. I welcome the suggestion, as I hope other hon. Members will.
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats