House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

First Report of Session 2003–04

Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 January 2004

HC 77 Incorporating HC 1256–i to iii, Session 2002-03 and HC 77–i Published on 3 February 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50

The Scottish Affairs Committee

The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the office of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)).

Current membership Mrs Irene Adams MP (Labour, Paisley North) (Chairman) Mr Alistair Carmichael MP (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland) Mr Peter Duncan MP (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) Mr David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgwater) Mr John Lyons MP (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden) Mr John MacDougall MP (Labour, Fife Central) Ann McKechin MP (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill) John Robertson MP (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland) Mr Mohammed Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Govan) Mr Michael Weir MP (SNP, Angus)

Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/scottish_affairs_committee.cfm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mike Clark(Clerk), Diane Nelson (Committee Assistant) and Joanne Larcombe (Secretary).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6295; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 1

Contents

Report Page

1 Introduction 3

2 The Size of the Scottish Parliament 3

3 Coterminosity of Constituency Boundaries 5

4 Voting Systems and Methods 7 Four Voting Systems? 7 New Voting Methods 9

5 The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill 10

Conclusions and recommendations 11

Formal minutes 12

Witnesses 15

List of written evidence 16

Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2001 17

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 3

1 Introduction

1. In March 2002 the Boundary Commission for Scotland published provisional recommendations which would reduce the number of Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster from 72 to 59. On 18 December 2002 the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the Government would be seeking to amend the Scotland Act 1998 so that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would not, as a consequence, be reduced pro rata.1 The Committee announced on 16 September 2003 that it would be undertaking an inquiry into the consequences for Scotland’s governance and political life, including the implications for voters, of the creation of different constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament.

2. The Committee held four sessions of oral evidence, taking evidence from representatives from the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the Scottish Trades Union Congress , the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA), Professor Robert Hazell and Dr David Butler, Patricia Ferguson MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Scottish Executive, and Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland.

3. Whilst the Committee was conducting its evidence sessions, the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill was introduced, and received its formal first reading, on 27 November 2003. The Bill will “replace Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 making new provision in relation to the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament”,2 removing the present link between the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament and those for the House of Commons.3 The Committee’s view on how the Bill’s further stages should be dealt with is set out at the end of this Report.

2 The Size of the Scottish Parliament

4. The first issue the Committee addressed in its inquiry was whether there should be any change in the current number of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.4 When the representatives of the four main Scottish political parties appeared before the Committee, they were asked whether they were in favour of retaining the number of MSPs at 129 (the figure arrived at during the discussions in the 1990s in the Scottish Constitutional Convention), in particular as a means of keeping the Committees of the Scottish Parliament functioning properly and in providing the Parliament with some stability. Dr Derek Barrie of the Scottish Liberal Democrats answered:

1 See Official Report, 18 December 2002, cols. 859-872 2 Bill 4 3 Bill 4–EN, para. 3 4 73 MSPs are elected for constituencies, with the remaining 56 being elected from one of eight regional lists

4 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

“Yes. The committee system seems to be working very well in the Scottish Parliament and any time there is talk of reducing the numbers of Committees people claim that that will greatly increase the workload.”5

Cllr Mark McInnes of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party stated:

“To make up the shortfall in Committees, we would see the Scottish Parliament working longer days rather than the present timetable to make up for those lost Members.”6

For the Scottish National Party, Mr Grant Thoms said:

“When it comes to the number of Scottish Parliament Members, certainly 129 has been the minimum working arrangement, and experience has shown that, in terms of the Committee structure, it has been important to keep to that sort of level.”7

However, later on in his evidence, he said that, should full powers be returned to the Scottish Parliament, then:

“…I would see a proportionate number of Members to the Scottish Parliament to make it workable for the increased workload that is there—not to say 600, but even 200 might cover the whole of Scotland in terms of the full powers that a Scottish Parliament could be looking at.”8

Mrs Lesley Quinn, for the Scottish Labour Party responded:

“The Scottish Labour Party’s position at the moment is that the Scottish Parliament should remain at 129, and that has more to do with the stability of the Parliament in the first term, because there are a number of issues, and we believe there should be a full term to try and get some stability.”9

The Scottish Parliament’s Minister for Parliamentary Business said that both the Executive and the Scottish Parliament held the view that 129 MSPs was the correct number:

“The Scottish Executive took the opportunity to respond to the consultation that was put under way by the then Secretary of State for Scotland on the issue and commented that 129 seemed to us to be the right number for the moment. In addition, the Scottish Parliament itself debated the issued and came to the same conclusion. We do have a shared view in that respect.”10

5 Q17 6 ibid 7 ibid 8 Q28 9 Q17 10 Q220

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 5

During his evidence, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated:

“I am not aware of a great clamour in Scotland to increase the number of MSPs at all. That is not to say there may not be one or two, but I think people in Scotland will probably take the view that 129 is fine…”11

He continued:

“It is fairly settled that the number of 129 will stay for the time being.”12

5. During its evidence sessions, the Committee was not made aware of any good case for the current number of MSPs to be either reduced or increased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the number of MSPs should remain, for the time being, at 129.

3 Coterminosity of Constituency Boundaries

6. There was consensus amongst witnesses that having coterminous boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood assisted political parties organisationally. In response to a question asking if coterminous boundaries would be desirable, representatives from the parties responded:

“Within the Labour Party’s organisation, yes.”13 (Mrs Quinn)

“Ideally, we would all agree with Lesley and we would like terms that make our lives easier.”14 (Cllr McInnes)

“I agree with that. There is no doubt that, if we do not have coterminosity, there will be far more problems for the party hacks amongst us than for other people.”15 (Dr Barrie)

7. Whilst convenience for political parties is one benefit of having coterminous boundaries, it is far from being the most important. In his evidence, Grant Thoms of the Scottish National Party put this aspect of the changes into perspective:

“In many ways I do not think it is for a political party to decide or influence the nature of the boundaries to suit their needs. We need to respond according to what Parliament or the Boundary Commission has decided is the best way of representing the electorate, and we should change our organisation to fit that need.”16

11 Q274 12 Q276 13 Q35 14 ibid 15 ibid 16 ibid

6 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

Similar views were expressed by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party:

“Our main concern though is for the electorate, and to avoid confusion for the electorate.”17

8. It is the possible confusion caused for electors which most concerns the Committee. COSLA state:

“The creation of 59 Westminster Constituencies which do not have coterminous boundaries with 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies is likely to cause confusion among constituents who will be in different constituencies.”18

9. Both of the politically–neutral expert organisations in these matters, the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, urge caution. The Commission’s view was that:

“…there will be a need to explain to the public the different constituency boundaries. In order to mitigate against the potential confusion arising from the proposed changes, we believe that it will be essential to provide effective advertising and other public awareness activities at national and local levels…”19

The AEA said:

“The lack of coincidence between Parliamentary Boundaries in Scotland is more likely to cause bewilderment for electors, especially those who reside in cross- boundary areas…”20

10. The Committee concurs with the Electoral Commission that, should the proposed changes be adopted, an education campaign would be needed to explain the new boundaries to electors. However, the Committee believes that the best way to obviate any possible confusion is not to introduce the changes in the first place.

11. The Committee considers the convenience of the electorate to be paramount. Based on the evidence we have received, we recommend that, in order to avoid possible confusion, the constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament should remain coterminous.

12. If (a) the number of MSPs remains at 129 and (b) the constituency boundaries are to remain coterminous, a decision has to be made as to how these two objectives can be met. The Electoral Commission is the organisation with the most experience in such matters, and it should consider possible options for how to achieve this solution.

13. One example the Commission may wish to consider is linking together Westminster constituencies to form one larger Holyrood constituency. Although this would not be strictly coterminous, it would have the advantage of there being no overlap between the constituencies for the two Parliaments.

17 ibid 18 Ev 18, para. 6 19 Ev 42, para. 17 20 Ev 55, para. 6

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 7

14. However, our favoured option is to have 2 constituency MSPs for each new Westminster constituency, totalling 118 MSPs, with the remaining 11 MSPs being elected from a national list. Such a dramatic reduction in the number of list MSPs could resolve the perceived problem of regional list MSPs “muscling in” on the territory of constituency MSPs, and causing extra work for local government officials, despite protocols being in place to stop duplication of enquiries from both list and constituency MSPs. In evidence, Cllr Jim McCabe, the COSLA representative on the Scottish Executive’s STV Working Group, said:

“The List MSPs have an area which they cover, it could include Lanarkshire, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire, but they still have plenty of time to do the mischief they are doing… With regard to the protocol, I met the List MSPs last week and three weeks before that I had a meeting with the constituency MSPs, and one of the subjects on the agenda was protocol. I told them about the problems we are facing on a daily basis, with 600 letters a year from MSPs and one MSP sent his councillor 240 letters. That is the kind of thing I am talking about and no matter how often we have told them, right from the start, established a clear-cut protocol, they have chosen to ignore it.”21

15. The Committee expects the Electoral Commission to produce its detailed proposals in time for the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2007 to be conducted under the new arrangements. It is, therefore, imperative that the Commission starts its work without delay, and that it presents its findings to the Secretary of State for Scotland who should take the final decision based on all available information.

16. The Committee will be following progress closely. If we consider that the necessary decisions are taking an inordinate amount of time, we will (following the recent precedent set by the Public Administration Committee22) consider introducing an appropriate Bill ourselves to establish coterminous boundaries for elections to Westminster and to Holyrood.

4 Voting Systems and Methods

Four Voting Systems? 17. It is likely that soon electors in Scotland will be faced with having four different voting systems for the four different types of elections — first–past–the–post for the UK Parliament; the Additional Member System for the Scottish Parliament; a list system of proportional representation for the European Parliament; and a single transferable vote for local government elections. The Secretary of State for Scotland perhaps best summed up the situation when he said:

21 Q60 22 See Public Administration Committee, First Report, Session 2003-04, A Draft Civil Service Bill: Completing the Reform, HC (2003-04) 128-I

8 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

“On present plans we will have four different ways of electing people in Scotland. I have said on a number of occasions—and I am not the only one who had said this— that four different ways of electing people in a country of five million is quite a lot.”23

18. We could not agree more. As the Electoral Commission point out in their memorandum, there is:

“…some evidence that parallel use of different voting systems can cause confusion amongst some electors. For example, as we indicated in our statutory report on the 2001 general election, some electors in Northern Ireland were confused by the need to use both “first–past–the–post” for the Westminster election and STV in the local elections taking place at the same time. Opinion polling following the 2003 elections in Scotland also suggested that 13% of non-voters claimed that confusion over the voting systems being used led them not to vote…”24

19. Electors in Northern Ireland are well used to STV; if they are confused, then how much greater will the confusion be amongst those electors who are not familiar with the system?

20. COSLA, which represents 31 of the 32 local councils,25 told us that 27 councils favoured the retention of first–past–the–post for local government elections, whereas just 4 councils favoured the introduction of STV. In its written evidence COSLA stated:

“COSLA acknowledges that there is a committed minority view within and among member councils which supports change with a range of electoral systems being preferred to First Past The Post, including the Alternative Vote (AV) and the Single Transferable Vote (STV).

“However, the view of the majority of COSLA’s member councils in that there should be no change to the status quo. The First Past The Post system provides for strong political leadership of a Council with a clear mandate to carry through the programme of measures put to the electorate. It also provides a clear member-ward link and gives a fair opportunity for independent councillors to be elected.

“COSLA feels that undue account had been taken of issues of proportionality in the decision to adopt the STV system of proportional representation. The other criteria identified be the McIntosh Commission, with which COSLA was in agreement, appear to have been downgraded and, in the case of the criteria regarding fair provision for independents, bypassed.”26

23 Q279 24 Ev 42, para. 19 25 One local council is not a member of COSLA 26 Ev 20, paras. 1.3-1.5

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 9

21. In oral evidence, Cllr Pat Watters, President of COSLA, said that the four councils controlled by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party favoured the introduction of STV, whereas:

“The other 27 councils which form part of COSLA have a different view. Labour, Conservative and all the independent councils are opposed to STV for elections for local government”27

22. It does seem to be a strange decision by the Scottish Executive to introduce STV for local government elections, when the overwhelming majority of local councils oppose such a move, and there is scope for causing confusion amongst electors.

23. The Committee considers that, as well as looking into the matter of coterminous boundaries, the Electoral Commission should look also at the implications for the electoral process of Scotland having four different voting systems. There may well be good reasons why, for example, elections to Westminster need a different system than elections to the Scottish Parliament, but we are not convinced that every type of election needs a different voting system.

New Voting Methods 24. When the Electoral Commission appeared before us, we questioned them about a number of pilot initiatives undertaken in the 2003 English local government elections; such programmes included all–postal ballots, electronic voting and extending the hours of polling, and were intended to encourage greater participation in the electoral process. It was claimed that all–postal pilots had been:

“… on the average, notably successful in terms of raising turnout.”28

25. The Committee raised the possibility of an all–postal pilot scheme in Scotland for the European election, pointing out, however, that some councils had concerns that they lacked the necessary resources and ability to carry out such a scheme. The response was reassuring:

“I think that the reality across the country is that those who have undertaken all– postal elections have found out that, although there are practical difficulties involved, professional administrators know how to deliver elections and are able to deliver an all–postal election as much as they could deliver another election.”29

26. Our own experiences and anecdotal evidence from Scotland have shown this optimism to be questionable. Although the various criteria for introducing all–postal ballots have been met, we understand that there is now some doubt as to whether such ballots could, after all, be carried out. Had the Committee not wished to produce this Report so that it would be available to the House before the second reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, we would have wished to pursue this particular matter further.

27 Q51 28 Q170 29 Q171

10 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

27. We note that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee has recently announced that it will inquire into postal voting.30 We will follow that inquiry with interest.

5 The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill

28. As stated in paragraph 3 above, the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill received its formal first reading on 27 November 2003. When the Secretary of State for Scotland appeared before the Committee, we asked whether he envisaged the Bill having its second reading and committee stages on the Floor of the House or in standing committee.

29. We were pleased to note his replies. For second reading he said:

“It is a constitutional matter and just as the Scotland Act was taken on the floor of the House my expectation is—and I think that has been agreed with the usual channels—that this one will be on the Floor of the House too.”31

When asked about the Bill’s committee stage he replied:

“Again that is up to the business managers and the usual channels, but my anticipation is that it will be on the Floor of the House as well because that is how the Scotland Act was dealt with. I am pretty certain that will be the case unless everybody has conspired to put it upstairs, but I think constitutional matters are normally dealt with on the Floor of the House and I do not see any reason why this one should be dealt with differently.”32

30. We agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that, as the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill is a constitutional measure, both its second reading and its committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House, and we so recommend.

30 See ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee Press Notice, 16 January 2004 31 Q294 32 Q295

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 11

Conclusions and recommendations

The Size of the Scottish Parliament 1. During its evidence sessions, the Committee was not made aware of any good case for the current number of MSPs to be either reduced or increased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the number of MSPs should remain, for the time being, at 129. (Paragraph 5)

Coterminosity of Constituency Boundaries 2. The Committee considers the convenience of the electorate to be paramount. Based on the evidence we have received, we recommend that, in order to avoid possible confusion, the constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament should remain coterminous. (Paragraph 11)

3. The Committee expects the Electoral Commission to produce its detailed proposals in time for the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2007 to be conducted under the new arrangements. It is, therefore, imperative that the Commission starts its work without delay, and that it presents its findings to the Secretary of State for Scotland who should take the final decision based on all available information. (Paragraph 15)

Voting Systems and Methods 4. The Committee considers that, as well as looking into the matter of coterminous boundaries, the Electoral Commission should look also at the implications for the electoral process of Scotland having four different voting systems. There may well be good reasons why, for example, elections to Westminster need a different system than elections to the Scottish Parliament, but we are not convinced that every type of election needs a different voting system. (Paragraph 23)

The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill 5. We agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that, as the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill is a constitutional measure, both its second reading and its committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House, and we so recommend. (Paragraph 30)

12 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

Formal minutes

Wednesday 21 January 2004

Members present: Mrs Irene Adams, in the Chair Mr Peter Duncan John Robertson Mr Ian Liddell–Grainger Mr Mohammed Sarwar Mr John MacDougall Mr Michael Weir Ann McKechin

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 4 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 5 read, as follows:

“During its evidence sessions, the Committee was not made aware of any good case for the current number of MSPs to be either reduced or increased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the number of MSPs should remain at 129.”

Amendment proposed, in line 1 to leave out from the word “case” to end, and insert the words, “for the Scotland Act to be amended, in as much as it provides for the size of the Scottish Parliament. We believe no amendment is necessary, leading in due course for the number of MSPs to be reduced from 129 to 108.”—(Mr Peter Duncan.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2 Noes, 4

Mr Peter Duncan Mr John MacDougall John Robertson Anne McKechin Mr Mohammed Sarwar Mr Michael Weir

An Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 6 to 13 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 14 read, as follows:

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 13

“However, our favoured option is to have 2 constituency MSPs for each new Westminster constituency, totalling 118 MSPs, with the remaining 11 MSPs being elected from a national list. Such a dramatic reduction in the number of list MSPs could resolve the perceived problem of regional list MSPs “muscling in” on the territory of constituency MSPs, and causing extra work for local government officials, despite protocols being in place to stop duplication of enquiries from both list and constituency MSPs. In evidence, Cllr Jim McCabe, the COSLA representative on the Scottish Executive’s STV Working Group, said:

“The List MSPs have an area which they cover, it could include Lanarkshire, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire, but they still have plenty of time to do the mischief they are doing… With regard to the protocol, I met the List MSPs last week and three weeks before that I had a meeting with the constituency MSPs, and one of the subjects on the agenda was protocol. I told them about the problems we are facing on a daily basis, with 600 letters a year from MSPs and one MSP sent his councillor 240 letters. That is the kind of thing I am talking about and no matter how often we have told them, right from the start, established a clear-cut protocol, they have chosen to ignore it.””

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5 Noes, 1

Mr Peter Duncan Mr Michael Weir Mr John MacDougall Ann McKechin John Robertson Mr Mohammed Sarwar

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 15 read, as follows:

“The Committee expects the Electoral Commission to produce its detailed proposals in time for the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2007 to be conducted under the new arrangements. It is, therefore, imperative that the Commission starts its work without delay, and that it presents its findings to the Secretary of State for Scotland who should take the final decision.”

Amendment proposed, in line 4 to leave out from the word ”delay” to end.—(Mr Michael Weir.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

14 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 5

Mr Michael Weir Mr Peter Duncan Mr John MacDougall Ann McKechin John Robertson Mr Mohammed Sarwar

An Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 16 to 30 read and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report, as amended, be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5 Noes, 1

Mr Peter Duncan Mr Michael Weir Mr John MacDougall Ann McKechin John Robertson Mr Mohammed Sarwar

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committee (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.

[Adjourned till a date and time to be fixed by the Chairman.

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 15

Witnesses

Tuesday 4 November 2003 Page

Mrs Lesley Quinn, Scottish Labour Party Ev 6

Councillor Mark McInnes, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Ev 6

Dr Derek Barrie, Scottish Liberal Democrats Ev 6

Mr Grant Thoms, Scottish National Party Ev 6

Tuesday 11 November 2003

Councillor Pat Watters, Councillor Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Ev 21

Ms Rozanne Foyer, Scottish Trades Union Congress Ev 36

Tuesday 18 November 2003

Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh, the Electoral Commission Ev 43

Mr William Pollock, the Association of Electoral Administrators Ev 55

Professor Robert Hazell and Dr David Butler Ev 59

Tuesday 2 December 2003

Patricia Ferguson MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, Scottish Executive Ev 63

Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland Ev 75

16 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

List of written evidence

Scottish Labour Party Ev 1 Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Ev 2 Scottish Liberal Democrats Ev 2 Scottish National Party Ev 4 The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Ev 18 Scottish Trades Union Congress Ev 32 The Electoral Commission Ev 40 The Association of Electoral Administrators Ev 53 Professor Robert Hazell Ev 58 Scottish Executive Ev 62 Scotland Office Ev 69 CBI Scotland Ev 79 Boundary Commission for Scotland Ev 80 Scottish Chambers of Commerce Ev 80 Scottish Civic Forum Ev 80

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 17

Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2001

The following publications have been produced by the Scottish Affairs Committee in the 2001 Parliament:

Session 2003-04 Minutes of Evidence Registration of Voters in Scotland HC 78–i

Session 2002–03 First Report The Work of the Scottish Affairs Committee in 2002 HC 197 Second Report Homeworkers and the Minimum Wage HC 335 First Special Report Scotland Office Expenditure HC 198 Second Special Report Response by the Government to the Fifth Report (Session HC 199 2001-02) on Employment in Shipbuilding on the Clyde Third Special Report Response by the Government to the Second Report HC 816 (Session 2002-03) on Homeworkers and the Minimum Wage Minutes of Evidence Futureskills Scotland HC 101–i Minutes of Evidence The Work of Citizens Advice Scotland HC 158–i Minutes of Evidence The Work of the Disability Rights Commission in Scotland HC 608–i Minutes of Evidence The Work of the Child Support Agency Centre in Falkirk HC 693–i Minutes of Evidence Job Creation Potential of the Modernised Forth, Clyde HC 717–i and Scottish Union Canal Minutes of Evidence Custom Services in Scotland HC 911–i Minutes of Evidence Scotland Office Departmental Report 2003 HC 815–i

Session 2001–02 First Report The Drinks Industry in Scotland HC 324 Second Report Job Creation Potential of the Modernised Forth, Clyde HC 424 and Union Canal Third Report Post Devolution News and Current Affairs Broadcasting in HC 549 Scotland Fourth Report Customs Services in Scotland HC 782 Fifth Report Employment in Shipbuilding on the Clyde HC 865 First Special Report Response by the Government and the Scottish Executive HC 696 to the First Report (Session 2001-02) on the Drinks Industry in Scotland Second Special Report Response by the Government to the Fourth Report HC 1287 (Session 2001-02) on Customs Services in Scotland Minutes of Evidence Scotland Office Departmental Report 2001 HC 345–i

18 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

Minutes of Evidence The Work of the Commission for Racial Equality in HC 712–i Scotland Minutes of Evidence The Work of the Scottish Consumer Council HC 1199–i

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence

Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 4 November 2003

Members present:

Mrs Irene Adams, in the Chair

Mr Alistair Carmichael Mr John MacDougall Mr Peter Duncan Ann McKechin David Hamilton Mr Mohammed Sarwar Mr John Lyons Mr Michael Weir

Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Labour Party

Introduction 1. The Scottish Labour Party administers the Labour Party in Scotland on behalf of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. Those parts of Party administration which apply only in Scotland are administrated by the Scottish Executive Committee in liaison with the National Executive Committee. The Scottish Executive would therefore be expected to have a view on: The size of the Scottish Parliament, the number of Westminster Constituencies in Scotland and the issue of the coterminosity of boundaries; the eVects on the organisation of the Labour Party in Scotland of changes to the number of MPs and MSPs and any resultant lack of coterminosity.

The Size of the Scottish Parliament 2. The Scottish Executive Committee of the Labour Party discussed the size of the Scottish Parliament, in light of the Secretary of State’s consultation, at its meeting on 9 March 2002. It was decided at that meeting that the Scottish Labour Party would make a submission to that consultation. A copy of that submission is attached*.

The Scottish Boundary Review 3. The Scottish Labour Party accepts that there will be a reduction in the number of Westminster constituencies in Scotland.

The Voting System in the Scottish Parliament 4. The Scottish Labour Party at this stage has not taken a view on whether there is a need to change the method of electing Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, the party’s stated view in its submission to the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament is that “as the Scotland Act was created out of a broad consensus, any proposed changes to the size of the composition of the Parliament should be based on a similar consensus”. There is, as yet, no consensus on changing the method of electing the Scottish Parliament.

The Effect on the Organisation of the Scottish Labour Party 5. If the method of electing MSPs is not to change; and the number of MSPs is not to change; and there is to be a reduction in the number of MPs, the boundaries of Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies will therefore not be coterminous. 6. The Scottish Labour Party accepts that the lack of coterminosity will cause diYculties for party organisation. The Scottish Labour Party is however, of the view that the Scottish Parliament should retain the current number of members and therefore until a change is made we will meet the challenge the lack of coterminosity brings.

* Not printed. Ev 2 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

“Implications for Turnout at Elections and Clarity for the Electorate of there being Four Separate Voting Systems in Scotland Involving the UK Parliament,Scottish Parliament,Local Government and the European Parliament”. 7. The Scottish Labour Party has not taken a view on the implications for clarity and turnout of separate voting systems as the decision to maintain the number of MSPs at 129 and the resultant lack of coterminosity will not increase the number of electoral systems in use in Scotland. October 2003

Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2003 regarding the coincidence of parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland and the consequence of change. As requested, I have outlined a response below.

The Likely Effect of the Loss of Co-Terminus Constituencies The Scottish Conservative Party is disappointed that the Government has chosen not to reduce the number of MSPs in line with the Scotland Act. These diVerent boundaries will cause a great deal of confusion for an electorate already facing almost annual elections. We believe that the identity of the local member is seriously undermined by cross over boundaries. A constituency identity is lost and we can already see a great deal of friction caused by electorate confusion. It is vital that any system of election ensures that as far as possible the electorate are aware of whom their locally elected representative actually is. This has already proved to be a problem with the diVerent responsibilities of both the Parliaments, and a lack of coterminous boundaries will only exacerbate this problem. However, we are exceedingly keen to have a definite timetable for the boundaries. It is counter to democracy that only the ruling party can confidently prepare for the changes.

Implications for Turnout We are very sorry that the electorate are now to be faced with diVerent methods of voting for each tier of Government. It seems incredible to make electing representatives an ever more complicated process when faced with falling turnouts. We feel very strongly that clarity for the electorate has also been lost thanks to Scottish Parliamentary and Local elections being held on the same day. On two occasions now, 1999 and 2003, local government issues have been swamped by the Scottish Parliamentary campaign. We therefore have very serious concerns over the impact of several diVerent systems of election in Scotland. October 2003

Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Summary This response welcomes the statement by the former Secretary of State that the number of MSPs should remain at 129 and that the Scotland Act should be amended accordingly. It is pointed out that there are three options for amending the Scotland Act: — Retain current Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions; — Reduce the number of constituency MSPs to 60 and increasing the number of list MSPs to 69; and — Introduce the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies for the Scottish Parliament elections.

The main arguments in favour of STV are advanced and in particular the positive implications this would have for turnout and clarity for the electorate of voting systems.

The paper recommends the introduction of STV for Scottish Parliament elections from 2007 as the best way of achieving coterminosity of Westminster and Scottish Parliament boundaries.

1. Introduction The Scottish Liberal Democrats welcomed the statement made by Helen Liddell, when Secretary of State for Scotland, that the number of MSPs should remain at 129, when the number of Westminster constituencies are reduced to 59. We also welcomed the Government’s intention, as stated by her, that the necessary legislation to amend the Scotland Act will be introduced at Westminster. We trust that the Scottish AVairs Committee’s deliberations will be confined to how this decision will be implemented and that the question of the number of MSPs will not be re-examined. We also thank the Scottish AVairs Committee for this opportunity to put forward our views. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3

2. Options for Amending the Scotland Act We believe there are three options open to the Government and parliament in amending the Scotland Act. 2.1 It could retain the current structure of 73 constituency MSPs and 56 list MSPs. This would create problems for political parties’ organisational structure. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have already decided to retain our current structure based on Scottish Parliamentary constituency boundaries if this option were to be selected, but organisational problems would undoubtedly arise. Retention of the present structure might also confuse those voters living in diVerent Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies. This would also require a separate Scottish parliament constituency and regional boundary review sometime in the not-too-distant future. 2.2 It could reduce the number of constituency MSPs to 60, bringing the Scottish parliamentary constituencies into line with the new Westminster constituencies, (Orkney & Shetland having separate MSPs). Consequently the number of list MSPs would be increased to 69. This would allow for coterminosity between the Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, reduce the likelihood of confusion among voters and also improve the proportionality achieved by the Added Members System But it would also require new boundaries to be drawn. Alternatively the increase in list numbers could be achieved by increasing the number of lists. This option is unlikely to be popular given the criticisms of the list system as it stands. There is a growing feeling that the system has created two types of MSP with constituency MSPs having a heavier load. This option would increase that load with larger constituencies and would also reduce the workload of list MSPs, with their numbers increased by 13. 2.3 It could change the electoral system for the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections and introduce the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. The 59 new Westminster constituencies would form the building blocks for the multi-member constituencies. This would solve the co-terminosity problem. This is the option strongly favoured by the Scottish Liberal Democrats and we commend it to the Committee.

3. Arguments for STV 3.1 All MSPs would be elected in the same way and have the same responsibilities and workloads. 3.2 A link would be maintained for all MSPs between themselves and constituencies, albeit larger multi- member seats. 3.3 STV gives power to the voter rather than the party. The voter can choose between diVerent candidates from the same party as well as from diVerent parties. At the moment in “safe” single-member constituencies and for top of the regional list places, their parties eVectively select the MSPs. 3.4 A large majority of the voters will have voted for at least one of the successful candidates and will therefore feel that their views are taken account of and that their vote does count. 3.5 The voter is allowed to express a preference both between parties and between candidates. 3.6 The letter from the Committee requesting written evidence refers to “the implications for turnout at elections and clarity for the electorate of there being four separate voting systems in Scotland”. 3.6.1 The partnership agreement between Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats includes legislation to introduce STV in multi-member wards for the next diet of council elections scheduled for 2007. It would increase clarity for the electorate if the same system were to be used for the Scottish parliamentary and local elections, especially given that current legislation determines that they be held on the same day. 3.6.2 We are firmly of the view that turnout is likely to increase when voters are required to exercise a much higher degree of choice than under the first past the post system. They will also see that their votes count—in many “safe” first past the post constituencies it is a foregone conclusion, which party will win and votes for any other party are “wasted”. Many voters therefore take the attitude “why bother?”

4. Recommendation For the above reasons, the Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the Scottish AVairs Committee should recommend as a result of its inquiry the introduction of STV in multi-member constituencies, based on the 59 new Westminster constituencies. October 2003 Ev 4 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Scottish National Party

Introduction This Memorandum sets out the Scottish National Party’s submission to the Scottish AVairs Committee in its inquiry into the coincidence of parliamentary constituency boundaries in Scotland and the consequence of change. Our response is in five parts: — Part one is a summary of our submission. — Part two lays the rationale behind our position. — Part three lays out our views concerning the relationships between elected members, electors and diVering constituency boundaries. — Part four considers the implications of non-coterminous boundaries on the electoral administration system. — Part five makes suggestions of a wider nature on the separate voting systems in Scotland and recommendations for changes.

Summary of Memorandum Several of the arguments and rationale as to the position of Scottish National Party in relation to this Memorandum were previously set out in the SNP’s response to the Scottish Secretary’s consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. They are worthy of repetition in this memorandum. 1.1 The SNP does not consider coterminous constituencies to be a necessary mechanism for the eVective working of politics in Scotland. 1.2 There is no evidence to suggest that either the system of voting or the construct of a constituency boundary is confusing for the electorate or causes diYculty in identifying which parliamentarian(s) is their representative. 1.3 There is a lack of any strategic guidance on the need for coterminous boundaries between parliamentary and public service authorities. 1.4 The conduct of elections should only become an issue when Scottish Parliament elections are intersected by Westminster elections. 1.5 Creating greater choice in how to vote should be given higher priority especially if more younger people are to be engaged in the voting process. 1.6 The Scottish National Party has long held the view that elections to local government and parliaments should be by Single Transferable Vote (STV).

Issues Under-Pinning the SNP’s Rationale 2.1 Coterminous constituencies are not necessary for good working practices. Additional Members in the Scottish Parliament already work across boundaries, both constituency and local authority boundaries; some constituencies cut across local authority boundaries; most local authorities deal with more than one constituency; and MEPs deal with every constituency and local authority in Scotland. In spite of such boundary cutting work, the system as it stands in Scotland appears to work well, and there is no reason to suppose that working relationships will break down as a result of diVerences in the boundaries for Westminster and the Scottish Parliament in the long-term. 2.2 As has already been noted, the coterminous principle was breached by the Scotland Act in relation to Orkney and Shetland, and the integrity or otherwise of the UK depends on political and public will rather than coterminous constituencies. 2.3 We believe that Scotland’s electorate are sophisticated enough to be or become aware of who represents them and what the functions of the various bodies are. In the case of any confusion, the politicians involved will, of course, be able to oVer advice and guidance to the constituent bringing the query. This already happens with MSPs and MPs referring constituents to each other, and also happens to an extent between MSPs, councillors, and Members of the European Parliament. 2.4 Non-coterminous constituencies should not add confusion to electoral registration and the administration of elections more than the current system, and this would seem to be borne out by the fact that, as stated in the consultation document, English constituencies have fewer boundaries coterminous with local authorities than do Scottish constituencies. 2.5 Political parties may, on the whole, organise themselves along constituency boundaries at the moment, but there is no reason why this should have to remain the case. More importantly, the convenience of political parties should not dictate electoral boundaries nor the system of election, the consideration should be directed towards what is best for the people being represented. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5

2.6 The SNP does not consider coterminous constituencies to be a necessary mechanism for the eYcient working of politics in Scotland. 2.7 There is no evidence to suggest that either the system of voting or the construct of a constituency boundary is confusing for the electorate or causes diYculty in identifying which parliamentarians(s) is their representative.

Relationships Between Elected Members,Electors and Differing Constituency Boundaries 3.1 Working across the boundaries and having to interact with a greater number and variety of other elected representatives should improve the working relationships between MPs and others. As has already been noted, additional Members in the Scottish Parliament work across the boundaries every day, as do MEPs, local authorities and some MPs. Since all of these groups find eVective methods of working, there is no reason why the constituency MSPs and Westminster MPs cannot likewise learn how to work with a variety of people. 3.2 Evidence from other countries shows that non-coterminous boundaries do not present insuperable problems. 3.2.1 In Australia, only the state of Tasmania has constituency boundaries which are coterminous with those of the federal parliament, and Tasmania only operates coterminous boundaries as multi-member constituencies. The Parliamentary Library in Canberra reports no diYculties arising from this arrangement. 3.2.2 In Germany, the boundaries are determined separately by the Lander and the Federal Parliament. There is no correspondence between the two, and little correspondence with the local authority boundaries. 3.2.3 Spain operates regional Parliaments elected entirely by proportional representation. 3.2.4 Belgian regions are entitled to choose their own constituency boundaries. 3.2.5 French departements align to boundaries made up from the boundaries of the municipalities, in some ways the reverse of the position proposed for Scotland. 3.2.6 The Canadian provinces decide on their own electoral constituencies, and there are, with the exception of Ontario, no coterminous boundaries.

Implications of Non-Coterminous Boundaries on the Electoral Administration System 4.1 There may be a need to make a revision of Scottish Parliamentary constituency boundaries in order to make them more coterminous with current ward boundaries. Greater confusion is likely to arise in a small number of cases where Scottish Parliamentary constituency boundaries cut across an electoral ward of a local authority. 4.2 There is a lack of any strategic guidance on the need for coterminous boundaries between parliamentary and public service authorities. Eg the boundaries of Health Boards are a typical example in that its boundary is not coterminous with the local authority, the local enterprise company or with the electoral region of the Scottish Parliament that is Glasgow. 4.3 The maintenance of several tiers of electoral register will require a little more eVort on the part of the Electoral Registration OYcer for each area, but this will be minimal. In any case, the load on the EROs will not be as great as before the movement from a two-tier local authority system to a single tier system. 4.4 The conduct of elections should only become an issue when Scottish Parliament elections are intersected by Westminster elections, especially if, as in 1999, the European elections run later that year, making the electoral system confused. That being said, however, most of the problems arising from that will be in terms of the workload for election staV rather than deep structural problems, and problems of a similar magnitude are likely to arise when these two elections are contemporaneous whether the constituencies are coterminous or not. The SNP has confidence in the ability of returning oYcers and their staV to plan for and surmount these diYculties should the UK Prime Minister place them in such a position. 4.5 Implications for the structure and operation of political parties are matters for the parties, and parties should be able to change as circumstances demand.

Suggestions of a Wider Nature on the Separate Voting Systems in Scotland and Recommendations for Changes 5.1 Turnout Turnout in elections is more likely to be increased if the means by which electors can vote are accessible, reliable and fit with a modern lifestyle. Creating greater choice in how to vote should be given higher priority especially if more younger people are to be engaged in the voting process. Ev 6 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

5.2 Voting systems The Scottish National Party has long held the view that elections to local government and parliaments should be by Single Transferable Vote (STV). STV in multi-member constituencies of five to six members is likely to create a more proportionately representative democracy than either the traditional first-past-the- post electoral system currently in use for Westminster and local government. Furthermore, it overcomes the perceived issues between Constituency and Additional Members under the AMS electoral system. If elected members at all levels of governance are interested in creating a proportionate representative democracy where the vast majority of electors feel truly enfranchised, then it would make sense for STV to become the norm as the preferred voting system for local, devolved and central government. 5.3 Closer relationships with electors The bodies to which parliamentarians and councillors are elected to, should be suYciently resourced that elected members are able to promote their elected oYce to their electorate. This would overcome any perception that the electorate may be confused about who their representative is. This promotion could be overseen by one body or allowance suYciently made available for each elected oYce to be able to communicate with each elector at least twice per year (eg freepost delivery as is available to candidates in parliamentary elections would be such a constructive move). 5.4 E-enabled elections The UK Government has a stated aim of holding an e-enabled election by 2006. None of the debate currently being held about coterminous boundaries or all-postal voting will any way enhance the achievement of that stated goal, yet an e-enabled election would in time provide for more relevant means of voters participating in elections. However such a position could only be reached if all electors had equal access to the technology. October 2003

Witnesses: Mrs Lesley Quinn, General Secretary, Scottish Labour Party, Councillor Mark McInnes, Head of Campaigns, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Dr Derek Barrie, Chief of StaV, Scottish Liberal Democrats, and Mr Grant Thoms, Head of Campaigns Unit, Scottish National Party, examined.

Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and Dr Barrie: It was necessary to look at it because of gentlemen. Can I welcome you to the Scottish the Westminster boundary requirements. We have AVairs Select Committee and thank you for your always strongly supported a reduction in the number attendance and for your written submissions that of Scottish Westminster MPs once the Scottish you sent to us today. Before we ask specific Parliament was in place. We are fully with the questions, is there anything you would like to add or, Scottish Labour Party that 129 needs a few more if you prefer, feel free at the end of the session to let years. We do not necessarily agree that the present me know that you want to add something. Are you method of electing is correct but we are in favour of happy to continue? retaining 129 if for no other reason than the valuable Councillor McInnes: Yes. work that is going on in committees and they need that number of MSPs to person the committees. Q2 Chairman: Can you tell me if you think that the Mr Thoms: The Scottish Nationalist Party’s position existing arrangements for elections to the Scottish around the size of the Scottish Parliament initially, Parliament should have had time to bed down fully when the Scotland Bill was going through before the government issued its consultation Parliament and since, has been that the additional document on the size of the Scottish Parliament? numbers were incorrect and that the system by Mrs Quinn: As you know, the Scottish Labour Party which people could be elected was not correct either. made a submission to the Secretary of State for It is easier at the beginning to try and change things Scotland’s consultation. A copy of that submission as quickly as possible so that the electorate do not was sent as part of the evidence. We felt that the get confused. If something is wrong, let us change it Scottish Parliament had in its first few years been quickly and get it right. developing its structures and we felt it should remain the way it is to try to ensure some sort of stability. In terms of the timing of the consultation, I do not Q3 Mr Carmichael: Can I take you to the question think any of us here were asked about it. Maybe it of voting systems? From the submissions that you was more to do with other issues that were ongoing have made, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the but the Scottish Labour Party believes that it should Scottish National Party are both broadly in favour remain at 129 to try and get a bit of stability there. of the single transferrable vote within a multi- Councillor McInnes: We felt that it was the right member constituency. The Labour Party seems a bit time, coming at the same time as the boundary less unambiguous and we know the history of the review. As you know, we are in favour of the number partnership agreement in Scotland which is now being reduced by the 13 because of the lack of moving towards the single transferable vote for local coterminous boundaries. The time to do it would be elections. The Conservative Party in your at the same time as the implementation of the submissions lays a great deal of stress on the boundary review for Westminster constituencies. diYculties caused by a lack of coterminosity. To Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms what extent are we seeing an emerging consensus the Westminster constituency structure should that will end up with the single transferable vote for remain because it is something the electorate can Scottish Parliament elections? align with and identify with. Mrs Quinn: The Scottish Labour Party does not Mr Thoms: That has an interesting impact on how have a view on any change to the method of electing you look at coterminosity around something like the the Scottish Parliament other than what came out of single transferable vote. If you were to take the the broad consensus and we think that any changes proposed new boundaries for a Westminster seat as that are made should come out of, if not the same, a the new multi-member ward for, say, the Scottish similar broad consensus. Parliament you are only going to get between two and three members which does not create a proportionate form of election in the way that STV Q4 Mr Carmichael: How do you see the fostering of is meant to be used. It may form one form of that consensus? Are we looking at a resurrection of electoral mechanism but it is not something that the Convention or some similar process? would be fair and is certainly not in the spirit of our Mrs Quinn: I do not think it is a matter for the party policy that we have campaigned over a number Scottish Labour Party to say how that should be of years to try and achieve. Some concerns are brought about. I have read in some newspaper starting to go round because of the principles under somewhere about some commission or something which people want to see a fair system set out—i.e., but I am not 100% sure on that. The party’s view at that members have a link to some sort of geographic the moment is that if there is a change it should come area. There is an acceptance increasingly that so long from the same broad consensus. Being involved in as people can identify who is their member and how politics in Scotland, if there are any changes, there to contact them people do not have a problem in tends to be the development of one area or another. terms of making contact and engaging with that member. They have got used to eight Euro MEPs for Q5 Mr Carmichael: In order to achieve a consensus the whole of Scotland so the idea of getting used to everyone has to express a view in the first place. I am four or five members for North Glasgow, for South not getting a sense that there is any view being Glasgow, for Caithness or the Highlands I do not expressed by the Labour Party, which seems curious. think there will be a problem with. It gives the voters Mrs Quinn: No. The Scottish Labour Party has not more choice about who they want to go to with an taken a view at this moment in time on any change issue. that should happen. Dr Barrie: We have always been consistent on STV. Q7 Mr Carmichael: You envisage a model which With STV about to be introduced for local elections would have two or three Westminster constituencies and the fact that you have elections to the Scottish lumped together to get you the numbers which Parliament on the same day, it makes sense and would ensure your proportionality? answers the question of clarity for the voters if you Mr Thoms: On the current proposed boundaries, have the same system in use. I am probably in the you would need at least two Westminster boundaries minority but I am one of those people who does to create a fair STV system. Then you are getting approve of having the local elections and the back into problems of coterminosity. It would be Scottish Parliament elections on the same day. clearer in some ways but coterminosity with STV for Because of the size of the turn-out, it gives the Scottish Parliament would also cause problems councillors as much legitimacy as the members of because it would not be the same system and the the Scottish Parliament. same interpretation. Councillor McInnes: Our feeling is that an electoral system does need time to bed down. When you are dealing with numbers of constituents, we are in Q8 David Hamilton: One of the things that has not favour of a reduction. From the point of view of an been considered in any of the papers is an AV system electorate, to keep a consistent electoral which is another type of proportional organisation and to keep a system of election the representation. From the Labour Party point of same, it does need time to bed down and that means view, what they see as the status quo is what we have. the additional member system, which we oppose. There is an answer there. It might not suit the We were in favour of a first past the post system for Liberals but there is an answer. AV is a system which the Scottish Parliament. relates to the link with the constituent or indeed the ward and it allows the majority of people within a constituency to vote by majority and the following Q6 Mr Carmichael: You think continuity is more day people waking up in their beds know who is important than dealing with the substantial representing them, not a mish-mash of diVerent problems of coterminosity or the lack of it that you people. I think people like to know who represents identify in your submission? them and who is accountable to them so an AV Councillor McInnes: I do not think there is a system would be a far better system to look at and consensus. We felt that coterminous boundaries surely that is something you should consider? were very important and the SNP gave examples of Dr Barrie: I disagree with that completely. AV is not other areas where the boundaries were not a proportional system and I am in favour of a coterminous and it did work well, so I think there is proportional system. It would be much better if we a disagreement between us on the future of had STV and people I think would choose to go to coterminous boundaries. We feel very strongly that somebody of their own political persuasion. Far Ev 8 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms more voters would have an MSP or an MP of their Councillor McInnes: We have been pretty consistent political persuasion than at the moment because in in that we would always favour directly elected, first a lot of constituencies at the moment it is the party past the post members. Where we do well with the caucus or the party executive that eVectively picks additional member system, our natural choice is for the MP or the MSP. people elected first past the post. One of our main concerns over STV is the loss of the representative value that MPs have now, where no matter whether Q9 Mr Weir: Mark talked about reducing the my MP is Labour I would go to that person if I had a numbers of MSPs in line with the Westminster problem. It would be very sad if parties entered that reduction. How does he see that impacting on the list relationship between an MP and electors and the system? Is the Tory position to have fewer directly electors only felt they could go to someone of the elected members and more list members in the same party over an issue. Scottish Parliament or are you looking for a Dr Barrie: You are extending choice and we are complete overhaul of the system? seeing this now under the AMS system where people Councillor McInnes: We did look at reducing the go to a regional list MSP of their own political number of additional members as well so that the persuasion rather than their own constituency MSP proportion of first past the post and additional and that often is just resulting in duplication. If members would remain the same. somebody does not like the answer they get from the number one person on the list, they will go to the Q10 Mr Weir: That would not get round the number two or the number three. problem of coterminosity, would it? Councillor McInnes: There is always going to be a Q12 David Hamilton: My experience is that I think problem with coterminosity with the regions in Derek talks rubbish because we have a position Scotland. The reason the Scotland Act will have to where everybody knows who their MSP is. Very few be amended quite soon is because otherwise the people can name their MSPs from the list system but V Boundary Commission will have to start redrawing we will agree to di er. Mark makes a comment that the Scottish Parliamentary regions. If the Scotland I think most people would agree with. A Act is to be amended and the number of MSPs straightforward system has to go in. Could you elected from constituencies is to remain the same, expand on your views that coterminosity would that will not happen. You are consistently going to reduce confusion amongst voters or that have a system where there are not going to be coterminosity is not necessary? coterminous regions as to parliamentary seats. Mr Thoms: If you are an elector in Rutherglen, you could have an issue with the Greater Glasgow Health Board or with the Lanarkshire Economic Q11 Mr Sarwar: The partnership agreement Development Company and you have an MP with a between Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal boundary that is coterminous with an MSP but you Democrats includes legislation to introduce STV in also have nine other MSPs that you can go to for a multi-ward system for elections. What is the point representation. They also have one of eight Euro of the view of the Scottish Nationalists and the MEPs. They have a plethora of people they can seek Scottish Conservatives? advice from. Nobody markets to electors how they Mr Thoms: Our policy is very clear. We favour the are supposed to find out who is their MP or MSP. single transferable vote for the elections of local The way that we promote elected members to the government and the parliamentary side. The current electorate is sometimes not as clever as it should be. Local Government Bill we have yet to submit in That is something that we perhaps need to take up terms of the consultation to the Scottish Executive. that would overcome some of the issues in the We are clearly looking to have more members perception of whether the electorate understand elected per ward than is currently proposed. The who represents them. At the moment, when three/four members favours parties and individuals something like the health board has to do a that can create a large vote. That does not create the consultation for that elector in Rutherglen, they diversity of representation within local government have numerous people to go and talk to but nobody that could be achieved by having more members has set down guidelines about how boundaries, with a larger geographical area. That ties into the public bodies and electorates should be trying to discussion about how STV could work in the work together in terms of creating the coterminosity Scottish Parliament system. Small, multi-member that should be there. I personally believe that wards create advantages for larger parties but electors do not find it a problem, once they find disadvantages for smaller parties. There is somebody. It may not be the first point of call that something about electors, if they are given the same tells them the correct person they should talk to but system. If STV is coming in for local government in once they are in the right direction for the person time, we are going to be faced with yet another they should be dealing with there is not really a diVerent type of electoral system being used possibly problem in terms of being served. on the same day as list constituency members being voted for. If we want to try and muddy the water for Q13 David Hamilton: I do not think there are many electors even more, yes, let’s have lots of diVerent people who know anybody on the health board so it systems and have them working so that electors is not a good example to give. Surely two MSPs either can get to grips with them or change them to would be a good thing so you would identify who make them a bit more uniform. your MSPs were and you would have clarity. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms

Mr Thoms: Maybe one of the simple questions is Councillor McInnes: I would agree with Grant that why not commission some research to find out from it has bedded down. The two classes of MSP come electors what their views are, rather than the vested to a degree from what the electorate do. Their first interests of political parties or other institutions point of call is still the constituency, geographical within Scotland? MSP because they know who the MSP for Paisley Mrs Quinn: It has moved on. Derek made a point North is and that is still fundamental in the psyche about people’s point of call. Some of the evidence I of the electorate. have of constituents going to elected representatives Mrs Quinn: The Scottish Labour Party agrees there is sometimes more to do with them not liking the should be some sort of protocol. Part of that answer they get from the first one they go to. protocol should have a minimum standard for the elected representative, carrying out their statutory duties because it makes it a bit clearer for the elected Q14 Ann McKechin: I think there is a feeling that representative but, more importantly, for the perhaps in Scotland, since the Scottish Parliament constituent who is raising a concern or issue that has come into place, there has been a diVerent result they may have. in terms of the diVerence between list and constituency members to that experience in other Q15 Mr Duncan: I am interested in this idea of European countries which have followed a similar protocols. A protocol surely is a means of route of election in that the constituency MPs are controlling behaviour? For those three predominantly represented by the largest party in representatives of the parties who are part of that the Parliament and the list system is largely consensus on AMS, has AMS worked in a way represented by the minority parties. This has caused which you would expect? a great deal of the friction which has existed between Dr Barrie: I do not think it has. I do not think we list and constituency members as a result of the lack knew how it would work. We agreed to it very of protocols between them and in turn between them reluctantly in order to get an agreement and we and the Westminster representatives and the council pressed STV as much as we possibly could. We do representatives. At Westminster we have a very strict not know how it is developing now. This is the first set of protocols in relation to who we can act for and time for this new Parliament, with so many minority represent. Do you consider that, particularly if we parties with list MSPs and it is far too soon to see V are not going to have coterminosity, there is a need what e ect that is going to have overall. So far, I to set out a series of protocols in terms of how have been surprised at the lack of impact of the new representatives act and how they deal with cases MSPs of the minority parties, apart from a sudden rush of things in the first two or three days when they between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments? were elected, but I have not heard a lot since. We will Mr Thoms: The Scottish Parliament certainly had have to see how that develops. I do not think some teething problems in terms of the relationship anybody expected it to work out exactly the way it between constituency MPs and list MSPs, but a has. number of those issues are starting to bed down. They have had to. There is a very clear relationship between MSPs and MPs because you have a certain Q16 Mr Duncan: If we are talking about remit in terms of what you can and cannot act on, on introducing protocols, that surely means the behalf of the electorate. In terms of whether the behaviour has not been as you expected; otherwise geography changes, in terms of overlap between the protocols would have been in place when we where someone might live and who might represent started. them, those issues that may arise should arise just Dr Barrie: There was talk very early on in the now because of the remit of what the elected previous Parliament of 1999 about protocols. Without naming names of parties because I think all members are able to act on as opposed to what the parties were involved, there were people who seemed new geography might be. There are probably still to be shadowing a particular constituency and acting some areas in the Scottish Parliament’s working that as the second MSP for that constituency. Some of could be improved upon in terms of protocol. I still Y V that did get to the presiding o cer and was looked hear the odd grumble from MSPs of di erent at. Even then, I think some kind of protocol was political persuasions about how they would like to required. see things improved and by all means let’s have a Councillor McInnes: The additional member system debate on that issue. Changing the number of has been shaped in many areas by the individuals Westminster MPs in relation to Scottish MSPs involved. Some additional members have been very V should not make a di erence in terms of how proactive in certain constituencies. Some have been protocols have been developed so far. very proactive on a regional basis. I think that is true Dr Barrie: I think protocols are essential if you have throughout Scotland and it is true of all our parties. the MS system, but again I come back to my main There have been diVerent experiences throughout point. It is a system that seems to create two diVerent Scotland as well. types of MSP. If you have all MSPs elected under the Mr Thoms: When the Scottish Parliament was being same system, then you do not have any need for thought through in terms of how it was going to protocols. There is still a lot of friction between work, people had not thought through enough what constituency MSPs and some list MSPs, especially the implications were of an additional member some of the newer list MSPs. system. It is one of the reasons why we advocated for Ev 10 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms a single transferable vote to be used at the Scottish Q18 Mr Lyons: All of you have referred to the Parliament in the very beginning because we had importance of bedding down the Parliament and looked at AMS working in other countries. It is a allowing it to function and so on. If it is based on the second preference in terms of how people can be committee structure, if you had more committees, elected. At that time, I am sure we made known our would you argue to increase the number from 129? views on the problems that could arise from having Dr Barrie: Only if you had proper scrutiny of all the an AMS system, particularly where there had been work done, some sort of commission or inquiry into no historical experience of this type of electoral all the work done in the committees, and see if you system in the United Kingdom. Since then, people needed to change your committee structure. You have had to get to grips with how that system works. could only do that if you had an in-depth look. If If the protocols help in order to create some sort of you waited eight years to do that, it would be so harmony and working relationship with MSPs to much better. You would have had all the bedding carry out their work hopefully to the betterment of down and so on. The answer to your question is: it their electorate, that is a good thing. In many ways, could be. I would suggest that the protocols arose because David Hamilton: Chairman, just an observation. people had not thought through at the beginning Every party answered in the same way, ie that to how the Parliament would work in practice. keep the Parliament functioning properly requires Mrs Quinn: I do not think anybody could have 129. Not one mention was made about foreseen at the beginning some of the tensions that representation of the people. Does it require 129 to developed between list MSPs and the constituency have that representation of the people? It does not. MSPs. There was a situation where people were being shadowed and issues were being cherry picked. Q19 Mr Carmichael: I am very interested in what I think if it clears the matter up for the constituent Mark said about cutting the number of MSPs and then it is the right thing to do. that you could work longer days. Would you give us a bit more detail of your thinking? Councillor McInnes: It responds to the argument Q17 Mr Sarwar: Presumably, all the political that the committee structure at present in the parties in Scotland are in favour of reducing the Scottish Parliament relies on 129 MSPs. Perhaps number of Westminster constituencies in Scotland fewer MSPs could actually do more to keep that but are you in favour of retaining the number of committee structure functioning, keep that stability MSPs at 129? there. A number of MSPs are not working the same Dr Barrie: Yes. The committee system seems to be committee hours as Members are in this House. working very well in the Scottish Parliament and any time there is talk of reducing the numbers of Q20 Mr Carmichael: So you are thinking of moving committees people claim that that will greatly to a situation where you would be finishing at 10 increase the workload. o’clock, as we do here on a Monday, for example? Councillor McInnes: To make up the shortfall in Councillor McInnes: Not necessarily. committees, we would see the Scottish Parliament working longer days rather than the present Q21 Mr Carmichael: What do you have in mind? timetable to make up for those lost members. That is what I am trying to tease out. Mr Thoms: I do not think it is any secret that we Councillor McInnes: Yes, the committee work would would like to see the reduction of MPs at be done with fewer Members. Westminster to zero. When it comes to the number Dr Barrie: Is your thinking of extending the hours of of Scottish Parliament Members, certainly 129 has the Scottish Parliament, not influenced by the fact been the minimum working arrangement, and that most Conservative Members are list Members, experience has shown that, in terms of the committee and do not have the very large constituency structure, it has been important to keep to that sort workload that many of the other Members have. of level. However, if it came to looking at changes in terms of how Members are elected, we should not be Q22 Chairman: Can I play devil’s advocate for a hung up on the number 129 specifically; we should minute? Nobody seemed to say much about the have something around that area, but that is reduction of numbers at Westminster. Half of the workable, and if it means increasing it to 135 or workload of Westminster went to Edinburgh, and in dropping it to 128, that should not be a problem. If fact, it was a workload that was done in one hour a you are looking at something that creates month here at that time. That was part of the coterminosity to a certain degree, let us be flexible argument, that we could not do all of the work, the around that specific number, but 129, under the work was not being done at all because we did not current system, should be held as being something have the time. Now that we are short of that one that creates a decent operating system, both for hour, we only need 59 Members, but to do that one Members and for the public. hour’s work that we had in a month, Edinburgh Mrs Quinn: The Scottish Labour Party’s position at needs 129. Can anybody give me their observations the moment is that the Scottish Parliament should on that? remain at 129, and that has more to do with the Mr Thoms: If you look at the Bills that have gone stability of the Parliament in the first term, because through the Scottish Parliament in four years, there are a number of issues, and we believe there Scotland has been better served in terms of should be a full term to try and get some stability. legislation, policy and executive scrutiny than was Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms ever achieved through Westminster in the previous Dr Barrie: I am not clear what you mean by that. 40 years. If we are going to make comments about the level of what an MP or an MSP does in terms of Q25 Mr Duncan: We seem to be evolving to an ever quality of work, more so in terms of quantity of time greater size of the Scottish Parliament and a greater that is put in here and in terms of debate time, there structure. We never seem to go back to the roots of needs to be a more sensible approach to how we the Scotland Act, which said the number of MSPs review this, because I do not think Westminster could reduce, and the Parliament could still work served Scotland well in terms of the decision-making eVectively. that could be achieved. The UK as a whole could be Dr Barrie: You have to let Parliament last two terms, better served by bringing decisions closer to people if not three terms, and then review; you do not rather than being centralised in London. The British suddenly chop and change after only one term. Government’s view around devolving further powers to the regions of England exemplifies that. You need to put it in the context of why we had a Q26 Mr Lyons: There is an acceptance that we need Scottish Parliament in the first place. 129 because of the committee structure. Everyone Councillor McInnes: Our position is dictated by the has hinted at that in some way. If you increase the fact that the reduction of Members of Parliament number of committees, by logic, you need to was a response to some degree to the West Lothian increase the number of MSPs. What is your attitude question, and we still feel it is important that to that? Scotland’s over-representation, which was there Dr Barrie: Do you need to increase the number of because of the unique situation of Scotland, was not committees? Do you not just change the remits? You needed any more because of the Scottish Parliament. might find some committees where the workload Dr Barrie: I have nothing to add. I agree entirely could be increased and others where the workload is with what Grant said. too much. At some point—Peter’s point—you might Mrs Quinn: The Scottish Labour Party accepts that get a situation where you might do away with a the reduction is there at Westminster. If I could committee if it is found that over four, six, eight respond to a point that Mark made about the years its work could easily go to another committee, committees, I do not think I can let the point go that without any great loss. But you can only do these the committees should be allowed to work, even if things after you have had enough experience and they have to work late. At that time of night I am have the ability to look back at what has happened. preparing the school uniform and the packed lunch for the next day, and I think if those were to be the Q27 Chairman: Is it possible that the committee working conditions, that would prevent quite a structure is wrong? number of people putting themselves forward for Mr Thoms: The committees have been slimmed elected positions. down since the Parliament was formed. There were Councillor McInnes: I would add to that that, in more committees in the first year of the Parliament many ways, the model that somehow Westminster is than there were in the last year of the first session, one of the best parliamentary democracies and has and that was through working practices, accepting the best working practice and is something that we that Members were being spread and having to cover should replicate in Scotland is something which too many committees, and were not given enough should be challenged. time to balance committee work, constituency work and parliamentary debate. The practice and the Q23 Mr Duncan: I am interested in the question that experience in the Scottish Parliament has already reality had not turned out exactly as we anticipated been that we have the right number of committees it, yet what seems clear from three of the working now, but we had more to begin with and we representatives is that 129 is cast in stone. Surely, 129 did not have enough Members to service the larger was a number that was picked back in 1997–98, and number of committees. The answer to that question I cannot understand this hard and fast rule. That has been the experience of the first term of the there are too many politicians in Scotland is a view Scottish Parliament. that is certainly put to me by a lot of people on the streets in Scotland at the moment. Why is that not Q28 Mr Lyons: You have made the point as well something that could be revisited? that there might well be a continual devolution of Dr Barrie: I do not think the 129 is cast necessarily power. You are not going to accept that without in stone, but once you set up a system, you surely further committees or further extension of your have to give it a reasonable amount of time to bed work, I am sure. down and to have a proper inquiry into how it is Mr Thoms: Personally, I would like to see full running and so forth. Therefore, I would think 129 powers returned to the Scottish Parliament in terms should sensibly last for at least two parliaments, and of things that are currently reserved to the UK, and possibly three. yes, I would see a proportionate number of Members of the Scottish Parliament to make it Q24 Mr Duncan: Perhaps this might answer Mark’s workable for the increased workload that is there— point about the committees: we now have two not to say 600, but even 200 might cover the whole Justice Committees in the Scottish Parliament; that of Scotland in terms of the full powers that a Scottish was not anticipated at the start. Why is it we can Parliament could be looking at. If you would like to evolve in one direction but not in the other? tell me more about the powers you think might be Ev 12 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms devolved, that would give us a better idea of how to evidence, and perhaps the Committee could form a plan and how many members we would like to judgment as to exactly which views carry the propose for that Parliament. greatest weight. Mrs Quinn: I think you will see from my evidence Q29 Mr Lyons: I just think there is a problem in that that I talk about the Scottish Labour Party we fly in the face of the views of the public. They do organisation, and whilst it is desirable to have not feel that 129 needs to be extended or even coterminous boundaries, at this moment in time, maintained. The people I meet say the opposite. with the proposed changes, the fact is that the Mrs Quinn: I think there is—maybe I should not say Scottish Labour Party supports 129 remaining as the this in this place—a general cynicism about size of the Scottish Parliament, the fact that there is politicians no matter what Parliament it is that you no evident change in the way in which MSPs will be represent. To go back, the Scottish Labour Party’s elected, and by accepting that the Westminster position about remaining at 129 to ensure stability is boundaries, the constituencies will be reduced then. more that we just do not feel there should be a Because of that, you do have boundaries that are not change. It is just about stability. coterminous. My submission related to the Scottish Labour Party’s organisation. What I would just add to that is that the diVerence in boundaries has been Q30 Mr Weir: If the parliaments are evolving, it evident previously, with previous parliamentary may be that a reduction at Westminster is the answer boundary changes and with local government to increases in Edinburgh, should there be a change reorganisation, when boundaries were diVerent. in the powers of the Parliament. I do not see any particular problem with that. Dr Barrie: Mr Lyons talks about what he hears from Q34 Mr Duncan: Just to clarify, because it is an people. I hear from people that “Oh, everything is important point, your view is that it is desirable to now done in Edinburgh. Why do we need even 59 have coterminous boundaries? MPs in Westminster? Surely a dozen is enough?” Mrs Quinn: I am speaking in terms of how I would David Hamilton: Chairman, there is a logical part to organise the Scottish Labour party, the Labour the point that Derek is making, and I understand Party structures, and it would make my job an awful that. I do not have a big issue in relation to 129, but lot easier if we had that. if it is true that it takes two terms, maybe even three, to review what is required in Scotland, is it also true Q35 Mr Duncan: So the view of the Scottish Labour that it might require two terms or three terms before Party is that coterminous boundaries would be you make a change in Westminster? It must be the desirable? same. Mrs Quinn: Within the Labour Party’s organisation, yes. Q31 Mr Sarwar: Do you understand that reducing Mr Thoms: In many ways I do not think it is for a the number of Westminster constituencies and political party to decide or influence the nature of the Westminster MPs will reduce the influence of boundaries to suit their needs. We need to respond Scotland in Britain? What will the consequences of according to what Parliament or the Boundary this be? Commission has decided is the best way of Councillor McInnes: I would say that the reduction representing the electorate, and we should change gives Scotland parity with the rest of the UK. our organisation to fit that need. Councillor McInnes: Ideally, we would all agree with Lesley and we would like terms that make our lives Q32 Mr Sarwar: To 59, but what about a further easier. Our main concern though is for the reduction? electorate, and to avoid confusion for the electorate. Councillor McInnes: Yes, we would lose that parity. In Scotland we have a very strong tradition That is quite right. throughout the UK of constituencies, and people Dr Barrie: I would think that is only likely to happen identifying with a constituency, and going on to if more powers are devolved to the Scottish turn-out, I think people identifying with a Parliament. Otherwise, we would have geographical constituency gives the electorate far more ownership parity throughout the UK. of their elected Member. It pushes up turn-out. We Chairman: We are moving on now to implications have seen in a number of constituencies in Scotland for the electoral system and turn-out. where it has been a tight election, the turn-out has increased because people knew it was marginal and Q33 Mr Duncan: In the evidence that was supplied they cared desperately about who represented that to the Committee, one of the fundamental area in Parliament. Many of these issues would be diVerences in the evidence was between the Scottish lost and confused in the eyes of the electorate if you Labour Party and the Scottish Conservative Party, did not have coterminous boundaries, because you the Labour Party saying that eVectively have two diVerent boundaries for two diVerent coterminosity need not be a problem in terms of how parliaments, both of which the electorate look to. you administer and organise the political process in Dr Barrie: I agree with that. There is no doubt that, Scotland, and the Scottish Conservative Party if we do not have coterminosity, there will be far saying that this is likely to lead to problems and is more problems for the party hacks amongst us than another hurdle to overcome in the electoral process. for other people. Try to explain to somebody Could you just expand on your reasons for that selecting candidates, “You live in the Prestonfield Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms ward in Edinburgh and you select a candidate for there is a big job for the parties and it creates a great Edinburgh South for the Scottish Parliament, but problem for the parties in getting a message at the you do not select a candidate for Edinburgh South Scottish parliamentary level. but for Edinburgh South West for Westminster.” Dr Barrie: I have nothing to add. I am in total Those are the sort of practical problems on the agreement with what Mark says. We are going to ground that will take up a lot of our time trying to have real headaches over this. We have already sort out, with people on the phone complaining, not decided as a party that we are going to keep our sure of where they are. organisation based on the Scottish Parliament constituencies, but it will still create real problems Q36 Mr Duncan: Just to summarise the diVerence for selection of candidates and so on for between the Scottish Conservative Party and the Westminster. As John MacDougall says, we have to Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservative’s see what is best for the voter, and I still think that Party’s view is that non-coterminous boundaries STV, which brings two or three of the new would be a disadvantage in terms of how you Westminster constituencies together as a building represent the people in the electoral process, and the block for a multi-member seat, is probably the Scottish Labour Party’s view is that non- answer. coterminous boundaries are pragmatically just Mr Thoms: I do not think the party organisation going to have to be accepted because you want to should be the key factor in deciding on things like achieve what we want to achieve. coterminosity. Parties generally have to work across Mrs Quinn: No. My response relates to the Labour boundaries for things like local government Party’s organisation. I do not actually think I am elections, for the European elections. They have to qualified or that I have seen enough evidence that work in diVerent ways to meet diVerent elections and relates to an eVect on the electorate. I am not sure yes, it might be inconvenient that Westminster and that the diVerence in the boundaries has such an the Scottish Parliament elections have something eVect. I am here as General Secretary of the Scottish similar in terms of structure, but political parties Labour Party speaking about Scottish Labour Party have to be more and more fluid about how they organisation, and it would be desirable. evolve to meet changes in how elections are fought. The boundaries in the end become a small part of how a party organises. The big diVerence that aVects Q37 Mr Duncan: Can I clarify the position then: do how the party organises I would suggest is around you think that diVerent boundaries will help the how winnable they think a seat has become since the electoral process? changes, where they have to build on success at Mrs Quinn: As I said, I am speaking about the Scottish Parliament level, whether it can be Scottish Labour Party organisation and the replicated at Westminster, that sort of thing. To structures that are there, and I feel I am just qualified respond to Mr Duncan’s question about turn-out, to speak about that. turn-out only held up, or slightly fell less than other areas where there was a more marginal seat and Q38 Mr MacDougall: I was going to ask a question where votes actually counted. The current system of later on regarding the eVects on party organisation, constituency first past the post voting results in a but we seem to have moved into that, so just to touch number of people thinking their vote does not count, on that a little more strongly, in relation to your because the vast majority of seats in the UK, not just response, each of you have given an opinion on what in Scotland, are seen as safe seats for one particular the impact on the party organisation would be. I party because of geographically spread support. take the point that, obviously, it should not be about Unless you can break it up in a way that people can party; it should be about the public, and goodness feel that their vote is actually worth something, then knows I feel sorry for the public already, with the we might see a turnaround in terms of turn-out confusion that they have to put up with in terms of increasing when people feel their vote actually continual change to boundaries, etc. Is it helpful counts. therefore, in your opinion, to have an easier system Mrs Quinn: I have said that it will cause diYculties for you as party organisers, so as to be able to deliver for the party organisation, but we will meet those a clearer message to the public? Would it not help to challenges. relieve some of the confusion if you had coterminous boundaries, in relation to the point the Labour Party made? Q39 Ann McKechin: As I understand it, for most of Councillor McInnes: Yes, it would, because it would the parties the new Westminster boundary will form mean we had a clear, local, geographically based the main organisation unit for your local parties—it constituency organisation, delivering a local may or may not—but clearly in many cases, message that will relate directly to that electorate in certainly for the Labour Party, and presumably for keeping that message localised. Inevitably, when the Conservative Party, the local party unit is the you do not have coterminous boundaries, there are most powerful factor in terms of selection of going to be, as Derek said, grey areas round the candidates. The one thing which the Scottish edges, in some cases quite dramatic grey areas Parliament has achieved, to their credit, is a better because the boundaries can be quite diVerent. In degree of gender balance than has occurred at some constituencies the Scottish Parliament will Westminster. If we end up with parties having a completely disappear to meet the electoral model. party unit which is based on the Westminster There will no longer be a constituency. So I think boundaries, where constituencies are predominantly Ev 14 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms represented by men, do you think it will make it of this is about coterminosity, but I wonder what more diYcult for female members to achieve innovations you think would increase turn-out, selection in the Scottish Parliament, where they have particularly amongst younger people. to run between various diVerent party units to Dr Barrie: I do not think gimmicks are the answer. elicit support? I do not think e-voting or things like that are Dr Barrie: That is relevant to us in that the way we necessarily the answer. You have to make people see operate is the other way round; we will have the politics as of relevance to them. You have to make Scottish Parliament constituencies as our local party them see that their vote counts. Again, if you go to organisations. a properly proportional system like STV, you can Councillor McInnes: Much as I would like to find persuade people that their vote is more relevant another reason for coterminous boundaries, 100% countrywide. I would be very suspicious, and I think of our members choose, so it would be the same we have a unique triumvirate here agreeing. The members who are choosing for both. If they are three of us are all putting in submissions to an going to choose a woman or a man, it is the same Electoral Commission against the all-postal pilot for people who are doing it, so I do not really think the the European elections for Scotland. There are all way the new boundaries are drawn is going to make sorts of reasons for that. If you look at the last abigdiVerence. English by-election, in Lewisham, held under an all- Mr Thoms: In many ways, the strength of our party postal ballot, the turn-out was 24%. In other words, is going to be in the branches, not in the constituency the novelty is wearing oV, and I do not think any of or campaign committees that may be set up to fight these gimmicks are of any use. You must interest particular elections for Westminster or Scotland or people in the political process. Also, you should Europe. It is going to be at a level that is much closer have the vote at 16. to people in terms of how people are organised and Councillor McInnes: I agree with the first part of how members can become involved in local issues. Derek’s answer. I do not think gimmicks work. I That is what is going to determine a lot of people think clarity is very important, that people can easily being involved in political parties and taking part in see that they are electing a local representative. It the process. Most modern political parties are falls upon all of us—and perhaps we are failing as looking to OMOV as a way of becoming involved in political parties in getting issues that are relevant, selecting a candidate, so gone are the days of not just people feeling that their vote counts but that constituency delegates deciding for the electorate we are dealing with issues that they really care about locally who their MP or MSP might be. In terms of and thereby encouraging them to make that eVort to the gender issue, I personally would like to see more walk to the polling station and vote. I do not think positive action and support mechanisms to increase all-postal ballots and e-voting would make a the number of women, people from ethnic significant diVerence. minorities, and disabled people becoming involved Mr Thoms: In terms of engaging young people in in political parties and becoming elected, politics in general, making it relevant is important, particularly in my own party, and that is something but actually the Children and Young People’s Unit that we can look at every time there is a change in and the Youth Reporting Network produced a terms of the electoral system. Certainly, single report last month that had very clear messages to transferrable vote gives the choice to the electorate parliamentarians, to government and to the media to decide who will be their representatives and they about how to engage with young people, about how will decide the gender balance of the Parliament to make them feel more interested in politics, and rather than the parties. That is where we can do our therefore to make the determination that they are bit to put forward a balance of men, women, people going to vote. I think there should be greater choice from diVerent backgrounds, creating the diversity around how people can vote. I am in favour of that Parliament should have, but really it is the looking at ways that increase the accessibility of electorate who should have the choice and should voting. A lot of the technological side of how voting make the decision as to who will be the elected can be done needs to be changed. A lot of electoral members. administration systems need to be changed. People Mrs Quinn: Our constitutional unit, constituency should have much more flexibility about where they party association, whatever, will be based on can vote, and how they can cast that vote. We are Westminster, but as you know, the new Labour still very much in the dark ages in terms of an Party does already elect its candidates through electoral administration system. If people felt that OMOV, and we have done for a number of years their vote actually counted, and they cast a vote to now, and I am quite proud of the fact that we put in create an additional member, to have that choice place mechanisms to ensure that we did get a high about who they eventually they want to have as their number of women selected, who then obviously put member, or preferably to be single transferable vote themselves forward to the electors and to the that they create a range of people to elect from a Scottish Parliament. constituency, that would engender far more interest in turning out to vote because it will actually count. Mrs Quinn: I am not absolutely sure that the method Q40 Mr Weir: We have touched on this question of of voting, whether it is e-voting, postal or whatever, turn-out, and there should be a concern about what will encourage more young people to get involved. It appears to be a trend of lowering turn-outs in each is more to do with engagement, it is more to do with election, particularly amongst younger people. Part issues, it is more about them feeling that what is Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 15

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms going on in their lives is important, and I think a lot on the list of EMs, so eVectively constituents are of it is down to us as political parties to try and make faced with the same two personalities in a sure that we engage as many young people as we can constituency but they are still both elected, and in the political process. Also, it is down to elected many of them say to me, “What was the point of representatives and politicians to engage young going through that process anyway?” people more in what we do, but in doing so, treat Dr Barrie: Currently, three of the first four were all them with respect and not do gimmicky things elected. You have to go back to the system which because it is cool—those are the sort of words my makes all MSPs equal, and that is the single daughter uses at the moment. transferable vote. Going back to Mr Sarwar’s question, I would simplify the electoral system by having STV for everything. But do not misjudge the Q41 Mr Sarwar: With this multi-ward system for voters; they are not quite as confused as you think. council elections, we are going to have one system An awful lot of people deliberately give their second for electing our councillors, another system for vote to the greens, because the greens campaign very electing Members of the Scottish Parliament, a third strongly for that second vote, and people saw it as a system for Westminster and a fourth system for the second preference and so voted green. I would judge European Parliament. How is it going to help? Do how people understand systems better after the you not think it will confuse people more than London elections this year, because they are going to before. I have experienced during the Scottish have the list for London and for Europe, they are Parliament election and the council elections that going to have first past the post for the Local there are a lot of confused people who do not know Government Assembly constituency member, they how to vote. Do you think it will make it even more are going to have the additional member system for diYcult for people? the top-up for the LGA and they are going to have Councillor McInnes: Yes. I would disagree with what you vote one of two for the Mayor of London, so Grant said. I do not think lots of young people were four diVerent systems all on the one day. My view keen to go and vote at the Scottish Parliamentary would be, if Londoners can cope with it, Scots can elections because it had a proportional aspect in it. probably cope with it as well. Fewer voted than voted in the 2001 Westminster first past the post election. That is because they felt it was relevant to them, and they felt more engaged with Q43 Mr MacDougall: Nobody has mentioned Westminster perhaps, and the prime minister and education yet, but is there a role for education? Can who the prime minister was. So I think it comes back that be beefed up in some way? Can that make a to issues, and I do not think that playing around diVerence? The point has been made, but I would not with the voting method is actually going to aVect be under any illusion, because if you compare the turn-out, other than making it more confusing as to Westminster turn-out with the Scottish Parliament who you are going to elect and putting people oV turn-out, you ignore the reduction in the Scottish making the eVort to go and vote. Parliament turn-out from the referendum about Mrs Quinn: In terms of turn-out, there are two whether to have a Scottish Parliament and the issues. There is a growing cynicism and enthusiasm there. I think there is a general loss of disengagement in politics and the political process, confidence in the public, not just in Scotland, or and we need to try and find ways to change that. I indeed in the UK, but in the world of politics, and it have not seen evidence that actually indicates that is how you restore the importance of democracy in the method by which a person will vote is one of the young people’s minds at the same time as we are reasons why turn-out has decreased. We have seen trying to convince other countries why democracy is over a number of years that turn-out at elections is important. It flies in the face of that if our figures are reducing, and it is no just a Scotland issue; it is going down and we are telling everybody else how becoming worldwide. wonderful it is. Does education have a role in this process? Mrs Quinn: Very much. My interest in politics and Q42 Mr Duncan: Several of you have pointed, quite the political process came through the Modern rightly, to the fact that you have to come forward Studies, which was one of the subjects I just loved; with policies and issues that young people will I could not get enough information in relation to it. engage with, but would you agree that electoral Children are being taught more and more about systems are also an important part of firing up turn- environmental issues, which I was not taught about. out? We talked earlier on about marginal If through our education process we can try and constituencies where people are fired up to make a have some awareness raising and talk to young decision, but in the Scottish Parliament context, I people about the importance of the democratic wonder whether you agree with me that there is a process, I think that would be superb. perceived view that the way that PR has been set up, however we go through this electoral process, we are going to end up with an executive of roughly the Q44 Mr Carmichael: If, as you all seem to agree, the same composition as we have now. Importantly, at important thing is for politicians to fire up the constituency level, vis-a-vis EMs, very often you get imagination of the electorate and go out there and a constituency member being overturned by the first grab them and shake them and have their attention Ev 16 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms undivided, is it possible, do you think, that we have the electorate, because it is the electorate we are wasted the last hour and ten minutes? Have we talking about. My question is this: should we have contributed to that process? compulsory voting? Do you agree with that? Mr Thoms: If you change the electoral system to Dr Barrie: I do not agree with compulsory voting at allow more people to vote, and make their vote all. If you were to introduce it, you would have to do count through the single transferable vote, then yes, what the late David Penhaligon said: you would you will change the nature of it. The current systems, have to put “none of the bastards” at the bottom as particularly for constituency seats, which a choice. predominate in the Scottish Parliament as much as Mr Thoms: The European elections are not in Westminster, leave it to the party chiefs. Look at conducted by single transferable vote. It is multi- marginal seats. Increased turn-out is not just member, first past the post. It is true that if you have because their vote counts, but because parties put compulsory voting, you should have the option resources into those seats, so there is a dialogue “none of the above”. Things like that should be at taking place, people talking to you on the street. least piloted and tested. Part of this discussion Quite often people will say in that constituency they should be looking more at what the Government has will receive more contact from political parties than been looking at, which I welcome; it is looking at maybe an adjacent seat would ever hear from a how to change our electoral systems. We keep politician because it is not regarded as winnable by talking about turn-out because that is the hot topic any one other party. That is the system which we of the day, without actually focusing on what we are have created in this country, and it is no wonder doing to change the infrastructure for how elections people feel distant from the political process, that are carried out in this country. If we made changes they do not feel they can influence it in any way, and there, we might have more people coming out. It therefore their vote does not really matter. These are takes a bit of eVort and it takes resources, and at the the results that happen all the time and nothing moment it is just not happening. really changes. Mrs Quinn: I think there should be a choice in terms of how people vote, though I disagree with individuals here in relation to the European election. Q45 Mr Weir: I agree with what Derek said about Without being contentious, look at the number of gimmicks. It does occur to me there is also a question people that vote on a Saturday night for Pop Idol; all of choice, and we should not say we have to fire up they have to do is pick up the phone. It is one system the electorate because we have all to some extent and a lot of people use that to vote. If it is the case failed to do so. Should we not be looking at diVerent that people are not coming out to vote, we need to choices and oVering a range of voting options to try find a way to get them engaged and involved. and increase the turn-out, whether it is all postal or all e-voting or whatever, but give a range of choices to people how they vote to encourage them to vote? Q47 Chairman: What about compulsory voting? Councillor McInnes: I think we have moved forward Mrs Quinn: I do not think so. a great deal in postal voting, for example, and I think Councillor McInnes: No. the fact that it is now very easy to get an absent vote Dr Barrie: Can I add a point on the European is a good thing and something a lot more Scots are system? What is wrong with it is that it is a closed list using than have ever done before. It is something all and it is the parties who decide the order on it. A the parties have tapped into and been flexible system that would be much better is an open list, enough to use and to encourage people to get absent where the voters not only picked the party but they votes. That is a good example, but the choice is still picked the people within their own party—let them there and I think choice is always good. That is why choose between, let us say, a euro-sceptic we have very serious concerns about the European conservative and a euro-phobic conservative, if elections, because it is removing choice. A lot of there is any such thing left. people carry out their civic duty by going to vote, that is something that is very important to them, and it is part of the democracy in this country. Q48 Mr Lyons: Going back to the issue of engaging David Hamilton: I was wondering about the with young people, how serious are you about European elections. Is it not by a voting system extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds? which you are espousing? I know it is not STV, but Where do you stand on that? it is also a system where people vote for the slate and Dr Barrie: If you are old enough to fight for your they vote for the party. It lacks individuals. That to country and old enough to marry, then you are old me is a major issue which has been reported by at enough to vote. least three of the parties sitting there. It disconnects. Councillor McInnes: It is not something we have Mr Carmichael: That is nonsense. really considered. Mr Thoms: We are totally committed to reducing the voting age to 16, and also to reducing the age of Q46 David Hamilton: The position surely must be people standing as candidates. Turn-out is not just that we must find a mechanism which can be agreed about young people; the middle aged group 45–54 to by all, and that system should be based on the fact was the biggest drop in turn-out in this election in that there is a constituency link or a ward link with Scotland. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 17

4 November 2003 Mrs Lesley Quinn, Councillor Mark McInnes, Dr Derek Barrie and Mr Grant Thoms

Mrs Quinn: We do not have a view at the moment Chairman: Can I thank you very much, ladies and about the reduction in the voting age. gentlemen, for your full and frank answers today. If there is anything you wish to add, please feel free to do so now. Thank you for your attendance, and your evidence will be very helpful to us when we come to compile our report. Ev 18 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Tuesday 11 November 2003

Members present:

Mrs Irene Adams, in the Chair

Mr Alistair Carmichael Ann McKechin Mr Peter Duncan John Robertson David Hamilton Mr Mohammed Sarwar Mr John Lyons Mr Michael Weir Mr John MacDougall

Memorandum submitted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)

Introduction 1. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) is the national voice of local government in Scotland. Its high priority work areas reflect its commitment to promote the position of local government as the legitimate tier of government closest to the people of Scotland. COSLA takes the lead in shaping the future of local government and ensuring that local Councils remain at the heart of public service delivery. Thirty one of Scotland’s 32 councils are members of COSLA. 2. COSLA welcomes the invitation to present written evidence to the Scottish AVairs Committee’s inquiry into Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequence of Change. This submission expands on the initial brief response submitted on 17 October and deals in some more detail with the two key questions being considered by the Committee: —diVerential between constituency boundaries involving the Scottish and UK Parliaments; and — implications for turnout at elections and clarity for the electorate of there being four separate voting systems in Scotland.

Differential between Constituency Boundaries involving the Scottish and UK Parliaments 3. The Committee’s inquiry is considering the implications of reducing the number of Scottish constituencies at Westminster from 72 to 59 whilst not reducing the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. COSLA has not formally discussed the proposal to reduce the number of Scottish Westminster constituencies or to amend the Scotland Act to retain the current 129 MSPs. 4. COSLA was a leading member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and played a prominent role in drawing up the Convention’s blueprint for a Scottish Parliament, including the proposal to have 129 MSPs. COSLA sees no compelling reason to reduce the number of MSPs. 5. The Government’s decision to leave the size of the Scottish Parliament unchanged whilst supporting the reduction in the number of Westminster MPs will remove the co-terminosity of constituency boundaries for the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. However, the principle of retaining co-terminosity of boundaries for the two Parliaments has already been breached in the Scotland Act in two respects. The Act split the Orkney and Shetland Westminster constituency into two separate Scottish Parliament constituencies—Orkney and Shetland—and it created 56 MSPs representing eight regional constituencies. 6. The creation of 59 Westminster constituencies which do not have co-terminous boundaries with 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies is likely to cause confusion among constituents who will be in diVerent constituencies. However the lack of co-terminous Parliamentary boundaries will have little impact from a local authority perspective. Most councils already have to work in partnership with a large number of organisations or representatives covering a myriad of diVerent boundaries. Councils have developed eVective working arrangements for dealing with elected representatives at local, Scottish, Westminster and European level whose constituencies are not co-terminous. For example, East Lothian Council has to work with two Westminster MPs (East Lothian and East Edinburgh & Musselburgh), two MSPs (East Lothian and East Edinburgh & Musselburgh), seven MSPs from the South of Scotland list and, potentially, eight MEPs from the Scotland Euro constituency. 7. The proposal to reduce the number of Westminster constituencies from 72 to 59 will rectify some obvious anomalies with regards to existing constituency boundaries. For example, by bringing Musselburgh into the East Lothian constituency it will make the Westminster boundary co-terminous with the local authority boundary. However, it will create another set of anomalies such as the proposed Peebles, Clydesdale and Annandale constituency which will spread over three local authorities—Scottish Borders, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries & Galloway. The MP for this constituency will have to develop working relationships with three councils and these three councils will have to “compete” with each other for the Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 19

MPs attention and support. However, this problem arises not because of the lack of co-terminosity between Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies but because of the way that constituency boundaries cut across local authority boundaries. 8. As the Committee will be aware, the vast majority of MPs and constituency MSPs have developed very good day-to-day working relationships which mean that they follow clear guidelines about how to take up constituency cases and local issues. This assists councils that are asked to deal with constituents’ cases and queries about local issues. There is some anecdotal evidence that councils have greater problems in relation to list MSPs taking up constituents’ cases and local issues which are also being taken up by constituency MSPs thereby increasing the workload of council oYcers.

Implications for Turnout at Elections and Clarity for the Electorate of there being Four Separate Voting Systems in Scotland 9. COSLA has consulted its member authorities on several occasions on the proposal to replace the First Past the Post electoral system for local government elections with another system. COSLA’s view is that debate on electoral systems is a diversion from action on the key issues facing Scottish local government, including local government’s role, status and credibility; its resourcing; and, constitutional issues impacting on its relationship with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. 10. COSLA acknowledges that there is a committed minority view within and among member councils which supports change with a range of electoral systems being preferred to First Past the Post, including the Alternative Vote (AV), variations on AV, and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). However, the view of the majority of COSLA’s member councils is that there should be no change to the status quo. The First Past The Post system provides for strong political leadership of a Council with a clear mandate to carry through the programme of measures put to the electorate. It also provides a clear member-ward link and gives a fair opportunity for independent councillors to be elected. 11. COSLA’s position on STV and views on the practical implementation of STV submitted to the Scottish Executive’s consultation on the draft Local Governance Bill (September 2003) are attached as an annex to this submission. 12. With regards to the impact that having four separate voting systems in Scotland will have on turnout at elections COSLA would point out that the experience from the two Scottish Parliament elections, which were held on the same day as local government elections would suggest that the electorate is can be turned oV by having to use diVerent voting systems. The higher number of spoilt ballot papers for in the List vote for the Scottish Parliament suggests a certain amount of voter confusion. 13. COSLA would suggest that in a combined Local Government/Scottish Parliament election where an STV voting system has been introduced for the local government election there is undoubtedly scope for voter confusion and an increased number of spoilt ballot papers. Uniquely in any democratic system, voters would be expected to cast their votes in three diVerent ways—using a cross for a candidate in one ballot paper, choosing between parties in another ballot paper, and listing candidates from the same and diVerent parties in numerical order of preference in the third ballot paper. 14. COSLA’s response to the draft Local Governance Bill consultation paper strongly supports the view that an extensive information and education campaign would be required to explain to the electorate the complexities of conducting elections and counts using three voting systems. 15. The Scottish Executive’s proposal to change the electoral system for local government elections will provide Scottish electors with four diVerent electoral systems for four tiers of government. COSLA notes that a case could be made for some form of review of all electoral systems used for electing representatie to the diVerent levels of government in Scotland. November 2003

APPENDIX

EXTRACT FROM COSLA’S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL CONSULTATION (SEPTEMBER 2003)

1. Changing the Electoral System 1.1 In response to previous consultation exercises which have proposed changing the electoral system for Local Government elections COSLA has consistently made the case that debate is a diversion from action on the key issues facing Scottish local government, including local government’s role, status and credibility; its resourcing; and, constitutional issues impacting on its relationship with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. COSLA’s view was, and remains, that the case for change has not been made. Ev 20 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

1.2 COSLA has highlighted three crucial factors which should be taken into account when considering the electoral system for local government elections: — the maintenance of the member-ward link; — the straightforward election of a community representative is more important than focusing on achieving proportionality at council level in terms of votes cast across the Council area; and — any electoral system must be able to accommodate the election of independent councillors. 1.3 COSLA acknowledges that there is a committed minority view within and among member councils which supports change with a range of electoral systems being preferred to First Past the Post, including the Alternative Vote (AV) and the Single Transferable Vote (STV). 1.4 However, the view of the majority of COSLA’s member councils is that there should be no change to the status quo. The First Past The Post system provides for strong political leadership of a Council with a clear mandate to carry through the programme of measures put to the electorate. It also provides a clear member-ward link and gives a fair opportunity for independent councillors to be elected. 1.5 COSLA feels that undue account has been taken of issues of proportionality in the decision to adopt the STV system of proportional representation. The other criteria identified by the McIntosh Commission, with which COSLA was in agreement, appear to have been downgraded and, in the case of the criteria regarding fair provision for independents, bypassed. McIntosh clearly recognised that large areas of Scotland are represented in local government primarily by independent councillors, and suggested that allowance for geographical diversity be considered. COSLA urges the Executive to reconsider the emphasis placed on the issue of proportionality, and to give an equal prominence to all the criteria identified by the McIntosh Commission, in particular the maintenance of the member/ward link, the geographical diversity of Scotland, and the need to accommodate the election of independents. 1.6 COSLA’s rural and islands authorities have consistently opposed the introduction of proportional representation, and in particular STV, for council elections, largely on the grounds that there has never been a tradition of party political representation in these areas, and that the councillor/ward link which is highly cherished would be diminished. The view of these Councils is that STV would not encourage members of the public to seek election to the Council, since it requires candidates to campaign over a wider area with additional expense, and inevitably reduces the individual councillor/ward link. There is less likely to be interest from the public in representing large areas which do not correspond to their natural communities, especially in rural and islands areas. 1.7 Another concern identified by COSLA’s members, in particular though not exclusively by rural and islands councils, is the diYculty in ensuring that the larger wards, which will be required to accommodate three or four members under the STV system proposed in the draft Bill, correspond to natural communities. 1.8 The proposal to specify that the STV system should be based on three or four member wards appears to satisfy neither the supporters nor the opponents of proportional representation. The smaller the number of councillors elected per ward under STV the less truly proportional the result will be. However, prescribing a strict limit on the number of councillors per ward reduces the Local Government Boundary Commission’s ability to make the new Council wards co-terminus with natural communities. The geography of rural and islands councils means that some of the three or four member wards which would emerge would be extremely large in area. This issue is most severe in the Highland Council area where even single member wards are extremely large in area.

2. Views About the Practical Implementation of STV? 2.1 There are substantial concerns about the practical implications of introducing STV for council elections, which will need to be resolved prior to the introduction of the new voting system. These concerns raise the question of the desirability of the continued combination of the Local Government and Scottish Parliament elections being held on the same day. 2.2 There are major concerns regarding the complexities of conducting elections and counts in a combined Local Government/Scottish Parliament election where three diVerent voting systems will be used—First Past the Post, List System and STV, the last of which is totally unknown in Scotland. These concerns would be multiplied if the Electoral Commission’s proposal to introduce all-postal voting for council elections is introduced since there is great potential for confusion and uncertainty in introducing two major changes in electoral practice at the same time. 2.3 The change to the STV system will require significant changes to the current organisation of local elections, and the count itself will be very complex. The Executive will have to undertake to commit resources to training for returning oYcers and election staV in the practicalities of the conduct of the election and the count. 2.4 Similarly there will also need to be a commitment to fund and undertake a substantial voter awareness campaign to explain the complexities of STV and the Droop quota system. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 21

2.5 STV is a time consuming process which will increase the time required to conduct counts. In Northern Ireland it can take approximately one and a half days to complete the counting process for a full Council election with 30 vacancies to be filled. For example, a recent by-election in Newry in Northern Ireland took over five hours to complete with only 6,000 votes. 2.6 It would be impossible to have a manual count for the two Scottish Parliament ballot papers on the night of the election and then proceed to an STV count the next morning. If STV is introduced and there continue to be combined polls with manual counts there will be no prospect of all the processes being finalised the day after the poll. There would have to be a reasonable gap between the Parliament and Council elections with the latter starting at the earliest on the Saturday after the day of poll. It should be borne in mind that elections normally take place on the Thursday prior to a Bank Holiday and this means that it will be even more diYcult and expensive to recruit staV to work on the count over the weekend. 2.7 One specific issue which will need to be considered is the possible implications for voters with disabilities. Recently, considerable eVort and expense has been invested in helping voters with disabilities cast their votes as independently as possible. A voting template was introduced to every polling station to allow blind or illiterate voters to register their votes by themselves. It will not be possible to use the template in an STV election. 2.8 Finally, another practical issue which needs to be considered is the level of election expenses allowable to candidates in multi-member wards.

Witnesses: Cllr Pat Watters, President, COSLA, Cllr Jim McCabe, COSLA Representative on the Scottish Executive’s STV Working Group, and Mr Paolo Vestri, Policy Manager, Governance and Democracy Team, COSLA, examined.

Q49 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen, thank how we look at that and deal with the electoral you very much for your attendance and for your system is something which goes along with the written submission. Before the Committee starts on boundary changes which are being suggested at the specific questions, is there anything you wish to say present time, and we have a deep interest in how that in support of your memorandum or would you is done. As you know, COSLA’s submission prefer to wait until we have completed the questions indicated their opposition to the changes in electoral and see if there is anything you wish to add at the systems for local government. Although that is not end? a unanimous decision of COSLA it is the majority Cllr Watters: I would rather open up with a short view, I think only four out of the 32 councils have a statement if you do not mind. view in favour of PR in some shape or form. I think my colleague, Jim McCabe, would like to say few words and then we would be happy to go to your Q50 Chairman: Certainly. questions. Cllr Watters: We are delighted to be here and thanks Cllr McCabe: One of the main reasons why I was very much for the invitation to come. We are only too pleased to come down and share some of our part of the No No campaign for the Scottish thoughts with yourselves. The first thing to say is Parliament was that I thought MPs were quite that moving away from co-terminous boundaries capable of doing what was required for this country would be something which we believe would not without another tier of government thrown in. only bring about a bigger local authority but would However, the Scottish Parliament is here. Pat has aVect parliamentary quality. We think a bigger alluded to the voting systems and the need for bigger constituency covering more local authority areas turn out in elections but we continue to put obstacles V would be something MPs would find diYcult to up by introducing di erent voting systems; the maintain. More importantly, the co-terminosity of introduction of STV for local authorities, which I boundaries would aVect the electorate and they think will percolate up to the Scottish Parliament would think that is more important than the elected and maybe even get to Westminster sometime. I do members, and we feel it is important to say that. I not agree with it for a number of perfectly good think there is enough confusion amongst the reasons. If we are going to encourage people to come electorate at the present time without further and put a mark down and vote for us, we have to confusion and seeing problems of not knowing who simplify it and hopefully have one method for was representing them. If you look at the present everyone. The system introduced for the Scottish situation in Scotland, we have four diVerent Parliament of a List system means people who are electoral systems for all diVerent levels of totally unelectable are elected. In the last term of the government, and we are experiencing the situation Scottish Parliament we had one person who had where the number of spoilt ballot papers is fought in six elections, did not accrue 1,000 votes in increasing as a result of people being unsure or total, but by virtue of the List system she represented uncertain about how they deal with that particular a party within the Scottish Parliament and was part situation. We think that is sad because to improve of the decision-making process for the whole democracy and improve voter participation is vitally country; an unelectable person. The idea of reducing important for the democracy of this country and we the number of MPs is once again leading to would not like to see anything which diminishes that confusion. If it does go through, and I hope it does involvement. Leading on from that, the problems of not, I will gain Tom Clarke and I am happy with that Ev 22 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri but I will lose John Reid, and I am not happy with That is not democratic. What would happen at that that, but that is the system. If we are to try and point is instead of having a clear mandate from the encourage people to make their mark and let us electorate, a week after the election parties would get know how they feel, we are going to do it by together behind closed doors and cobble up a simplifying the thing, rather than putting up process to take forward their particular part of the obstacles. Every time we change the system, every manifesto. That is not democracy, that is changing time we change the personnel, we put obstacles up democracy. We need a clear-cut decision and we because the more you have people having to work at need to meet the issue of putting forward policies to it, the more you will chase that person away. It leads the electorate. to total confusion, and the quicker we change and think about it the better results we will get. Q52 Chairman: Do you think there has been a lot of duplication of questions to local authorities from Q51 Chairman: In your memorandum you state letters by MSPs over the past? that COSLA members would prefer another form of Cllr McCabe: Some people see a pecking order electoral system to the first past the post but this is a here—MSP, MP and then councillor. In work terms minority view. However, last week the Committee the councillor does more work than the MP or the was informed by both the SNP and the Scottish MSP. Liberal Democrats that they would prefer elections to the Scottish Parliament by STV, single Q53 Chairman: Absolutely. transferable vote, and it seems the Scottish Labour Cllr McCabe: If you go to John Reid or Tom Clarke, Party were not fundamentally opposed to STV for they would tell the person, “Have you been to the local council elections. Could you comment on what councillor? It is not my job, it is his” and that is it seems to be a clear diVerence of opinion between finished. The MSPs do not operate that way. If it is local and national politicians on that? a housing problem, the councillor gets a letter, the Cllr Watters: Quite clearly the Liberal Democrats chief executive gets a letter, the director of housing and the SNP are two parties which represent local gets a letter and the housing oYcer gets a letter, so government. The Liberal Democrats control three four people who are dealing with the same problem. councils and SNP control one council, and those are No matter how often we try and advise them on the the four councils I mentioned. The other 27 councils protocol for this, they choose to ignore it. So it gets which form part of COSLA have a diVerent view. to the stage where I choose to ignore their letters. So Labour, Conservative and all the independent there is no rapport which exists because they are councils are opposed to STV for elections for local treating us with a certain degree of contempt. On the government. I think we have a problem with the question of PR, maybe I have a peculiar mind, but if electoral system in Scotland, and that problem is we have a situation where 56 people are parachuted how we elect the Scottish Parliament, not how we in by the backdoor, they have to justify their elect local government. We see at the present time in existence with 129 of them, and our responsibilities the Scottish Parliament a number of MSPs who have will be sucked up. If you establish a voting pattern no constituency, no base, who cherry-pick on issues where you have hung councils which are not and write to local authorities an amount of operating eYciently, you have powers of correspondence which is unbelievable as is the intervention which they will bring into force and amount of time that takes up for local authorities to before you know where you are they will have deal with. These are matters which the local removed our contacts with organisations like the councillors could deal with and would deal with if it PTA and others. Iit is only a matter of time before was brought to their attention rather than writing to they justify their existence by sucking powers from four or five oYcers in the authority and taking up us. If you use the 2003 figures, only one council their time. How do we see a change happening? The remains in perfect control—North Lanarkshire List system which elects the Scottish Parliament, and Council. There was a clear-cut decision process in changing to STV for local government, is not the North Lanarkshire in 1998 and we have the best vast majority view. If you look at what happened Labour-controlled council in Britain and the reason when we got to the system, there were criteria laid is we had a clear-cut decision. If you get a hung down by both the McIntosh Commission and the council, you do not get that. Executive themselves, saying, “Whatever electoral system we have to represent local government, it should bring elected representatives closer to the Q54 Chairman: Far from seeing devolution people who elect them and not further away.” I do carrying on from the Scottish Parliament down to not believe that criterion has been met. Second, it councils, you think you are seeing it being sucked the should be a popular change. This is no popular other way? change. There is no swing behind STV. It does not Cllr McCabe: Most certainly. move democracy further one inch. You would see, instead of clear-cut decisions from local Q55 Mr Duncan: You have very clearly government, practically every council in Scotland demonstrated some of the practical problems from a elected on a proportional system with no clear-cut councillor’s point of view of how devolution has mandate for them. You would see hung councils; evolved. How much of this was predictable before probably with the exception of one or two you would the Scotland Act? How much of the knock-on see hung councils in 30 out of the 32 authorities. impact on the director of housing, the chief Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 23

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri executive, chasing after cherry-picked issues was Cllr McCabe: That is what happens just now. That predictable, if it was predictable? If it could be is what happens with the List. The List MSPs have addressed by protocols, why was it not done before? an area which they cover, it could include Cllr Watters: I do not think devolution is the Lanarkshire, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire, but problem. I think the system we operate under is the they still have plenty of time to do the mischief they problem. Let me give another example. I come from are doing. Only so many people can be chairs and South Lanarkshire Council, and we are the fifth have specific tasks and you have the remainder who largest authority in Scotland. We have five MPs who have idle hands and they get up to mischief. With are within our area or partly within our area. We regard to the protocol, I met the List MSPs last week have four directly elected MSPs within our area. and three weeks before that I had a meeting with the Because we cover both Central Scotland and part of constituency MSPs, and one of the subjects on the Glasgow, we have 14 List MSPs who can write into agenda was the protocol. I told them about the the authority and justifiably do that. We also have 8 problems we are facing on a daily basis, with 600 MEPs who can write into the authority on behalf of letters a year from MSPs and one MSP sent his constituents. That generates a workload on local councillor 240 letters. That is the kind of thing I am authorities which is totally unnecessary. talking about and no matter how often we have told them, right from the start, established a clear-cut Q56 Mr Duncan: But surely the workload was protocol, they have chosen to ignore it. They go to predictable? the moon and visit the Sea of Tranquility and then Cllr Watters: No. they come back down with more letters for us. They are a source of unnecessary problems for us. It was Q57 Mr Duncan: My question is, do you think it predicted a long, long time ago, the demise of local was predictable? If it was predictable, why have government was a certainty, and that is what we are protocols not been put in place? Why was it not moving towards right now. anticipated at the time? Cllr Watters: We have protocols put in place but the Q61 Mr Sarwar: You seem to think the turn out in protocols can only operate when people adhere to Scotland is falling because of the diVerent electoral them. We tried to get a protocol on how to deal with systems for the Scottish Parliament, local authorities mail, so if it is a council issue they should pass it to and Westminster. But why is the turn-out falling in the local councillor interested in dealing with that, England? but that does not always work. I guess you could say Cllr McCabe: I did not say that was the sole reason, it was predictable in part but what we are seeing is I said it was a contributory factor. The reason why people carving niches out in an area, cherry-picking it is falling is apathy. Some people are totally on issues and writing to everybody. You have MSPs, disillusioned by politicians in general, whether they List MSPs, who will write on a particular issue to are MPs, MSPs or councillors. One of the everyone. contributory factors in Scotland is most certainly the changes in the system and now some changes in the Q58 Mr Duncan: So how much of it is duplication personnel—when you are reducing MPs the people of work? of Scotland are familiar with and have known for X Cllr Watters: The vast majority of it. amount of time, and you are introducing a system where you have STV, a List system, a party system Q59 Mr Weir: Following up on protocols, have you and the first past the post system. made any attempt to come to an agreement with all your representatives and have a single point of Q62 Mr Sarwar: You have just said it is one of the contact? What we do in my area, if we want to main factors. contact a councillor, we go to the chief executive and Cllr McCabe: It is one of the contributory factors. not the departmental heads, for the very reason you duplicate the work by not doing that. Has any attempt been made to do that and has it had any Q63 Mr Sarwar: But this factor does not exist in success? You talk about STV in local government England, so why is the turn-out falling there? leading to confusion, but I wonder if your problem Cllr McCabe: I can talk about Scotland. England is is with MSPs. Do you think STV in the Scottish apathetic! Parliament would lead to a reduction in the number of MSPs you would have to deal with because they Q64 David Hamilton: Jim is expressing his view would be linked to your local area rather than the quite well. Could I ask about the distinction between lists you talk about? MSPs because I believe in my locality there is a Cllr McCabe: If you continue with 129 MSPs, no distinction. The first past the post MSP is identified matter what system you have, you have 129 people and recognised by most of the constituents as the who, unless they have a clear job mandate worked person they should go and see if there is an issue out, will look for things to do. which relates to them. In your work with MSPs is there a big diVerence between the attitude of the Q60 Mr Weir: But under STV in the Scottish MSPs who are first past the post and the way they Parliament, a diVerent MSP would represent deal with councils as opposed to the List system a multi-member constituency, presumably members? Is there a distinction and what is that Lanarkshire or something like that. distinction? Ev 24 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri

Cllr McCabe: Trying to stick with politics, the main Cllr McCabe: You would also have pecking orders distinction is the constituency MSPs in North and turf wars. As it stands at present, I am Leader of Lanarkshire are all Labour MSPs and part of the the Council and in a three-man ward, a three-person Labour Group in North Lanarkshire and I have ward, they would have to go to each in order and contact with them on a regular basis through the eventually get to me, the Leader of the Council. I CLP, COSLA, the Labour Party Executive and think you would have turf wars. You would have therefore I am in contact on a regular basis. I only this build-up of tension and I think it would lead to meet the List MSPs as and when they ask me if there total confusion within the Council and nobody is some specific reason, or there is a letter on my desk making decisions, and that is important. and I might answer it. I do not meet them as regularly as I meet the constituency MSPs. I think Q67 Mr Weir: You made a lot of the problems that is the main reason why there is a diVerence. But covered by MSPs but to come back to my question, it does not make any diVerence, if a letter comes in if you have an STV system for the Scottish from an MSP no matter what party they are from, I Parliament, each of these multi-members will have a will deal with it in the same way. specific geographical area and would that not deal Cllr Watters: I see the main diVerence between a List with your problem? MSP and a directly elected MSP that the directly Cllr McCabe: The easiest way to deal with the elected MSP establishes a relationship because they problem is to have the first past the post system, represent a specific area. That is what they represent, where people get elected on their policies and there they represent that area, they represent everybody are clear-cut decisions made on policies. People within that area, it is their job to do that. When you know exactly who they are dealing with. At present have a List MSP, what they do is they will select an if they go to an MSP who is recognised as the issue and campaign on that issue. They select an constituency MSP, if they do not get what they want, area, probably the area they failed to get elected in they go to a List MSP who raises the issue and it on the first past the post system, and they gives this person the opportunity to home in on a concentrate on that area and concentrate on issues specific issue and make capital on that one specific in that area. That is when it becomes diYcult. You issue and not take on board the whole of what is then get the List MSPs who are issue-driven and they required in a specific constituency. concentrate on an issue and write to every councillor within the area they represent. As Jim says, in Q68 Mr Weir: Can I be blunt and ask you how Central Scotland, that can go from Biggar to much of your views are a reflection of what you were Falkirk, and we can get MSPs writing to us on any saying earlier about your relationship with other issue. They are not establishing a relationship with Labour Members? Have you tried to build up a the council and trying to work together to improve relationship with members from other parties who the lot of the people who have elected them, but they represent your area? are trying to establish credibility for themselves in an Cllr McCabe: I invited the List MSPs only a area because that is what they have selected to do. So fortnight ago and three of them came in, the rest did we have a relationship with directly elected MSPs, not, which was entirely up to themselves. We sent we do not get the same relationship with the List letters to them and they sent their PAs instead of MSPs. They tend to—and I call it “butterfly”—land, coming in person. So I have made overtures to them touch and move, land, touch and move. to attempt to establish a relationship but so far I have had very little response. Cllr Watters: You are describing a situation of a Q65 David Hamilton: They have a diVerent agenda? multi-member ward and would it not be easier to Cllr Watters: Totally diVerent. divide it up? Yes, it would be easier, that is what happens under the List MSPs, they do not represent the whole constituency, they select an area, maybe Q66 Chairman: Do you think going to PR could the area they know and are comfortable with. If you mean you would lose the link with constituency take the situation of STV with Glasgow you would representatives and the constituency? have wards of 25,000 and four councillors per ward Cllr Watters: I will give you an example. If you take with 25,000 constituents. an independent council like the Highlands Council, and you look at moving from the present system, Q69 Mr Weir: I appreciate what you are saying but where they have a direct link to their constituents to that was not my point. I was focusing specifically on making it a three-person or four-person ward, they the MSPs. You said earlier, you have List MSPs would have a ward the size of Switzerland. How can from Central Scotland to Glasgow, together with the somebody be able to travel about? What happens at constituency MSP. What I was asking was, if you the present time with List MSPs, they go the local have STV for the Scottish Parliament and a multi- MSP, directly elected, they are unhappy with the member constituency for the Scottish Parliament, answer they get, they just go to the next one, the next so, for instance you would have Lanarkshire or a one, the next one, and that is what would happen division of Lanarkshire with presumably three or under STV. You do not establish the good solid links four MSPs and they would be the only ones who or get a link between an elected representative and would have contact and the only ones who would the people who elect them if you water it down. have a locus there, do you not think that would solve Watering it down does not serve the electorate best. a lot of your problems which you perceive with the Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 25

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri

List MSPs because you would have four all linked to the opinion you have given, or whether there is a the local area? People would still have a choice which mood of support for that opinion. We have had of these four they went to but it would cut down the witnesses already before the Committee and what number you would have to deal with. seems to be coming forward from them, in terms of Cllr Watters: Yes, it would cut down the number. I what they believe the perception to be, and I would firmly believe however it would not best serve the like to ask you—because it takes me back a long way people who elect them because they would not deal and you are speaking from the heart and that is very with the whole of the area but divide it up. I do not refreshing and I appreciate that—what is the general think that is what they are elected to do. opinion in the Scottish Executive Working Group Cllr McCabe: To give an example, Andrew Wilson on STV? was a List MSP and he covered a considerable area, Cllr McCabe: The general mood of the Scottish Andrew Wilson has done nothing around the Executive of the Labour Party is certainly opposing Cumbernauld area and that is the area he worked in PR. My own interpretation is that Scottish leaders because that is an SNP stronghold. I thought are opposing PR. Consistently, there have been a Andrew Wilson worked there but he was not number of motions to Leslie Quinn from interested in that. The same thing would happen constituencies throughout the country opposing PR. with STV and that is just an example. My own opinion is that it has to go to the Spring Mr Weir: Under the rules of the Scottish Parliament Conference, whether we have a motion debated and you have to operate in at least three constituencies I will expect to talk to the motion in opposing it, within the listed area. where party policy is determined. From that, I would certainly hope that party policy as defined, Q70 David Hamilton: Chairman, can I ask a follow everybody will have to fall in line with party policy up to remarks Pat made? I am a Midlothian and my irrespective of position or you will be in the position neighbouring boundaries are the Borders and the of being asked to operate a two-tier system here two areas which are independent are the Highlands where you can be in the position where you oppose and the Borders. Is my interpretation right? If you go party policy which everybody else is going to abide to an STV system within the councils, the chances of by. I agree with John that that is the place where the independent councillors coming through that ultimate decisions are going to be taken by the rank system would be rare because independent and file at the Scottish Conference. We have been councillors only wish to represent their local area, inundated with the number of motions from they would not want to go into a bigger area? constituencies etc opposing the proposal to Cllr Watters: You are right. Part of the McIntosh introduce PR. Report, part of the criteria which Neil McIntosh laid down, was that whatever system we adopted there Q73 Mr McDougall: Gentlemen, from your own should be no bar to the tradition of local government point of view—and I do not want you to reveal or independent elected councillors. I believe STV— anything that you should not reveal—you have not only do I believe but every single independent mentioned the mood against PR, but is it in favour elected councillor believes—would disenfranchise V of STV or would you say that it is much more finely them as a result of moving to a di erent system. It balanced than that? would be practically impossible for them to be Cllr Watters: The COSLA position is more or less elected because STV is a party system rather than the same position we have been in for quite some independent system. I am a party animal, I believe time and that is that, if we are forced into a PR that the parties are important, but we have a situation, we will consider AV and that is the only tradition in local government of independent elected way in which we are prepared to look at it. I would councillors which enriches local government. For be telling you a lie if I sat here and said that 100% the instance, they are the second biggest organisation Scottish Executive is against this within the Labour within the Convention of Scottish Local Party, but I can certainly say that the vast majority Authorities; the second biggest organisation. Maybe of the unions are totally opposed to the introduction “a group” is not the right way to put it but non- of PR. aligned elected councillors come together to try and Mr Vestri: The Scottish Executive’s Working Group get that independence coming through. I believe is looking at STV. The group’s remit is particularly STV would damage that and damage it very badly. to look at the practical implementations of STV, so Cllr McCabe: Can I ask a question of your it is not going to be looking at the principles of Committee? whether STV is correct or not. The remit of the group is specifically to look at the practical Q71 Chairman: No, we ask the questions here! implementation and the group will be looking at the Cllr McCabe: Sorry! considerable problems that there will be if the system Chairman: We take the evidence and compile that of STV is introduced. It has already begun to look, evidence and present it in our report. for instance, at the numbers of councillors in multi- member wards. The Executive’s proposal at the Q72 Mr MacDougall: This touches on much of moment is that there should be either three or four what has been said so far but, Jim, you have a role in in a multi-member ward. One of the proposals that COSLA in terms of your position with the Scottish has been put forward in particular by independent Executive’s STV group, it would be interesting to councils and in particular by The Highland Council hear from you whether or not you are a lone voice in is that there should be looking at the possibility of Ev 26 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri having a smaller number of councillors in multi- constant duplication that causes an horrendous member wards. They have even suggested having amount of work for local government. We have just one member in an STV multi-member ward or, actually had all our List MSPs in and have spoken at most, two in areas like the Highlands, the Borders to them and said, “You really cannot continue.” We and Argyll & Bute and the Island areas because of have actually reached the situation where we write the problem about creating multi-member wards in back to them and say, “Thank you very much for these very dispersed geographic areas. So, the your inquiry, we have passed it on to the local working group is specifically looking at the practical member”, if it is a matter for the local government to implementation problems. deal with. If it is a matter that the MSPs should be dealing with, they do get a proper reply. Q74 Mr Sarwar: COSLA supported PR for the Scottish Parliament. Did you not envisage at that Q77 John Robertson: Have you given all this time that, if they supported PR in the Scottish information to the Scottish Executive? Parliament election, then it was bound to come in Cllr Watters: Yes and we have regular discussions with local governments as well? with the Executive about how we deal with it. Cllr Watters: I think the diYculty is that I do not think that there was a clear-cut decision for COSLA Q78 John Robertson: What do they tell you? to support PR for the Scottish Parliament; I do not “Thank you for your inquiry”! think that we opposed it strongly enough. In saying Cllr Watters: They try their best but the MSPs are that, my view is that we sleepwalked into the elected and they carry out their functions as they situation that we have at the present time. We are see fit. determined that we will not sleepwalk into the next Mr Vestri: In relation to the impact of STV on change. We believe that there is a problem; we councils and the possibility of duplication between believe there is an electoral problem; we believe that members, that is something that we are obviously problem can be sorted by changing the system as to concerned about because we think that there will be how we elect our colleagues in Edinburgh. We duplication if you have multi-member wards with believe that that is the case. I am saying that as the the same kind of cherry picking and duplication that President of COSLA, that is the majority view of we have experienced through List MSPs. One of the COSLA. There are other views. things that the Executive Working Group is looking at is the experience of STV in other areas, in Q75 John Robertson: Can I go back to something particular Ireland which they are keen to visit, and that Peter Duncan mentioned about duplication and they are looking at the experience of multi-member can we try and get away from the party-political wards in England because, in some areas of England, lines. You are the President of COSLA covering there are multi-member wards. The experience is Scotland and therefore there are probably Labour that, in some councils, there are protocols between List members who probably indulge in, I think the councillors that are elected in multi-member somebody said, cherry picking, but is this wards that sometimes do not work. A lot depends on duplication and have you looked at it? Is this really the individual councillors and a lot depends on the just political point scoring by the list of member political culture of the council. It also depends on the parties against whoever their constituency Member political makeup of the councillors. If you have a of Parliament is or is it just a regain? Do they ward with three councillors, for instance, and they actually look after the individual member or the are all from the Labour Party or from the public? Paolo, when you were talking about your Conservative Party or from the same party, then the Chief Executive having the Scottish Executive chances of them working together and agreeing looking at STV and what it is going to do, have you some kind of protocol is more likely than if they are looked at this and have you looked at the fact that all from diVerent parties and they are all fighting for this duplication could still happen for a constituency the same votes. Where a protocol exists, if it is agreed where you have three or four diVerent parties all on paper, is likely to break down in practice. represented? If you have looked at it, can you tell me what you intend to do to make sure that it does Q79 John Robertson: Did you not find, as has been not happen? said to me, that there has been a watering down of Cllr Watters: Would you just qualify that last point; local government in Ireland because of STV and I missed it because somebody was coughing. actually they have removed matters from the councils to central government because they cannot Q76 John Robertson: The last point was for Paolo agree to do anything? and was with regard to the duplication of List Cllr McCabe: Exactly. That is what I was talking members deliberately on political point scoring. about the second lot of powers. The powers of Cllr Watters: A lot of that goes on; we are all intervention and education has suddenly become a involved with political parties, so a lot of political big thing. That, to my mind, has caused a big wedge. point scoring will go on. The diVerence between the Retaining and expanding powers of intervention. List MSP and the electoral elected MSP is that the Where councils are not seen to be talking and the List MSP can go round various constituencies in fact that they are a hung council and cannot come to various areas. There are only eight geographical an agreement gives the Executive the right to say, areas in Scotland, so they have a wide area to choose “You are failing and we are taking that away from from in which to become involved. There is a you.” They are talking about a single correctional Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 27

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri agency, but it will only work if they change the whole Q86 Mr Weir: I am interested in why you say that. system. Why change it again? It is working perfectly My constituency at the moment covers bits of three well. The proposed Scottish PTA, from what I see, is local authorities and we get on relatively well a means to take powers from us to Scottish without too many problems. My experience of Executive. people is that as long as they know who their Cllr Watters: I think the diYculty for some of the representative is, they are not too bothered about communities that we represent is that, at the present boundaries and I wonder why you think it would time, there are some diYcult decisions which have to cause such confusion. be made in local authorities. For instance, there was Cllr Watters: I think if they have a straight the whole situation of trying to renew schools. If representative, that could be less of a case, but when there is a hung council, it will never take a diYcult you have changes to the electoral system, as has been decision because it is always going to impact on suggested, for local government in Scotland, you someone. Sometimes, diYcult decisions have to be would not have a clear route to your locally elected made because, in the long term, although we are member. Plus, if you had diVerences just because of looking at education tomorrow, we might be streets, it can cause confusion. People just come to looking at education the next year and the year after see their elected representative; they do not know and maybe for the next 25 years. To come to that exactly who they really are and that can cause decision within a hung council is practically confusion. impossible. Cllr McCabe: I think you are right. As long as you know who the representative is, then there should not be any confusion, but we keep changing them Q80 Mr Carmichael: I note the point you say about and coming up with systems to change them. By hung councils never making a decision, but do you reducing the number of MPs, they have taken away think your colleagues in Aberdeenshire would agree someofthe...Forinstance, I can talk about John, with you? he is my MP and he was elected, but, take John out, Cllr Watters: I can maybe talk to my colleagues in and I am quite happy! I have Tom Clarke who is an Aberdeenshire and I know that not all of them excellent Scottish MP. By the same token, the people actually support the change in the system that their of View Park know John Reid. So, that does lead to colleagues in Edinburgh are proposing. confusion

Q81 Mr Carmichael: That was not actually what I Q87 Mr Weir: Your elected representative can asked you. change at any election. That is part of democracy. If Cllr Watters: Yes, I think we will come to an they know who their MP is, they are not going to agreement with them about some of the diYcult worry as to whether the boundaries governing the decisions that have to be made in that council. two are the same, as long as they know which one is theirs. Q82 Mr Carmichael: So they have managed to take Cllr McCabe: I disagree. In View Park, I visit people diYcult decisions? who do not know who their councillor is. Cllr Watters: They have sometimes had problems in Y reaching di cult decisions. Q88 Mr Weir: We are not talking about councillors. Cllr McCabe: Just a second. They do not know who Q83 Mr Carmichael: But they always get there, do their councillor is and I live in the area. So, if they they not? They have a good renewal of schools select four MPS, how will they know who their MP programmes, do they not? is? Give us three. Cllr Watters: Not always. Sometimes they have to Mr Vestri: I think that the potential for confusion alter because of trying to accommodate all groups. amongst voters when you have a lack of co- terminosity between the boundaries of the Westminister constituencies and the Scottish Q84 Mr Carmichael: And that is something that Parliament constituencies is obviously going to be does not happen in a council where there is overall greater, not for the majority of electors who will be control by one party? in roughly the same constituency but there will be Cllr Watters: It is less likely to happen. some electors who are on the margins, so there will be in one constituency for Westminster and a totally Q85 Mr Weir: You point out that there could be diVerent constituency for the Scottish Parliament. confusion among voters at the loss of coterminous This will obviously mean greater confusion for Westminster and Scottish Parliament school boards with catchment areas that are going to constituencies, but the tone of your submission be crossing over two or three constituencies and a seems to be that this will make little diVerence to greater confusion in relation to the relationship with local government and in fact it could benefit local other elected members and with other agencies such government by clearing up some existing anomalies. as health boards and so on. So, I think there is Would that be a correct assumption? undoubtedly potential for greater confusion there Cllr Watters: I think that the impact of changes in for electors. One point that was made is that the boundaries would be of less impact in the local proposed new boundaries will clear up some of the authorities than it would have on the people that anomalies and the example we gave in the written they represent. submission was East Lothian. The proposal to take Ev 28 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri

Musselburgh into the East Lothian constituency will something that we should try to avoid. Therefore, if create an East Lothian constituency which is co- you are asking whether it will have an impact on terminous with the boundaries of the local local government, yes, it will impact local authority. That would happen in some other areas as government because getting relationships with fewer well, but there are going to be other anomalies numbers spread across will be more diYcult. If you created. For instance the Peebles, Clydesdale and do not get a proper relationship, all you will see is Annandale seat which is going to cover a vast area of damage and that joint working is sometimes Scotland and is going to cover three local authority necessary to deliver on the ground. areas. Although some anomalies will be cleared up, other proposals are going to create other similar and Q91 John Robertson: In view of the comments that in some cases worse anomalies. have been made particularly about first past the Mr Weir: The point I was making is that these post, would our Committee be justified in anomalies exist under the present system and have concluding that COSLA would be in favour of not caused great confusion. As I say, I represent scrapping the List system? parts of three diVerent local authority areas. Cllr Watters: Yes. Cllr McCabe: Definitely. Q89 David Hamilton: Just to clarify and maybe reinforce that point, I happen to be in one of the Q92 Ann McKechin: In your response to the draft other areas where Central comes back into Local Governance Bill you stated that there should Midlothian and therefore Midlothian would be co- be an extensive information and education terminous. Surely the point you are making is that, campaign to explain to the electorate the if you go to a STV system of local government and complexities of any changes in the system. Who do you also have a List system of MSPs, people will you consider should undertake and, perhaps more only know who the directly elected people are and importantly, pay for such an education scheme? Do that is likely to be the MSP who is first past the post you think it should be the individual councils, and will that not increase the amount of work COSLA, the Scottish Executive or the Scotland because people will identify them if they are not sure OYce? who their elected representatives are? It is quite Cllr McCabe: It should be between the Scottish simple, really. Executive and the Scotland OYce. We did not ask Cllr McCabe: That is what happens at present. for it; we do not want it; why should we pay for it? Cllr Watters: I am very fortunate because, in the Q90 Mr Sarwar: Presumably, from a local area I represent, I have one polling station which authority’s point of view, the debate over the makes it fantastically easy for me. However, the number of Westminster MPs and MSPs is largely number of times since the two Scottish Parliament academic. The COSLA memorandum states that elections that I have seen people walk out of the there is no compelling reason to reduce the number polling station and totally ignore the List and say, “I of MSPs, but what is your view about reducing the just do not want to participate in it. I am walking number of Westminster constituencies? My second away from it” because people cannot look at the question has already been touched upon and that is ballot paper and make sense of it. If that is the case, that there is an added burden upon the council think how that is going to be magnified when you oYcials because the constituency MSPs and List move on to STV for multi-member wards. We are MSPs are taking up the cases and obviously it is saying that, as we move, you cannot just move frustrating for constituency MSPs as well because it without some kind of follow on happening. Should is my experience when a constituency MSP has been local government pay for it? No, they should not pay dealing with the case for three or four months, for it. What is happening is that the legislation is working hard, writing letters and visiting the changing. If you want to give us the responsibility, department, then the List MSP comes and hijacks we will happily take it but I can tell you what the everything just for political reasons and, although result will be: we will not need that education this is really something that is confidential between process. the client and the MSP, they make it public because it suits them and gives them good publicity in the Q93 David Hamilton: You indicated in that last papers. answer that your preference would be first past the Cllr Watters: I will deal with the first point. Would post. If you had a choice in the matter and were it impact dramatically on local government? I think forced out of that corner, would AV be an option the area of impact that there might be for local you would consider because that would retain the government was the relationship that we tried to ward link, constituency link and so on? Would that develop with elected representatives either in be one that you would consider as an option? Edinburgh or in Westminster. I think that the Cllr Watters: Yes, I think you are absolutely right in thinner you spread the jam on the cake, the more see- saying that. My fundamental objection to the through it is going to be. It is important that, no changes is not—and I mean this sincerely—party matter what party the MP or MSP is elected to political. I believe that it is damaging democracy. represent, we all work together to try to deliver something and improve the service to the local Q94 Chairman: We move to the subject of voter community. That is the only reason we are here. turnout. This Committee is about to look also at Anything that damages or aVects that must be voter registration and we note that between 2000 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 29

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri and 2001, in just 25 constituencies in Scotland, Cllr Watters: We are very keen on seeing the pilot 100,000 people fell oV the register. Have you European elections’ postal voting to see how that encountered any diYculties with people attempting has gone on. I think the one real marked eVect in any to register or the fact that you no longer seem to have change is making postal applications very much canvassers who go and check up on voter registers? easier for people to access. We have seen more Cllr Watters: It is a point at which we are looking at people access the postal vote. When we look at the the present time. You are right that, in the past two turnout when postal votes are there, there is a vast years, we have seen an alteration and a falling of the increase of returned postal voting, it is very, very electoral register, not because of fewer people but high. We have recently completed a survey in fewer people who are actually registering and part of Scotland through Young Scot looking at how young it is that, as we moved from the one-oV change, an people react and what services they are looking at. annual change, to the electoral register to a rolling For instance, between 12 and 16, people do not trust programme of changes to the electoral register, I politicians. That is something they read about, not think the experience has been—and we have asked something they experience. There is a media questions about it—is that electoral registration influence there. I think the likes of the level of oYcers have been far stricter. If someone does not responsibility and the work that people do in elected return their form, they give them a second chance if oYce, whether it be in Westminster, Edinburgh or they are aware that they are in the voting system and whether in the local council, it is something that we then they take them oV. I think there are quite a few need to make sure people value, that we actually councils that have gone out with campaigns and deliver something that people want. We need to really we need to sit down and reassess how we have make voting very much easier for everybody managed this situation and try to improve it. Voter including young people and we need to do that in turnout is dependent on the number of people schools where we go and speak to pupils and tell available to vote. If people are being taken oV or by them how important it is for them to participate in just ignoring the communication for electoral the democracy within our country and how, for registration, we need to take that very, very instance, nothing they do is a more eVective and seriously, sit down, assess the situation and see what solid decision that we all take. I think it is getting is happening in local authority areas where we that message across constantly. I also think that we actually actively campaigned to increase the amount need to get away from voting on a Thursday from of people. You can be assured that we will take that 7.00 to 10.00 and make it very much easier and wider matter on board. for people to actually access that vote.

Q95 Chairman: And COSLA are looking at that Q98 Mr Weir: Just on a practical point, I know that now? in your submission when you talk about STV, you Cllr Watters: Yes. say that change to the STV system will require significant changes to the current organisation of local elections and you also mention that the Q96 Mr Lyons: Can I keep on the question of Executive will have to undertake to commit turnout. How do you think we can improve voter resources to training for returning oYcers and the turnout particularly among the young people? Is it election process. Pat, you mentioned the possibility the usual areas of e-voting, supermarkets, personal of a pilot for all-postal voting in the European vote or is it something more fundamental, that we elections. At least some local authorities have need to get back and persuade people to vote suggested that they would not have either the because it is very important? systems or the money to be able to undertake that. Cllr McCabe: I think there is a real apathy. I think Do you feel, first of all in respect of the European people are fed up with having to go to elections elections, that local authorities in Scotland would be almost every year and, if the system is continually able to run an eYcient all-postal ballot without changing, that does not help matters. It is just a significant input of resources and what sort of simple matter of registering the vote and walking resources do you think the Executive would have to back out again. I think apathy is one of the biggest put in soon to be able for that to be done? problems. People have just lost interest because Cllr Watters: I do not think that we should actually there is an election almost every two years or move to any system unless we are sure that that something like that. When I talk to some of the system is going to be able to deliver what we are young people, they say, “What is in it for us? What looking for which is active participation. In other do we get out of it?” We try to tell them, “It is your words, if we are going to change to the pilot for future. You are the people who should decide who is postal voting, we would have to be very confident going to be your representative”, but is very diYcult. that the election oYce could actually deal with it. I I try continuously to get people to come out and do not know how much that would cost or what vote. I think that apathy is the biggest problem. I additional finances the Scottish Executive would think there is a loss of interest in politics in general at all levels. have to put in to do that. I am confident that if we go to an electoral returning oYce and speak to them about what would be needed to do that, we would Q97 Mr Lyons: And you think that a change of get an answer very quickly, but I think it is important system, such as a postal vote, will make no that we try out the systems, not to see whether they diVerence now? work or not, they do work, but to see if we are going Ev 30 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri to actually increase it, but I would not recommend doing that type of thing. Postal votes at the present that we do it if it was going to fail because that would time I think have been more successful than they be a disaster. have in the past because you do not need a doctor’s signature to actually access one. Q99 Mr Weir: I accept that but given that we are perhaps seven or eight months away from the Q101 John Robertson: I want to go back to the European elections, do you feel there is suYcient postal ballots because I am pretty concerned about time for local authorities to gear up for an all- some of the things you have been saying. What you postal ballot? are telling me is that if every electorate wanted a Cllr McCabe: The Chief Executive of my own postal ballot tomorrow, they cannot have one, yet council has expressed concerns to agree to an all- you said earlier that anyone who wants one can get postal vote; it would cause problems because of the one. So, do we or do we not have a system on the go timescale. He reckons it will take time to gear up for at the moment where people can get a postal ballot this and get it operating in order that it would not whenever they request it? If we do have that, then have any failures. surely we have a system already in place for postal Mr Vestri: There is actually a seminar in COSLA ballots and I do not see what the diVerence is other today, it has been organised by the Electoral than that you are going to get a lot more postal Commission jointly with COSLA, on the question of deliveries to the town hall when they come in. Could diVerent pilots of diVerent forms of voting and one you maybe clarify the situation in relation to of the issues that will be discussed or is being councils. In my own constituency, we had over 3,000 discussed as we speak is the proposal for the all- postal ballots in the last election. postal ballot. There is something like 80 people Cllr McCabe: In North Lanarkshire, we have a attending that from all local authorities. Electoral newspaper go out every so often and, last time, they assessors, councillors and other oYcers who are put a form within the newspaper for anybody who there today will be discussing the problems that will wanted to use it for a postal vote and that was for have to be overcome if we are going to have an all- people who preferred to vote by post rather than to postal ballot in the European elections but the issues go to the polling station. If you are going to go with about timescale, cost, training and so on are all a full postal vote for a full election, then I do not see things that are being raised with the Electoral any reason why that same system would not apply Commission and with the Government. again. Certainly, that was the view expressed by the returning oYcers. I think that, in England, they use Q100 Mr Sarwar: How can you make the postal a company to do it and they do not think that a voting system simpler, particularly for Scottish company is geared up to deal with the magnitude of Parliament elections and the council elections? I find the task in Scotland. it very complicated. My second question is that all Cllr Watters: I think it would be the size. Yes, at the the statistics in the United Kingdom show that present time, anybody who applies for a postal vote between 10 and 20% of the ethnic minority gets a postal vote, there is no problem with that whatsoever. You were talking about 3,000 in your communities are not on the electoral role. What is V COSLA doing to make sure that we encourage area; if it was 30,000, there might be a di erent ethnic minorities to be on the electoral role? problem. We would like to see work on that opening Cllr Watters: The changes that were made recently out. That is the reason for the seminar today. as to how you access a postal vote made it very much simpler for people to get it. One complication that is Q102 John Robertson: The point I am trying to there and is still there at the present time is that if you make is that some people have tried to make some have someone who lives alone and who has little kind of advantage of the fact that we cannot run a contact with other people, they have to have their postal ballot, but we do and councils have done for signature verified. That can be a diYculty and it is some time. The fact is that not enough people have not one that you can get round easily because you an uptake on it and unfortunately some councils do need some kind of verification to ensure that the not try very hard to get postal papers out to members person who has sent the form in is actually casting of the public. I am of the opinion that you would be the vote. I am not saying that it is easy but the way in quite happy with a postal ballot to see how it worked which it is done at the present time under the present and perhaps you could say if that is true. If that is the system, I think it would be more diYcult under case, one thing that you did not mention earlier on another alternative system where you have a long list was electronic voting. Have you tried anything to do and people might become confused, but I do not with trials with electronic voting? think anything is easily worked out. In my own Cllr Watters: Not in Scotland so far and the recent authority, we have run a campaign in the last two discussions revealed that there were far too many elections called Access your Vote because we want to problems with it at the present time for a whole look at how we try and communicate with people council. I know that there have been experiments in and how important that is and actually physically England in some local authorities areas. We have look at how people get to polling stations and all not evaluated that to see how that has gone. We had that. That has to continue, that has to be intensified a discussion on an all-postal ballot for European and you have to let people know how important elections at our last leaders’ meeting. We agreed in their role is. If they are more valued, then I am sure principle that we should support that, but we wanted that people will participate, but it means constantly some assurance, hence the seminar, that the Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 31

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri mechanisms were going to be in place to ensure that as possible but, two days later actually took away we could do it properly. That was the one the eVect. Many people did not carry it and the ones reservation that we had, making sure that the postal who did carry it did not carry all the results. service could actually deal with it, that the electoral Mr Vestri: There is a major practical problem about registration oYce could deal with that and that the trying to carry out the vote for council election over council could deal with that. If we can get assurances two or three days after the election on the Thursday about that, we are quite happy in principle to because the election at the moment is held at the support postal votes. same time as the Scottish Parliament. It is normally Mr Vestri: The Electoral Commission OYce carried the Thursday before a Monday Bank Holiday. You out a number of pilots in England using postal can imagine the problems about trying to get staV in ballots, electronic voting, electronic counting and so on a Saturday and Sunday and possibly a Monday on, and their experience and what they found from of a bank holiday. Very few staV want to do that and the pilots was that the change in the voting method the staV who do agree to do it obviously want to be which has the biggest impact is all-postal ballots. paid at substantially higher rates. So, there are Electronic voting has a slightly increased but not a practical problems about having a STV count over a marked increase whereas, in a number of areas that couple of days after the elections. had all-postal ballots, the turnout was markedly higher at local council election and I think that is Q104 Chairman: Should the technical and practical why the Electoral Commission is moving forward diYculties and the lack of media coverage stop us much faster on the all-postal ballot than they are for from looking at changing the voting system? Is that electronic voting. a good enough reason? Cllr McCabe: No. There are a million reasons. Q103 David Hamilton: In your submission, you referred to the amount of time to count under the Q105 David Hamilton: Supplementary to that— STV system, in fact you referred to Northern Ireland and I think I know the answer—would you prefer or where it could take a day and a half to actually count would you like to stop Scottish elections and the an STV system. Do you think that ultimately that local elections taking place together? V would have a detrimental eVect on voters if they are Cllr Watters: There are two di erent views to this. only going to get the results when they are going to get them? I am one of those sad people and I know Q106 David Hamilton: “Yes” and “no”! a number of people who actually do sit up and watch Cllr Watters: There is the view that having the two in the results coming through after elections but, if they the one day increases the amount of turnout at those start announcing them a day late and then two days’ elections and that is a plus. There is the alternative late, it takes that eVect away. Would that have a view that if one particular area of government, long-term eVect on people as to whether they vote whether it be National Government or Scottish or or not? local is not particularly popular, that can have an Cllr Watters: I think it does and that is not just a impact on the other two. So, there are two diVerent personal view. At the present time with the joint arguments. I think the general view at the present voting for local government and for the Scottish time is that we would like to do a lot more thinking Executive, the logistical issue is getting the number about that and looking at what the impact would be of people in the room at the one time, knowing that before we decide whether we will make a campaign, some of them work in the polling stations during the but there is a strongly-held view that we should day and they come in there at night and we actually separate the two elections. physically cannot get the whole thing done on an Cllr McCabe: I agree with that. I think we should evening basis, an overnight basis, because people separate them. As it stands right now, some people work until 6.00 or 7.00 in the morning to do that. If are confused. They go there and put a simple X you look at the recent experience in Edinburgh against somebody’s name in the local elections and where I think there were three recounts, people were they then go to a list and they now go to another just walking away at 6.00 in the morning because simple X again. If we change that system, you go to they had counted up to here. It is done in two stages a ranking order which will complicate matters. So, I at the present time: the parliamentary one is done think we should go to a stage where local councils first and then the local elections are done the next are going to have to stand on their own two feet at morning with new people coming in. I think that elections. takes a bit away. I think the STV would say that period would be very, very much longer. Remember Q107 John Robertson: If both electoral systems that people can only work so long doing that were the same, would it make any diVerence if they situation and I believe that having that return very were on diVerent days? quickly actually does . . . Let me put it this way: after Cllr McCabe: I think that in most places you could the last election for the local government, many have them on the same day. I keep asking myself— papers carried the election results in detail, but not and can I ask the Committee this?—if the SDV does all of them because it was not the day after, it was not not work, the people do not want it, would they the the next morning, it was actually on the Friday or next day shoot the politicians? the Saturday before they could. I believe that that is all right. I think people are entitled to know who was Q108 Chairman: Or, if the STV ran two elections on elected to represent them after an election as quickly the same day, would that make any diVerence? Ev 32 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Cllr Pat Watters, Cllr Jim McCabe and Mr Paolo Vestri

Cllr McCabe: That would complicate matters Cllr Watters: I actually believe that that is right. I further. have colleagues who represent multi-constituency wards in England, local authorities, and I can tell you that I have a colleague who was elected on a 12% turnout. That does not help democracy; that Q109 Mr McDougall: You have already made the devalues democracy. I actually believe that Scotland point that you think they should be held separately moved away from that in 1974 and actually but there is that other point you made earlier about improved the situation of democracy and so on, but there being too many elections and therefore, if you I think that that election every year does devalue it. have them every year, do the public really see that as It is not an important thing to people, they just do it. an advantage? You could maybe argue—and I am Chairman: Gentlemen, can I thank you very much not suggesting that this should be case—to put all for your evidence today and for coming along here the elections on the one day rather than spread them and can I assure you that the comments you have out over five years. The public are saturated by made will form part of the report that we make to the politicians every time there is an election. Secretary of State. Thank you very much indeed.

Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Trade Union Congress

Purpose of Memorandum 1. To oVer views on the eVect of the introduction of any diVerential between constituency boundaries involving the Scottish and UK Parliaments. To oVer comment on the implications for turnout at elections and clarify for the electorate of there being four separate voting systems in Scotland involving the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, local government and European Parliament.

Introduction 2.1 The STUC is Scotland’s Trade Union Centre. It exists to provide services for 46 aYliated trade unions and 32 local trades union councils, representing 630,000 trade union members. Its purpose is to co-ordinate, develop and articulate the views and policies of the trade union movement in Scotland, reflecting the aspirations of trade unionists as workers and citizens. 2.2 The STUC welcomes the invitation to submit views to the Scottish AVairs Committee as part of its Inquiry into the consequences for Scotland’s governance and political life of the creation of diVerent constituency boundaries in Scotland for the UK and Scottish Parliaments.

Retaining 129 Seats in the Scottish Parliament 3.1 The STUC has long supported the case for devolution and played a significant part in the campaign to establish the Scottish Parliament. 3.2 The STUC is strongly in favour of the retention of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament and made representations to that eVect to the Secretary of State for Scotland during the Scotland OYce consultation in 2002 (attached as appendix 1 is a copy of a joint submission to the Scotland OYce prepared by a group of interested individuals and organisations, convened by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy).

Coterminous Boundaries 4.1 We recognise that the decision to leave the size of the Scottish Parliament unchanged, while the provisional proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland would reduce the number of Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster, means that changes require to be made to the existing system of coterminous parliamentary constituency boundaries. 4.2 It is our view that coterminous constituency boundaries were important in the early stages of the Scottish Parliament. Westminster constituencies provided a useful framework on which to base the Scottish Parliament’s electoral system. 4.3 However, now that the Scottish Parliament is into its second term, we are largely unconcerned that a move away from coterminous boundaries would have a significantly negative impact on voters. Scottish voters are already used to voting for list MSPs who represent regions; for MEPs who represent the whole of Scotland; and for local councillors whose constituencies are sometimes cut through by the constituencies of representatives returned to other levels of government. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 33

4.4 As regards implications for elected representatives, we are unaware that those Westminster boundaries that cut through local authority boundaries cause diYculties in relation to the day-to-day business of and relationships between MPs and Councillors. The electorate has a right to expect that their representatives will find ways to work eVectively together, regardless of the system used to elect them, or the level of government to which they are returned.

Four Voting Systems—Four Levels of Government 5.1 We note and welcome the fact that the Scottish Executive’s Partnership for a Better Scotland Agreement includes a commitment to reform voting arrangements, in order to increase participation. It is important that people are given opportunities to vote in ways that best suit their own circumstances, regardless of the electoral system in operation. It is also important that government at all levels acts to encourage active citizenship and a representative democracy that reflects the make up of society. More action if required to ensure that currently underrepresented groups are better represented in the future. 5.2 We also note plans to introduce a proportional representation system for local government in time for the next Scottish local government elections. This review of one electoral system may oVer an opportunity to address outstanding concerns about clarity for the electorate in relation to there currently being four diVerent voting arrangements for four diVerent levels of government. October 2003

APPENDIX 1

THE SIZE OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT: A RESPONSE TO THE SCOTLAND OFFICE’s CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

AConsensual Approach 1. Following the publication of the consultation paper by the Scotland OYce on the size of the Scottish Parliament, the Centre for Scottish Public Policy convened a meeting bringing together a group of interested individuals and organisations to seek a consensus view on this important issue. Membership of the group was drawn from a wide range of Scottish civic society and included members and representatives of: Centre for Scottish Public Policy (CSPP) Instititute of Governance, University of Edinburgh Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) Scottish Civic Forum Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) Action of Churches Together in Scotland (ACTS) UNISON Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI) Individual members of the Consultative Steering Group (CSG) The group met under the convenership of Neil McIntosh, head of the recent Commission on the relationship between Local Government and the Parliament in Scotland. 2. The group welcomes the consultation and the opportunity to comment on this important issue. We support the sentiments expressed in the consultation document, and note the government’s intention to press ahead with the reduction in the number of Scottish Westminster MPs. We endorse the position expressed in the document that the electoral system of the Scottish Parliament should not be altered at this time. Our comments below reflect the sentiments of the consultation paper and reflect also unanimity among the Group as to our response.

AYoung Parliament 3. The Scottish Parliament is a young institution. It wa established less than three years ago as the product of an overwhelming constitutional consensus among the people of Scotland that a devolved legislature was needed. That consensus found political expression in a 74% vote in favour of establishing the Parliament in the 1997 Referendum. Ev 34 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

4. The establishment of the Parliament arose from a broad consensus of view that a democratic deficit existed in Scotland. The original proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention sought to address that deficit and were again based on a broad consensus across Scottish civic society. That spirit was carried into the key guidance for the Parliament developed in the Consultative Steering Group Report, and the final current size, electoral basis and operation of the Parliament arose from that spirit of consensus and reflect those principles.

AFramework of Principles

5. The CSG Report of 1998 outlined a framework of principles that have guided the establishment and early years of the Parliament. The Report was widely endorsed, and supported by all political parties in Scotland. The CSG principles are power sharing, accountability, access to and participation in the Parliament by civic society and a commitment to equal opportunities. These principles should continue to be applied in the future work of the Parliament and be central to consideration of the question of the size and operation of the Parliament.

6. Experience of the operation of the Parliament so far has been that Parliamentary structures and individual MSPs are fully employed and busy. The Parliament recognised the need to monitor and review its procedures and arrangements, and to act to improve these when necessary. This has already seen changes to the make up and structure of committees to ensure better scrutiny and more eVective use of time for MSPs. The Procedures Committee of the Parliament is presently engaged in a major review of its operation, and early findings in this review indicate that it would be diYcult to operate with fewer MSPs and that there is little support for change at this point in time.

7. The Parliament should continue to monitor and review its operation and be prepared for change, but such a process must be based on the considered experience of its work. The relationship between Holyrood and Westminster will develop naturally over the years, and must reflect the needs of both legislatures, rather than be based on a formulaic approach. Certainly, change should not be forced upon the Scottish Parliament through the mechanical application of a formula, and driven by changes in another legislature. At this stage in its development, the Parliament needs a stable environment in which to grow.

Applying Consensus and Principle

8. The history of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament shows the important and distinctive role of consensus across a broad range of Scottish civic and political life and the development of important guiding principles supported by that consensus. These principles, which we have outlined above, should continue to guide the work of the Parliament. When we apply them to the questions before us, it is clear that the current size and electoral basis of the Parliament should not be reduced or changed at this time. We oVer the following reasons in support of this view.

9. First among these reasons is proportionality and a commitment that the political balance of the Parliament should broadly reflect the votes cast by the people of Scotland in electing that Parliament. This is intrinsically linked to the sharing of power between layers of governance in Scotland. This reassurance that their vote matters is a fundamental strength for the Parliament and is essential to the process of building confidence in the legislature among the electorate.

10. A second reason is the need to ensure that the Parliament reflects the whole population of Scotland in all its diversity. From the outset, the size and make up of the Parliament were designed to reflect the varied geography and demography of Scotland, to oVer opportunities for our rich ethnic base and, in particular, to maximise the participation of women in the Parliament. Scotland’s legislature has been praised internationally for its early commitment to family friendly working practices and for the high number of women MSPs—at 37% among the top five in the world. We need to build on this success. It is a source of confidence and strength for the Parliament among its electorate and a reassurance that the Parliament speaks for them.

11. A third area of importance is that the Parliament is accessible and accountable to the people and transparent in its operation. Its powerful committee structure and impressive number of cross-party groups emphasise the involvement of civic society in its work, oVering and facilitating contact and dialogue between the legislature and the people it represents. Much Parliamentary time is devoted to this process, and the Parliament has already changed its committee structure to ensure that MSPs have the ability to participate fully in this important scrutinising and legislative role of the committees. It is again a feature that reassures the electorate that the Parliament is working for their interest. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 35

Problems of Reducing the Size of the Parliament

Working with Fewer MSPs 12. If the terms of the Scotland Act were applied, the number of MSPs would automatically be reduced, following the reduction in the number of Scottish Westminster MPs. A reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament would fundamentally undermine the principles on which it was established and has been operating. It would undermine the committee structure and other accessibility mechanisms of the Parliament. It would undermine the ability to promote the adoption of women candidates and would introduce working time pressures that would, in turn, act to reverse the family friendly operation of the Parliament that encourages wider participation. A smaller number could also have an adverse eVect on the representation and participation of regional diversity, and make representation of ethnic minorities more diYcult. 13. A smaller Parliament would mean less MSP time available to carry out the busy schedule currently undertaken by MSPs. Less available time would undermine current commitments to extended consultation, to decentralising the operation of Parliament and to encouraging proper working hours. The result of these pressures could be changes in the electoral procedures or practice that would, in turn, put at risk the ability of proportionality to operate. 14. The ongoing review of the operation of the Parliament being coducted by the Procedures Committee has indicated that many of the functions currently carried out by the Parliament would be extremely diYcult to achieve with fewer MSPs. Moreover, there is strong evidence from that review that there is no consensus for fundamental change to the Parliament at this early stage in its existence. A major change at this early stage of the Parliament’s life could be destabilising at a time when the new institution is still evolving.

Coterminous Boundaries of Constituencies 15. If the Scotland Act as it currently stands was not applied, a situation would arise where the boundaries of electoral constituencies for the Scottish Parliament were not coterminous with those for Westminster elections. We do not see this as a fundamental problem. 16. Scotland has a politically aware electorate. This electorate has long accepted that constituencies vary with the character of elections. At the present moment, an elector is faced with a diVerent size of constituency for local authority elections, Westminster elections, Scottish Parliament list elections and European elections. This has become an accepted fact of political life. The electorate has shown a sophisticated understanding of these diVerences, creating varying voting patterns, in order to achieve a variety of political outcomes. Changes in the size of the Westminster constituencies will change this landscape once again, but there is no evidence to suggest that this will have an adverse eVect on the electorate. 17. Crude application of the Scotland Act as it stands might address the issue of non-coterminous boundaries. However, it would do so at the expense of the fundamental principles and practices which have come to characterise the Scottish Parliament, at a stage in its existence where the Parliament itself has had little opportunity to review its operation and arrangements. 18. In addition, there is considerable evidence from elsewhere that non-coterminous constituencies are not a problem. The consultation document itself states that “in England . . ...thereisinpractice less coterminosity between Westminster and local government boundaries”. Similarly, in Germany, one of the most developed devolved governments in Europe, the Bundestag and Landtag constituencies diverge considerably in many La¨nder—for example, in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and in Bavaria. If we look further afield, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada is divided into seven federal ridings, in order to elect seven representatives to the 301-strong Canadian Parliament, but split into 48 provincial ridings for the election of the provincial parliament. A similar situation exists in the other Canadian Provinces.

Conclusion 19. We believe that the Scotland Act should be amended to allow the proposed reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster to go ahead, while, at the same time, maintaining the size and basis of representation at Holyrood. 20. Review and change are inevitable, but should come through the considered experience of the Scottish Parliament, not the application of a mechanical rule so early in the life of the Parliament. 21. We have sought in this submission to present both the practical reasons and the fundamental principles which support our view that the Scottish Parliament must continue at its current size, retain its current proportional system of representation and continue to adopt accessible and family friendly procedures in its operation. This is a view which is unanimous in our group and, we believe, commands considerable support across Scotland. Ev 36 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Witness: Ms Rozanne Foyer, Assistant Secretary, STUC, examined.

Q110 Chairman: Good afternoon, Rozanne, and I voting system simply as a by-product of changes that am very sorry to have kept you. Thank you very have taken place at Westminster. So, turning to the much for your attendance and for your written impact on the electorate, like all democrats, the submission. Before we start the questions, is there STUC is very concerned about voter turnout and we anything that you wish to add to your submission at would want to see everything being done to make this point. Feel free to do so at this stage or you may sure that we increased turnout and participation in feel happier to leave it to the end of the questions. It democracy, but we do not think in any way that is up to you. having diVerent voting systems is the reason for Ms Foyer: I have prepared a short opening confusion or voter apathy. We believe very strongly statement. As you are all aware, the STUC has long that it is down to making sure that people are able to supported devolution and we were keen partners in vote in a way that suits their circumstances. We are the campaign for a Scottish Parliament and so we much more interested in how people can actually have some very strong views about any impact on access the voting system and arrangements for that Parliament working well that may come from access rather than the system itself. We support the any change to voting systems. We do share this work being undertaken by the Scottish Executive Committee’s concerns. We recognise why you are and others to actually investigate better ways for having an inquiry on the diVerentials in boundaries accessing the system, voter registration etc. On that, and also the diVerentials in voting systems, but I one of the things to finally say is that the STUC has think that, for us, really our overriding concern is to long advocated the reduction of the voting age to 16 make sure that we continue with the Government’s for all elections, that is local government, UK, decision to maintain a Scottish Parliament that has Scottish Parliament and European, and the Youth 129 seats at the very least. For us, there are a number Committee actually took a petition to the Scottish of good reasons why we feel very strongly that we Parliament on this issue last week and got support would not want to see a reduction in seats at the from the public petitions oYce on this issue. We Scottish Parliament or any changes to the voting think that sort of move along with citizen classes in system for the Scottish Parliament at this stage. schools could go a long way to ensure that future Now, these reasons include things like the need to generations participate more in democracy. ensure that we have a well-resourced and competent committee system in the Scottish Parliament and Q111 Mr Sarwar: Could you just clarify one matter. especially given that that Parliament does not have It appears that the STUC holds two conflicting a Second Chamber. The role of the Committee is views. You are clearly very strongly in favour of extremely important in terms of scrutinising retaining 129 MSPs but, at one point in the response legislation and we feel that the workload on MSPs is to the Scotland OYce’s consultation document, you actually quite large. We also think that there is a seem to be stating that the Parliament is still young need to continue the commitment to family-friend and that therefore it needs time for its working policies that the Parliament has had since it started practices to become established. However, further and we think if there were any changes to boundaries on in your response, you seem to be arguing that the that led to less MSPs, we would be very worried Parliament’s practices have become established about longer working hours and perhaps the already. By implication, the total of 129 MSPs has standards that have been set starting to fall away as been set in stone. What is the STUC’s actual position pressure came on for the Parliament to undertake as to why the total of 129 MSPs should be retained? more business. We also feel that there is a real need Is it a question of novelty or of tradition? to make sure that the Scottish Parliament continues Ms Foyer: I think that in some ways I have probably to deliver the work that we feel has been taken answered that question in my opening statement. forward quite well and that is the mainstream of The overriding concern is about making sure that equality. There is a very active Equal Opportunities Parliament can actually undertake its work with Committee in the Scottish Parliament that competence and we feel that, at the very least, we undertakes scrutiny of all legislation and ensures need 129 MSPs. I think that the Parliament is a that equality is mainstreamed across all legislation young institution. We are now into the second term and we would be quite worried that that might be and I hope you will agree that we are beginning to one of the first things that would be sacrificed should establish working practices, but it is the STUC’s there be pressure put on the Members in the view that we could still do with further time to make Parliament. We also think that changes to the sure that those practices are bedded in before we Parliament’s voting system should only really be consider any changes. Our historical position is brought about if they actually decided in Scotland as actually for 144 MSPs, so we saw the move to 129, a result of full consultation with Scotland’s people when that position was arrived at, as actually being and, while we do not think that the current voting the very least that we would want to see in the system is by any way perfect—we do not have a Parliament. We are not so interested in voting policy that says that this is a great voting system— systems, we are more interested in having a V we do feel that it is a very young institution and we parliament that can work e ectively. would not want to see changes to it at this stage. We want to see the system, for better or worse, being Q112 Mr Carmichael: Can I just take you back to bedded in to give people a chance to get used to it. your opening statement. You spoke about votes at We also feel very strongly that we would not like to 16, which I think is absolutely right and something I see changes taking place to the Scottish Parliament would agree with. You then said that the Youth Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 37

11 November 2003 Ms Rozanne Foyer

Committee had taken a petition to the Scottish people do you think should be in each committee Parliament. Why did they take it to the Scottish and which committees do you think are doing the Parliament when the decision to change the voting good jobs? age is made here? Ms Foyer: Historically, yes, it was our position that Ms Foyer: We asked the Scottish Parliament to take there should be 144 MSPs. The committee system at a view on that issue and the decision to change the the moment needs to work well and I do not think I voting age in local government elections is have come to a view about how I thought it worked something that the Scottish Parliament would be or did not, but it needs to work as well as it able to implement as far as we are aware. We possibly can. understand that Scottish Parliament and UK elections are not and we actually made it clear at the Petitions Committee that we would like them to pass Q116 John Robertson: Why does it need 129? One- on that view to yourselves at Westminster and also hundred-and-twenty-nine is a very arbitrary figure. we were very keen to pass on that view to this Even 144 is an arbitrary figure although I know Committee today, fully aware that, yes, those where you got it. Unfortunately, if you have two decisions are taken here. MSPs per constituency, that will take you down to 58, so we would have a lot less. Can committees not work with one less person or one more person? Does Q113 Ann McKechin: Rozanne, you have stated it have to be in a tablet of stone? how the STUC have a very clear view about the Ms Foyer: I cannot answer exactly how you would possible adverse result, reducing the number of break down to that level. I suspect that it would be MSPs. It would seem, by implication, that you very diYcult for anybody to answer at that level, but consider there is a basic flaw in the Scotland Act in what I can say is that the STUC has been involved the first place that it contained such a provision. Did with almost all of the Scottish Parliament’s the STUC make any comment at the time that the committees, some more than others. We place Scotland Act passed through Parliament about the demands on those committees to undertake provision that automatically led to this reduction? investigations and put ideas about legislation that Ms Foyer: Yes, the STUC did at the time make quite they might examine to them. My own area of work forthright comments which would be on record and over the past five years has been mostly in I have already referred to our historic position in the partnership with the Equal Opportunities first place, that we would have wanted to see more Committee and I can absolutely assure you that the than 129 and, yes, it was of concern to the STUC workload of that committee is extremely large and that we might end up in a position where 29 would every member of that committee has to undertake a be further reduced and we have made consistent lot of work to ensure that it is doing its job representations whenever that issue has come up eVectively. All the committees that I have come that we would not want to see the size of the across have a large workload and are required to Parliament reduced in any way. scrutinise legislation in some detail, making amendments at times and also sometimes even Q114 Ann McKechin: When you made that putting forward primary legislation. So, I feel that it submission, did you consider the example of any is a large workload that is undertaken. other assemblies and parliaments, for example the rest of Europe? People have given the example that the Greater London Assembly has only 25 members Q117 John Robertson: Are these committees always but covers 12 million people, or the parliament, for 100% attended? example, in Catalonia which has a similar power to Ms Foyer: I do not know . . . Scottish Parliament which has far fewer members. Did you take any examples or consider any other Q118 John Robertson: You see people coming in parliaments or assemblies when you came to the and out here all the time. I find it hard to believe that conclusion that the number was 129 or 144 or did what you are telling me is that 129 is the only figure you simply rely on what has been said in Scottish that our Parliament could run at and that society? committees could run at. I find that impossible to Ms Foyer: To be quite up front with you, I do not believe unless you can clarify what each single know if we took other examples. I would assume person actually does in each committee. I cannot that we probably would have in that situation, but believe that a committee could not run with one less what I would clarify is that the Scottish Parliament, person. I understand why you would want more unlike many other assemblies, actually produces people but, at the end of the day, would you not legislation and creates law and does not have a agree with me that the people who vote for these Second Chamber and, for that reason, we feel that people would not understand why 144 people would it is extremely important that that Parliament is well be required? resourced and I would again refer back to the Ms Foyer: No, I would not agree with you on that. committee system and the need to make sure that it The figure of 129 is the figure that we have been is properly scrutinising the legislation that it creates. given, it is not a figure that we chose and I think I have made that quite clear. We do not feel that— Q115 John Robertson: You seem to want 144 MSPs John Robertson: Hang on a second. You were just and you feel that the committee system is running telling me that this was the figure that the STUC said really well with the numbers they have. How many had to be put in tablets of stone. Ev 38 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

11 November 2003 Ms Rozanne Foyer

Q119 Chairman: This was a figure that was arrived I said in my earlier comments, these are not the real at originally by the Scottish Constitutional issues when it comes to people not voting, in our Convention. The STUC were part of that belief. Convention. The figure initially was 144; the overall Convention decided to reduce it to 129. Q124 Mr Weir: We heard a lot of evidence earlier Ms Foyer: If I could just come back and answer the from COSLA about the STV system and their fears question, we are saying that we think Parliament that it would lead to confusion in people knowing undertakes a very heavy workload and that it is who their representative was. Does the STUC have absolutely essentially that that Parliament operates any view on that? eVectively and, to me, that is what the people in Ms Foyer: It would really be inappropriate for me to Scotland are interested in. They are not interested in comment on any other voting system. There are very having a parliament that is actually not competent wide views across the trade union movement and in— sometimes within unions, so we do not have a position on it and I cannot comment. Q120 John Robertson: To what do you compare that to say that that is why it should be the number Q125 Chairman: As you point out in your of people who are there? What is your comparison memorandum, Scottish voters could soon well be to back up your statement? faced with four diVerent voting systems and I think Ms Foyer: I think the comparison is the work that you know what these four systems are. Would the the Parliament undertakes. This is a parliament that STUC be in favour of all four types of elections does not have a Second Chamber and it is very hard being conducted under the same system or are you to find comparisons to parliaments that do not have happy to see things stay as they are or would you a Second Chamber and I do not have that prefer to see at least two of these elections be under information with me today. the same system or all of them under the same system? Q121 Mr Sarwar: You seem to think that there is a Ms Foyer: We do not have a view on that. lot of pressure on MSPs because there is no Second Chamber. Would you be campaigning for an Q126 David Hamilton: Is the STUC represented on increased number of MSPs in Parliament or are you the Scottish Executive’s STV working group and, if content with 129? not, why not and what is your opinion about that? Ms Foyer: Our policy position at the moment is that After all, you have 600,000 trade unionists’ views we are content with the current system; we are not to express. campaigning for any other system. Should we end up Ms Foyer: I would say that the STUC is not in a position where— represented in that working group and I think that the main reason that we are not represented on it is Q122 Mr Sarwar: You are keeping your options that, at present, we do not have a view on STV or any open? other proportional representation voting system and Ms Foyer: ...wewereforcedtolookat another we have been unable to arrive at a view on it. As I system, I can fairly well assume that the STUC said, we have very wide and very varying positions would be looking to have higher numbers based on among our aYliates and we have not been able to our past policy. We do not have any policy that asks come to a position. us to do that at the moment. Our policy at the David Hamilton: Chairman, I was not going to say moment is to retain the current position. anything in relation to John’s questions but I thought that John was a little harsh. I cannot Q123 Mr Weir: Your submission seems to suggest understand how you can have a solid view in relation that you do not see any great problem for voters with to the numbers of people you have within the the loss of coterminous boundaries. Can you give us Scottish Parliament but you do not have a view on some background as to how you came to this anything else. It is also true to say that, within the decision. trade union movement in Scotland, there are varying Ms Foyer: We feel that there are plenty of examples views about the numbers of people representing the where boundaries are diVerent at the moment with Parliament. diVerent electoral systems. Certainly when you Chairman: I think I can answer that in that that was compare local government wards to constituencies, the view of the STUC at the time of the there is quite frequently situations that arise where Constitutional Convention and they have just held wards span diVerent constituencies and they do not that position. necessarily fall into one area. Similarly, the European system has been very diVerent in terms of Q127 David Hamilton: With all due respect, boundaries for quite some time. EVectively, you Chairman, it is a cop-out for the union to say that it could say that the whole of Scotland is one should not be represented because of varying views. constituency. We think that plenty of that takes If there are varying views, then it is their job to catch place. We have, in that case, looked at other them and find those varying views and reflect that. countries and areas where there are devolved There are 630,000 trade unionists in Scotland, many parliaments and I think we mention in our of whom are not aYliated to any political party and, submission that, in Germany for example, that in my opinion, the STUC is one of the very few happens and we do not see any major problems. As organisations which can actually speak up for those Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 39

11 November 2003 Ms Rozanne Foyer people, unlike ourselves who sit here representing a Q131 John Robertson: I am not quite convinced on party. I find it unbelievable that the STUC cop out the 16-year old voting yet but I am open to on this one because that is what you are doing. Do persuasion on that; I am not totally against it. If we you not agree? could put that to one side. What could a body like Ms Foyer: I will certainly take your views back to the the STUC do to try and encourage its members, General Council on that one, David. never mind other people, to get out there and actually vote? It is obviously very important that people are not disenfranchised from elected representatives. I would like to see bodies like the Q128 Chairman: Were the STUC invited to take STUC going out there and talking to its members part in that working group? because I bet you, percentage-wise, the percentage Ms Foyer: I am afraid that I do not know. that do not vote would probably be very similar to the percentage of your members who do not vote as well. Q129 Mr Lyons: Going back to the question of Ms Foyer: I can say that, in the past, the STUC, at voter turnout, in your memo there is no specific idea a number of diVerent levels, has actually undertaken as to how we turn that around and improve voter initiatives to encourage people to vote. Certainly in turnout. Have you any thoughts on that at all? my work with the Women’s Committee and the Ms Foyer: I think we are very open to the range of Black Workers’ Committee and the Youth diVerent ways that we can do that. I was listening to Committee over the past five years, all of those the previous people giving evidence and I think it is groups have undertaken specific initiatives to untrue to say that young people are apathetic when encourage their representative groups to use the it comes to politics or voting. I think if you look at whole range of diVerent electoral circumstances. how many young people vote on Big Brother or how Certainly in the HS campaign for the Scottish Parliament, the STUC was extremely active and I many young people were out on the streets on anti- Y war demos, you really could not say that they are am also aware of a number of our a liates who undertake exercises whenever elections come round apathetic in having their voices heard on issues when to try and encourage their membership to vote. We they choose to. I think we have to work out how we are very active in saying that we should try out new can engage young people more to care about how voting systems, not only postal but perhaps looking they can have a voice in the political system and, as at people being able to vote in supermarkets, more I said, I think that if we reduce the voting age to 16, accessible places, looking at electronic ways of that would go some way to making sure that young voting. All of those things we would be very much people from a young age get into the habit of voting behind and we have made representations about. and that, coupled with eVective citizenship classes in schools, could actually help us re-engage young Q132 John Robertson: If it were said that Scotland people in the voting system. was to be the trial area for all-postal ballots, would your organisation go behind that and try and encourage people and help get the word out to vote Q130 Mr Lyons: I it not a slight contradiction that and to get their postal ballot? the STUC should say, “We want young people to Ms Foyer: I am sure that the STUC would be very have a vote at 16” when a young person aged 16 who interested in doing that and would do that. had left school could be paid 20 pence an hour quite Q133 David Hamilton: Would the STUC have a legally? Is there not a contradiction there? view on compulsory voting? Ms Foyer: Absolutely and it is also our policy that Ms Foyer: We do not have a policy on that, so it is there should be a minimum wage regardless of age inappropriate for me to comment. for all workers, so, yes. A lot of young people can Chairman: That being the case, Rozanne, can I start to pay national insurance and other forms of thank you for coming along today, for your written tax from 16 and I think they would say that there submission and for taking the time. Your evidence should not be taxation without actually having some will be of great value to us when we come to make sort of input into the democratic system. our report. Thank you. Ev 40 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Tuesday 18 November 2003

Members present:

Mrs Irene Adams, in the Chair

Mr Peter Duncan Mr Mohammed Sarwar Mr John Lyons John Robertson Mr John MacDougall Mr Michael Weir Ann McKechin

Memorandum submitted by The Electoral Commission 1. The Electoral Commission welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Scottish AVairs Committee inquiry into the consequences for Scotland’s governance and political life, including the implications for voters, of the creation of diVerent constituency boundaries in Scotland for the UK and Scottish Parliaments.

The Electoral Commission 2. The Electoral Commission was established as an independent statutory authority on 30 November 2000, following the commencement of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. 3. The Commission is headed by a Chairman with five other Commissioners. The Chairman and Commissioners do not have connections to any political party, nor is the Commission accountable to the Government. It reports directly to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Commission has a UK-wide remit and has oYces in London, Edinburgh, CardiV and Belfast. 4. The Electoral Commission is responsible for overseeing a number of aspects of electoral law—the registration of political parties and third parties, monitoring and publication of significant donations to registered political parties and the regulation of national party spending on election campaigns. The Commission has a role in promoting voter awareness and advising those involved in elections on practice and procedure, and is also required to report on the administration of every major election. 5. The Commission has adopted the following as its statement of corporate purpose and main corporate aims. These are reviewed annually.

Statement of Corporate Purpose 6. To foster public confidence and participation in the democratic process within the United Kingdom.

Aims — To promote and maintain openness and transparency in the financial aVairs of political parties and others involved with elections. — To review the administration and law of elections and encourage best practice. — To encourage greater participation in and understanding of the democratic process. — To ensure the Commission is able to undertake the eVective conduct of a referendum. — To provide for electoral equality in each local authority area in England while also reflecting community identity and interests. — To carry out all the Commission’s statutory functions impartially, using resources eYciently, eVectively and economically.

Context 7. Commission oVers no view on the merits or otherwise of decisions taken by the Government and the Boundary Committee for Scotland. Our comments below focus on the factual issues arising, and draw from the Commission’s research into turnout and democratic engagement. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 41

Background 8. In considering the issues raised by the Committee, the Commission notes that the situation arising in Scotland is not unprecedented, either in the UK or elsewhere. In particular: — There are several existing examples in the UK of non-coterminous boundaries for diVerent elections. For example in Leicestershire: Parl const: Blaby (Local Authorities: Blaby, Harborough) Parl const: Harborough (Local Authorities: Harborough and Oadby & Wigston) Parl const: Rutland and Melton (Local Authorities: Harborough, Melton and Rutland) — There are also examples internationally of instances of non-coterminous boundaries. For instance, in Australia—boundaries of House of Representatives divisions are reviewed by Redistribution Committees established under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, every seven years or under certain other defined circumstances. While the Redistrbution Committees recognise the desirability of respecting local government boundaries, the electoral equality requirements often preclude this, such that co-terminosity is not achieved. —DiVerent voting systems are often used for diVerent levels of government in the same geographical area (both in the UK and internationally). 9. Looking specifically at Scotland, several Scottish Parliament and Westminster constituencies overlap local government areas—thus requiring the Constituency Returning OYcer acting as the Returning OYcer for a constituency, which in part falls outside their council area. For example: — Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley — Edinburgh East and Musselburgh — Ochil — North Tayside — Dumbarton — Orkney and Shetland (Westminster) — Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale 10. Scotland also has a multiplicity of voting systems in operation for diVerent elections: Westminster FPTP Scottish Parliament FPTP and AMS European List Local government FPTP Community Council FPTP or STV (for example, in Stirling)

Effects of Change 11. We examine below the available evidence in relation to the likely eVects of the changes proposed by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

Turnout 12. It is very diYcult to predict the likely impact of any procedural change on the turnout at future elections. 13. Turnout at the combined Scottish Parliament and local elections fell by 10 percentage points from 59% in 1999 to 49% in 2003. Just under half of the electorate participated in the 2003 Scottish election. At 49.4% the proportion of the electorate casting a valid vote (on both the first and the second vote) was just under nine percentage points lower than it was in both the first Scottish Parliament election in 1999 and the 2001 UK General Election. Indeed turnout was only five points higher than it was on the last occasion (1995) that local government elections were held independently of a Scottish Parliament election, and no higher than that registered on average in English local elections where all postal ballots were also held on 1 May (49.5%). On the other hand the turnout was eleven points higher than in the equivalent election to the National Assembly of Wales and well above the 30% or so turnouts that have become commonplace in local elections in England in recent years. 14. The Commission funded academic research and public opinion into the views of non-voters both before and after the elections in May 2003. In broad terms, the research concluded that non-participation in elections in Scotland was primarily a function of dissatisfaction with politics and politicians, together with a sense that electors could not “make a diVerence”: — “Circumstantial” reasons for not voting were given by one in five non-voters, but when prompted with a list of possible reasons, non-voters were more likely to chose “You just can’t trust politicians to keep their promises” (57%) than “I really intended to vote but circumstances on the day prevented me” (43%). Ev 42 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

— Other relatively common responses in Scotland—be they prompted or unprompted—related to a disinterest in politics, negative perceptions of the institutions or the politicians and their platforms. — Failure to perceive diVerences between the major parties, together with a sense of not having acquired adequate information about the party leaders were also key demotivating factors. — Perhaps most tellingly, 51% of non-voters in Scotland respectively did not think that voting at the 2003 elections would make much of a diVerence. In reviewing the fall in turnout in Scotland for the Commission, ICM and Professor John Curtice have also reported a decline in public perceptions of the importance of the Scottish Parliament and the electoral outcomes relating to it. Thus while, in 1999, 41% believed the Parliament to have most influence over the way Scotland is run, this had fallen to 24% in 2003. — In addition, multivariate analysis by Professor Curtice found perceptions of, and contact with, the political parties played a key role in explaining whether people voted in 1999, 2001 or 2003. 15. The research undertaken for the Commission by Professor Curtice suggests that there is no statistical evidence that the diVerent electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament and Westminster had an impact on turnout at the 2003 elections. 16. In conclusion, therefore, the available research evidence suggests that the most important factors influencing whether or not to vote in Scotland are attitudes to politicians (collectively and individually) and perceived impact on electoral outcomes. It is, however, impossible to judge whether electors will regard a reduction in the overall number of MPs or changes to boundaries as salient issues in this context. It will certainly be important that candidates and elected MPs make eVorts to communicate eVectively with all their (potential) constituents, despite the increased sizes of the constituencies.

Clarity for Voters 17. As the Committee recognises, there will be a need to explain to the public the diVerent constituency boundaries. In order to mitigate against the potential confusion arising from the proposed changes, we believe that it will be essential to provide eVective advertising and other public awareness activities at national and local levels; and ensure that polling station staV are trained to explain the changes to voters without compromising their duty to act impartially at all times. 18. In recent years, elections and referendums have become more frequent—for example, by 11 June 2004, residents of some parts of Scotland will have lived through nine elections in the past eight years (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004) while a person living in most parts of Scotland is represented by some 18 or 19 representatives1. There is little to suggest that voters find it diYcult to understand that diVerent democratic institutions have diVerent sizes and boundaries. The novel aspect of the proposed arrangements is that the Scottish Parliament boundaries will not operate as “building blocks” for the constituencies of other democratic institutions, but will exist in parallel. This novelty, combined with the proliferation of elections and democratic institutions referred to above, may create a sense of confusion. 19. Unfortunately, awareness of the remit and functions of diVerent institutions is, at best, patchy. MORI’s research for the Commission has found that even the otherwise well-informed are likely to confuse terms of reference for their diVerent elected representatives. There is also some evidence that parallel use of diVerent voting systems can cause confusion amongst some electors. For example, as we indicated in our statutory report on the 2001 general election, some electors in Northern Ireland were confused by the need to use both “first-past-the-post” for the Westminster election and STV in the local elections taking place at the same time. Opinion polling following the 2003 elections in Scotland also suggested that 13% of non- voters claimed that confusion over the voting systems being used led them not to vote (although—as indicated above—such circumstantial reasons sometimes mask the true factors influencing voting decisions). 20. The Commission itself has a statutory responsibility to promote public awareness of electoral systems and democratic institutions in the UK including the elections to the Scottish Parliament. This duty was not extended to local government in Scotland by the Scottish Executive, who retained responsibility for promoting the 2003 local elections. The Commission’s current public awareness strategy is set out in the Commission’s Corporate Plan 2003–08. 21. Based on the findings of our research report, “Scotland votes?”, and in co-operation with the Scottish Executive, the Commission led the development of the public awareness strategy for the elections in Scotland in 2003, designed to encourage voters to participate in the elections. The campaign had three phases: — Newspaper advertisements to draw attention to the need to register to vote. This phase of the campaign rolled out in late February and early March, in advance of the 11 March deadline for additions or amendments to the electoral register to be made. — Newspaper and billboard/bus shelter advertisements on postal voting, running at the end of March and in early April, to draw attention to the facility for voters to apply for a postal vote.

1 One local councillor, one MP, eight MSPs, eight MEPs and a Community Councillor where such councils exist. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 43

— A “vote now” phase, in the three weeks before the election, including newspaper, billboard, radio and television advertising. 22. The Commission would anticipate running similar campaigns in future Scottish elections, and would obviously seek to explain the new arrangements if appropriate. 23. In addition, the Commission has recommended to Government that Returning OYcers, Councils and Electoral Registration OYcers should be placed under a new statutory responsibility to promote awareness of elections and democratic institutions, mirroring the Commission’s own statutory duty.

Administrative Implications for Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers 24. The Committee should also take account of both the transitional and longer-term implications for Returning OYcers and their staV. Relevant issues include: — the practical diYculties of administering a combined election where diVerent voting systems are being used; — constituency boundaries crossing council area boundaries. This leads to added administrative complications which tend to be addressed through local “who does what for whom” deals when elections are combined as in May 2003. Typically, a Constituency Returning OYcer will “look after” the council box of a local government Returning OYcer in some areas and the local government ballot box goes to the Constituency count centre before its onward transmission to the local government count centre. 25. Electoral Registration OYcers already work to diVerent Returning OYcers in Scotland in terms of supplying registers, lists of postal voters, etc. However, diVerent boundaries will obviously add another complication and set of lists to produce. 26. The Commission assumes that the Committee will also be seeking the views of the relevant professional associations (the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Scottish Assessors Association, SOLAR, SOLACE Scotland) in relation to these issues.

Conclusion 27. Public opinion research for the Commission has consistently identified “a substantial segment of the population who make a decision not to vote for reasons of political disconnection (these . . . include opinions such as ‘politicians break their promises’, ‘we never see our elected representative’, ‘they don’t talk about issues important to me’, and so on) . . .”2 On the issue of voter turnout and engagement, it is above all the quality and persuasiveness of the policies put forward by the parties and their ability to motivate voters that will determine future trends. 28. It is diYcult to predict whether the planned changes to boundaries and the reduction in the overall number of Scottish MPs will prove to be disincentives to voting. What is clear is that eVective communication of the proposed changes is essential and that politicians must work to engage eVectively with all electors in the new larger-sized constituencies. The Commission will continue to work with all stakeholders in Scotland towards the promotion of awareness and participation in our democratic systems. October 2003

Witnesses: Mr Sam Younger, Chairman, and Sir Neil McIntosh, Electoral Commissioner, The Electoral Commission, examined.

Q134 Chairman: Gentlemen, may I first apologise Mr Younger: That is right. for keeping you waiting so long? I am afraid that is the way democracy works here. We have to go when the bell tolls! May I thank you very much for your Q136 John Robertson: In your memorandum you attendance today and for your written submission. touched on the proposed reduction in the number of Before the Committee starts on specific questions, is Scottish MPs at Westminster and you said that it there anything you wish to add to that submission at was impossible to judge whether a reduction will this point? have an eVect on voters. Whilst we accept that it is Mr Younger: I do not think there is. I am very happy diYcult to form a definitive view yet, do you have to go straight into questions. any indication, or perhaps anecdotal evidence, that Sir Neil McIntosh: Exactly the same, thank you. reducing the number of Scottish MPs to 59 will have an eVect on the electorate? Q135 Chairman: Presumably the Electoral Mr Younger: I think it is fair to say that we do not Commission does not have a collective view on the have any evidence. It is not something we have optimum size of the Scottish Parliament or on the particularly looked into. There may come a time number of Scottish parliamentary constituencies at when it is appropriate for us to do so, but I think Westminster, is that right? it is fair to say that we do not have the experience

2 MORI (2003), Public opinion and the 2003 electoral pilot schemes, MORI, London. Ev 44 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh that would give us anything very sensible to say to to a close result or serially contentious elections. you in that direction. I would not seek to do so, Are you suggesting that where the identifiable therefore. constituency is blurred, in your view it need not necessarily aVect the high turnout? Q137 John Robertson: Remembering that it is now Mr Younger: I do not think there is any necessary written into law that it will reduce, can you see any reason to think that it does. Certainly there is problems of a lower number of MPs? evidence to say that there is a turnout eVect from a Mr Younger: Again, it is not something we have close fight but I do not think the sense of a close fight looked into, but there is nothing intrinsic to it. One in one constituency, whatever it is, is blurred by the of the issues is the one that I think you yourselves fact that that constituency may be non-coterminous have identified as an issue, looking into the question with another. At least, there is no evidence at this about whether there is disadvantage in having a stage to suggest that is the case. In terms of non-coterminosity between Scottish Parliament coterminosity, I should perhaps add that, in a sense, constituencies and Westminster constituencies. It our only experience of the issue is the experience we seems to me there is a question mark there but, in have inherited in our responsibility for local and of itself, not something that we have looked government boundaries in England. What we into. inherited from the Local Government Commission for England, and is now run by our own Boundary Q138 John Robertson: Would it then be fair to say Committee, was guidance that says that, all things that if you had left it at 72 it would not bother you being equal, our Boundary Committee will look to either? have as much coterminosity as is possible between Mr Younger: I think I would say that it is nothing in local government boundaries, district boundaries our remit to say anything about at this stage. and county boundaries—largely on the grounds not so much of convenience to voters but on the grounds of the organisation of elections and the issue of Q139 Mr Duncan: In your memorandum you state political party organisation. However, although that the situation whereby Scotland has non- they make an eVort for coterminosity, there are coterminous boundaries, as between Holyrood and plenty of other issues, some of which are more Westminister, would not be a unique situation and important: for example, in terms of electoral that there are examples in England—I think you also equality. In the end, the history is that the quote Australia as being one of those examples— coterminosity is achieved at somewhere between 60 where a similar situation exists. Given that there are and 80%, but by no means further down than that. other examples, has that aVected turnout? Has there been a knock-on eVect in these instances on measurable voter apathy? Q141 Mr Weir: Do you think that you are Mr Younger: I think it is fair to say that there is no comparing like with like when you compare English such evidence—not that we have not had an local authorities—you mention Leicestershire in opportunity—and I am not aware of other work your paper—with the Scottish Parliament, given which has specifically investigated that as a very that England does not have its own parliament? Do specific question. There is a fair experience of non- you consider that it is an appropriate comparison? coterminosity. There is no evidence that it aVects Also, do you consider that there is a diVerence, turnout. When you ask people in those sorts of whereas in Scotland we are dealing with diVering circumstances what are the things that aVect or do electoral systems within these non-conterminous not aVect whether they turn out at elections, in none boundaries? of the investigations we have done in the three years Mr Younger: I would not want to make direct we have been in existence has any issue of comparisons. What we are saying in that coterminosity or non-coterminosity been raised. So submission, and what I would say in relation to the we do not have any evidence, and it is a fairly normal question on English counties and districts, is that it thing in England. It is interesting that, in so far as I is an experience that may have something to say or have seen evidence—and it seems to me relatively may not. I would not seek to draw the comparison thin on the ground in terms of evidence which is to say that the circumstances are the same. Of course research-based that you could rely on—it would the circumstances in Scotland are diVerent, but it seem that non-coterminosity is liable to pose more may be that an experience somewhere else has problems for administrators or political parties in something to say, and we just oVer that experience. the way they organise themselves than it would for In terms of electoral systems, again we have electors. That is the way it would seem to me. As I relatively little evidence. Perhaps the little bit of say, however, that is not based on solid research. It evidence we do have is that, where you have is a hunch more than anything. A guess, you might combined elections and where those elections are on say. diVerent electoral systems—of course this is diVerent from coterminosity as an issue—there is a smallish Q140 Mr Duncan: Can I point you in another percentage of voters who will say, when asked, that direction? That is, observing that some confusion about the system/systems is a factor in constituencies in the UK have a tendency to greater their not voting, and it is not an overwhelming one. turnout, obviously, than others. There are Some research we did—I think that it is in the identifiable constituencies where there are regularly paper—in the aftermath of the 2003 Scottish very high turnouts. Very often that is related perhaps Parliament and local elections suggested that 13% of Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 45

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh those asked used that as a reason for not having Q146 Mr MacDougall: Is there any sort of voted. Though again one has to aim oV, in terms of conclusion you can reach? I know it is very diYcult whether that is the real reason. We are never quite in circumstances such as these. Would you say that sure in terms of that research. In Northern Ireland in was probably a resentment vote at some stage or 2001 there was equally some evidence that two maybe accidental, or do you think it was a deliberate diVerent systems—the STV and first-past-the- increase? Could you come to any conclusion at all? post—had been cited by some electors as a Sir Neil McIntosh: In the absence of research in disincentive to voting. terms of that particular group, it is diYcult to say. We did carry through research in terms of the Q142 Mr Weir: Did I hear you correctly that you numbers of those—their attitudes to voting and the said 13% of those who did not vote? non-voters themselves. That research ranged across Mr Younger: Let me just check, to be absolutely a whole variety of areas, which included issues of sure. Yes, I think that is right. attitudes to politics, politicians, and a variety of issues of that nature, and issues of the diVerence, or not, that the Scottish Parliament made. In terms of Q143 Mr Weir: That seems to be hardly a small spoilt papers, I should clarify the point I was amount for an election which had a turnout just making. There was an increase in the number of under 50%. It seems to be a rather substantial blank papers which we saw. The actual number is amount. not given. The other element was that, in relation to Mr Younger: 13% of non-voters claimed that the first and the second vote, they were very close in confusion over voting systems being used led them that sense. However, there were fewer spoilt papers not to vote. I do have to say that we have to be a little in the first vote than in the second vote. bit careful about this figure. I agree that 13%, if it is Mr MacDougall: There is perhaps an issue here a robust figure, is a concerning figure and one would about putting on the ballot paper, “Vote for none of have to take it seriously. It is not totally marginal. the above”. However, in a lot of these things where people are talking about circumstances in which they did not Q147 John Robertson: In terms of the question that vote, there is quite a lot of experience of earlier my colleagues asked as a remark—you have polling that suggests that some of these reasons are extensive knowledge in this—would you say that it those that people think are the ones which make it is time now to put at the foot of a ballot paper, look more respectable for their not having voted, “None of the above”? which are not necessarily true reasons. I think that Mr Younger: That is something we looked at in the the people who undertake these polls therefore put a context of our review of the 2001 general election. little bit of a health warning on the robustness of Not surprisingly, in terms of the sort of consultation those sorts of figures. Nevertheless, that is the reply we did in the review—as a review of ballot papers, that was given, and so it is something that I think looking at a lot of other issues relating to ballot should be taken seriously. You are right. 13% is not papers as well—there was no consensus. There were an inconsiderable number. some people very strongly in favour of it; many firmly against. Our conclusion was that this is Q144 Mr MacDougall: Can I talk for a minute something that is worth trying out in a pilot context: about the issue of spoilt papers? Is there any not something that one should seek to implement. evidence from either England or Australia that, Of course, the issue with pilots is that, for the most intentionally or unintentionally, there has been an part, when it is local authority by-elections in the increase or indeed a presence of spoilt papers? Scottish context or other local authority elections in Mr Younger: In terms of combination with England and Wales, it is up to local authorities to diVerent systems? suggest; but we would encourage local authorities to experiment with these kinds of things. They do raise certain problems, but there is enough interest in it. Q145 Mr MacDougall: Yes. We would encourage it being done on a piloting Mr Younger: I do not think the evidence from basis. Scotland would bear that out. Sir Neil McIntosh: There was an increase in the V number of spoilt papers. There was an increase in the Q148 Mr Weir: What would be the e ect of a number of papers which were not marked at all, majority of “None of the above”? which had no marking on them, and some had Mr Younger: That is one of the issues in a first-past- comments. The pattern is not absolute. We have no the-post election. If “None of the above” wins the researched evidence, but the options are that some election, what do you do? Is it simply the next person people may have been confused; some people may on the list or would you rerun the election, for have considered that they did not wish to vote for example? Rerun it with none of the candidates— any of the people presented to them but wished to make it clear that they were interested in voting, and Q149 Mr Weir: In presidential elections? therefore there was a blank paper. Some made Mr Younger: That is why I say that there are certain comments which related to issues of current events issues that are associated with it. in Scotland and their thoughts about that. A variety of backdrops, therefore. There was, however, an Q150 Chairman: What kind of percentage of the increase in the number of spoilt papers. spoilt papers are there? Is it 1%? 2%? Ev 46 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh

Mr Younger: We will check that. It is not a figure hard cases of people who will not vote at all but who that I have oV the top of my head. Perhaps I may might be persuaded to vote in a Scottish make one clarification on that 13% figure, which I Parliament election. have been passed by the staV behind. In that poll, Sir Neil McIntosh: From a Scottish perspective, non-voters could choose more than one reason for perhaps I may add that we must examine this in the non-voting. So it perhaps reduces that figure to a Scottish context, and that is critically important. degree and, of all the possible reasons that were The Commission would therefore intend to work suggested to voters, confusion of voting systems had with the political parties, through a political parties’ the lowest score. So I think that should be put into panel, with local authorities, and with everyone the record alongside that. sharing the concern about turnout, to look at what can be done. It is not just a matter of process and procedure and voter education, of course. It is also Q151 Mr Sarwar: Paragraph 6 of your an issue of engagement with the political parties and memorandum states that the Commission’s the political scene. There are issues where we cannot corporate purpose is, “To foster public confidence act but where we can identify a need, and therefore and participation in the democratic process within trust that that will follow through. As Mr Sarwar the United Kingdom”. In view of the alarming says, in this instance it was a drop from 59 to 49% figures for the Scottish Parliament elections—in and, interestingly, an increase of 5% in local 1999 the turnout was 59% and in 2003 it was 49%, a government turnout against 1995, because of the drop of 10%—can you tell us how you are going to combination of the elections. The Welsh Assembly achieve your objectives? Can you also tell us what elections were nine or ten points below the Scottish you have done already and what you are planning turnout, and there is therefore an issue there as well. to do to encourage voters to participate in the It is a shared issue; it is a common case, and it must democratic process of this country? be pursued very seriously. Mr Younger: Perhaps Neil could say something about Scotland in a moment. In terms of the general context, however, it is our overall purpose because, Q152 Mr Sarwar: You mentioned that more people when you look at the numbers of things we have should be encouraged to be on the Electoral Register responsibility for, that broad aim of fostering public but, unfortunately, more and more people are confidence and participation is the key to it. I think coming oV the register and so that number is that we would be the first to recognise that, when it increasing. comes to turnout, there are players in this who are Mr Younger: I think that the issue of encouraging much more keen than we are. That is, above all, the people to be on the register is a very important one. political parties themselves and politicians. It would We have done a certain amount of work on this in be foolish of us to pretend that we can have the most the context of a wider review of the Electoral significant impact on it. Nevertheless, there are two Register. We have already done a lot of work to contexts in which there is action we can take. One is point ways which local councils could undertake in the statutory responsibility we have in terms of voter order to improve registration, particularly looking awareness. Interestingly, we have already gone at harder-to-reach groups. We are also looking in through a progression. Remember, we have been in particular to try to bottom-out the evidence of this. existence for less than three years, so the extent of the We have asked the OYce of National Statistics, who experience is fairly limited. We started out, as it have not yet responded, either if we could ourselves were, inheriting from the Home OYce an advertising have access to the census figures in order to make a programme that encouraged people to register, and comparison of the census with the Electoral Roll, or to register for things like postal votes and so on. This for them to undertake that comparison, as part of a was done by fairly broad advertising. I think that we base to look at how we can do more of this in future. have begun to conclude that that sort of advertising, We had a discussion not very long ago, involving unless you are putting multimillion pounds into it, is representatives of political parties and the a fairly blunt weapon; that, in terms of the capacity administrators, where there was this sense of saying we have in voter awareness, we ought to be seeking that local authorities need to look beyond the particularly to target the hard-to-reach groups more conventional annual canvass, and do things which specifically—not necessarily through advertising. are more targeted at their areas and more specific to We are developing an outreach programme in their areas. The interesting thing was that the parties Scotland, for example. We have just taken on an to that discussion were encouraging that to happen, outreach oYcer as part of a UK-wide programme as a way of getting at harder-to-reach groups. The and we have established a new initiatives fund, administrators were a little concerned about it, which is a small amount of seedcorn money for because there is a danger that you start being seen as community groups, local groups, that have acting politically if you are targeting very particular innovative or imaginative projects in participation groups rather than being even across the piece. terms. Our sense is that that is liable to be more There is a tension there, but I think everybody eVective. There is still some broader advertising we recognises that it is something that is worth doing. It need to do, but what we have done so far is target may also be worth mentioning to the Committee— that on the easier-to-reach groups. It might be—in and it is something that will be published in early the context, say, of the Scottish Parliament and local December in terms of the process of people being on elections—people who voted at Westminster the register and how they come oV it—that we have elections, and so have a habit of voting, are not really some quite detailed research on the move from Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 47

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh household to individual registration in Northern right to emphasise that point is, as I was indicating Ireland last year. It will be published at the before, that it is the politicians themselves who are beginning of next month and will have a lot of detail liable to be the most eVective in this. The issue is, are of some of the reasons why people drop oV the there candidates and policies for which voters register. It is not a direct comparison, because we do actually want to turn out and vote, or vote against? not yet have individual registration in this country, It is one thing for an organisation like the Electoral but I think that there will be some useful lessons Commission to be encouraging people to vote on the from that. broad grounds of having your voice heard, of doing Sir Neil McIntosh: May I correct my correction, something that is both a right and an obligation, and Madam Chairman? There were indeed more spoilt giving people information about the powers of the votes this time than in the previous election. Indeed, parliament or the council for which you are voting— the number of spoilt votes in 2003 was 15,785— but that is much less vivid than a politician and a almost 16,000 spoilt votes. In 1999 the figure was party whose platform can stand to capture the 9,000 for the first vote. imagination of voters. I do think that is the most important, therefore, but I have a feeling that I Q153 Chairman: In 1999 the turnout was 10% would have a major career in consultancy if I had higher. some very original ideas that politicians themselves Sir Neil McIntosh: Yes. had not thought of.

Q154 Chairman: But there was an increase? Sir Neil McIntosh: There was a clear increase in Q160 Ann McKechin: Do you consider that perhaps spoilt votes. there is a changing trend amongst voters, away from looking at political parties on the basis of a broad Q155 Chairman: Where would that increase come? philosophy to one which is more consumer-driven, Was it in the first-past-the-post list or in the about what it is actually doing for me personally on additional list? a particular issue such as housing or schools? Sir Neil McIntosh: Interestingly, in reference to the Mr Younger: I think that is true, and I think that is point you raise I can give you the exact numbers. what makes it so challenging—in two dimensions. Spoilt votes on the first vote, 15,785 and, on the There is a sense in which we have developed a second vote, 15,621. So there were fewer marginally consumer society with high expectations, and high on the second vote than on the first. expectations of being satisfied now. That is one dimension of the diYculty. As a personal Q156 Chairman: Did that also apply to the local observation rather than as something we have government elections on the same day? researched as a Commission, there can be little Sir Neil McIntosh: That is also across the piece, yes, doubt—and it does come out in the research—if I but this is Scottish Parliament figures we are remember back to 1970, when I first voted, that for looking at. a lot of people, even if they were not particularly interested in politics, there was a fairly clear sense of Q157 Chairman: Can we get the local government where you fell as an individual ideologically, and election figures on the same day? therefore that would drive your voting. It has been Sir Neil McIntosh: Yes. We would need to track that called a more tribal sense about politics. A lot of that through for you. has disappeared. The ideological diVerences are much harder to perceive. In a sense, there is quite a Q158 Mr Weir: Is there a geographical breakdown perception among people that politics has become of these figures? much more managerial. It is about which set of Sir Neil McIntosh: Yes, there is a breakdown per managers will cope better than another set of constituency which can be identified. managers. At one level, we can all bemoan that decline of ideology, but you cannot force an Q159 Ann McKechin: We see from your ideological divide if it is not there. My guess is that memorandum that voters’ attitudes to politicians, it will re-emerge at some stage, in one shape or form, not surprisingly, aVect whether they decide to vote in one way or another. It is true, however, that both or not. Do you think that there is more that we could points you mention are dimensions of what makes it do, as politicians, first to persuade people to go onto more diYcult for politicians and parties to create the Electoral Register—and you identify a particular that sort of clear ground for motivating people into problem here—and, second, when they are on the saying, “Yes, actually voting for them is going to register to turn out and actually vote? make a very big diVerence compared to voting for Mr Younger: The fundamental answer is that I am the others”. sure that there must be and I am sure that it is what most politicians themselves would feel. I think it would be very arrogant of me to say that I had an Q161 Chairman: One of the pieces we as politicians idea as to what politicians exactly should be doing pick up, when people fall oV the register, is actually that they are not doing now, because it is fair to say at the polling station, when people come along to that most politicians are trying to do everything they vote and their name is not on the register. Would can, particularly in terms of reaching out and that suggest to you that it is more a technical connecting with their own voters. Where you are problem than a political problem? Ev 48 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh

Mr Younger: I am sure that there are technical “What was the question that people asked? Where problems as well, because I think that there is a fair was the greatest confusion?”. They said that in the bit of ignorance. There are a lot of people out there Highland region it was more in those cases where the who assume automatically that they are on the advertising had said, “You will get three ballot register. They assume that if, for example, they pay papers”, when in fact they had had two, because it council tax or something like that, they will therefore was an uncontested local election. That was where it be on the register and they do not recognise that they was, but it was not the voting system. have to take action. I remember talking to a young Sir Neil McIntosh: Whilst there is no Electoral newspaper reporter in Scotland a little while ago, Commission view, again from a personal perspective who was very good on his politics but who, when I in terms of what you might call a commonsense talked about encouraging people to register, said, response in this respect, if it is clear that there is an “What? Do you mean you’re not registered element of uncertainty when there are two systems automatically?”—and this was a political being operated then, if it were three or four, correspondent of a newspaper. That is part of why it inevitably that will increase the uncertainty. If there is important that there are more targeted and are those who are not inclined to vote anyway, and proactive attempts at local level, according to local therefore will tend if there is any diYculty placed in circumstances, to get people on the register. Can I their way to be deterred, then that is likely to happen say one thing, going back to a previous question in in fact. The ideal is to have a common system. The terms of what the public wants and what politicians reality is that obviously you cannot construct a might do? I have a note here about some of the items whole parliamentary democracy on the basis of that I think are missed by people. The public talks absolute convenience in that sense, and therefore about wanting more information about candidates there are all sorts of balances that have to come into and policies, as opposed to just the leadership. That play. However, the point is fairly made that, given is one area. More contact also between elections— added complexity, the more likelihood there is that this is teaching grandmothers to suck eggs and you it will deter some people. What this means for the are all very well aware of all of this anyway—and Commission is that, if that is the case, we have to what is perceived as more “honesty” from address voter information very seriously, to try to do politicians. My own feeling is that that also relates to everything we can to avoid that confusion and give some extent to this consumer society and people the confidence to go out and vote. expectations, as a sort of culture which pushes politicians into the position of promising things under pressure that are not necessarily doable. It is Q163 John Robertson: You have gained a great deal not an attractive message to give to say, “You want of information from various elections now. I would me to promise that, but I can’t and it may take 10 particularly like to know does the Commission have years”. It is not a particularly attractive message to a favoured system of elections, or does it depend on give to voters. the type of election, or do you remain totally neutral on it? I would be interested to hear Sir Neil Q162 Mr Lyons: You state that it is diYcult to McIntosh’s Scottish slant on it, because we have had predict the impact of the possible changes on a few elections now and I am sure he has a turnout. Whilst accepting that statement, what is personal opinion. your considered view of the eVect on turnout of Mr Younger: I will give Neil a moment to think having four diVerent systems of voting for four about what he is going to say. We have taken a very diVerent types of elections? The reason I ask is, clear decision right from the beginning that we will during the Scottish Parliament election I found a lot not take a policy position on one system of election of frustration among voters at the systems that were being better or worse than another. That is in operation. What is your response to that? essentially for two reasons. One is that the debate Mr Younger: We try, in the Commission—in terms about the merits of one system over another is not, of coming up with a Commission view that is in the end, a matter of pure democratic theory; it is formal—to make it research-based. We have not a matter of practical politics and is a fairly political ourselves done the research to back a real conclusion issue. In terms of making sure that we do not get on that. Equally, it is also important to say—which ourselves into political debates, it is something we is in the note—that, as a Commission, we take no will keep away from as far as we can. I am always policy view on the merits of one system over and reminded of a former member of this House whose above another. However, I think it fair to say that it only piece of advice to me when we started out with must instinctively be the case that the more diVerent the Commission was, “Sam, do your best to avoid systems you have to cope with, the more confusing self-inflicted challenges”. I think that I would call it stands to be. The question is, how far that goes. I that something which would be a self-inflicted think that one can push it too far. I was quite challenge. However, there is another, more specific, struck—this is a purely personal experience—when reason. It is in the light of the commitment made by I was up in the Highlands and Islands Council region the present Government in its last election on election day on 1 May. I went round a lot of manifesto: that, were there to be any suggestions of polling stations that day, talking both to voters and change to a diVerent system of elections for the to presiding oYcers and poll clerks. They said that Westminster Parliament, this would be a matter of a there were very few questions from voters, confused referendum. As the Electoral Commission we have about having two diVerent systems of voting. I said, the responsibility to administer referendums in this Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 49

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh country, and it would not be a good idea for us to get Sir Neil McIntosh: That is fair comment. into a referendum on a subject where we have already taken a position. Q167 Mr Duncan: You maybe do not have a view, Sir Neil McIntosh: The first point is that, on a but those we heard last week had some very strong personal basis, yes, of course, I have views and views. It was the Convention of Scottish Local opinions that are probably known in terms of work Authorities, on the subject of list members of the I have done previously in Scotland. As a member of Scottish Parliament. In your knowledge of the the Electoral Commission, however, it is important subject, is there any evidence that voters either not in any way to be seen to be promoting something approve of list MSPs in their role, or actively which is for the politicians and not for the disapprove of them? Is there any diVerential way in Commission—and that is where I stand on that. In which they are regarded by the electorate? Perhaps I terms of the capacity of the public to cope with could just follow up on that. Is there any suggestion variations in electoral systems, generally I have that how they view list MSPs or original MSPs is found in my own experience that we tend somewhat actually having an eVect on how likely they are to to underestimate the ability of the public going to the vote in elections? polls to deal with diVerent systems. However, having Mr Younger: It is not something we have done any said that, the point that Mr Lyons made in terms of work on. I do not think I have anything that I can the complexity is a very fair point. There is the say to you on that. important point that, whereas there are some who Sir Neil McIntosh: The only added point I can make can deal with any system, it does not mean that is that the research we had carried out after the everyone can. We have to bear that in mind. In the Scottish Parliament election, and the work done by Scottish context, we are obviously in a period of the academic team who looked at a range of issues, continuing development. There are a range of reached a conclusion, in essence, that in relation to options. All I can say is that I hope that they will be the impact of the diVerent systems there was really judged on the basis not of what is best in terms of any no evidence that that had impacted on people’s particular angle, but what is actually best from the intention to vote. Interestingly, as you will note, the point of view of delivering eVective government in number of votes on the first and second vote were Scotland and the UK. pretty well equal. Had there been a dramatic variation, I think it would have been fair to say that there is something at work here in that sense. There Q164 John Robertson: Would you say that we have is an allied point which is worth making, namely that done too much too quickly in changing a lot of the whilst I do not think there was demonstrable electoral system? diYculty in using the second vote, there is a question Sir Neil McIntosh: I do not think that there is much as to whether everyone knew exactly what the alternative. When the Scottish Parliament came into impact of that second vote would be—the way in play, inevitably you had a new electoral process which it can aVect the overall distribution of seats. which was part of that process and part of that Inevitably it is a great subject for anoraks, but there development. Candidly, I think that we are still is also an issue in there. coping with the impact of that. Q168 Mr Duncan: To your knowledge, has there been any analysis whether people actually take Q165 John Robertson: We are now looking at also recognition of that second vote to the next level, in changing the system for local government at the next understanding what a list MSP is and what is their election. Are we not perhaps putting too much role? confusion into the system? Sir Neil McIntosh: There has not, prior to the Sir Neil McIntosh: We have to think very carefully Parliament. It may be an area we might want to about this. Let me put it from an Electoral explore in terms of understanding voter attitudes Commission point of view. We would certainly have and their appreciation and understanding of this. to consider very seriously how we carry out the However, it is not one in which we have any research process of voter information when we are dealing base on which it would be possible to make a with the first-past-the-post, first-past-the-post plus comment. AMS, and STV in combined elections. That is a challenge and it is one that we would have to address Q169 Mr MacDougall: Some countries have a very in that sense. high turnout at election periods. Do you think that it is a question that we have lost the value in this country of the importance of the vote, or is it really Q166 Mr Lyons: The Commission obviously do not the systems? What do you think is the balance have a view. You have made that very clear. Is there between what contributes more greatly to the value any evidence available to you of what the voters of such a higher turnout, for example in Sweden and prefer in terms of a system? Holland, as opposed to a downward trend in this Mr Younger: As far as I am aware, the answer to that country? is no. I am sure there have been various polls done, Mr Younger: I think that there is a whole complex but I am not aware that there is anything that would web of reasons and it would be wrong to try to be conclusive in any sense, or that will give you a isolate things too neatly. Clearly, one element is really strong steer. issues of a sense of civic responsibility. That is one. Ev 50 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh

You give the example of Sweden. Sweden is a Our feeling is that if those measures were in place, country in which that sense is particularly strong, so then it would be a robust system to be used on a that may be one element. There is the fact that the normal basis, certainly in local elections—which trend of declining turnout is common to most is the only area the Commission looked at it. western countries, and therefore I think you can say E-piloting is diVerent. it has something to do with the growth in prosperity in a consumer society and, in a sense, people maybe feeling that government is a matter of managing Q171 Mr Weir: Before you go on to e-piloting, you continuity rather than a matter of sharply diVering are aware that there is to be a possibility of a pilot choices about completely diVerent routes to take. scheme in Scotland for the European election being That may be another one. The other thing that all-postal. One of the concerns raised by certainly explains diVerences in turnout is an issue you have some councils is whether they have the resources and not mentioned today, which is the whole issue of the ability to run an all-postal election of this nature. potentially compulsory voting. A country like In those councils which run all-postal elections for Australia gets very high turnouts and there are those all of their authority, have you come across any in this country who advocate compulsory voting. It particular problems that would suggest that a is something we have not taken a view on and which European pilot might have a problem or that it has not been of the highest priority to look at, but we might run fairly smoothly? are currently undertaking some research on those Mr Younger: I think that the reality across the international comparisons about compulsory country is that those who have undertaken all-postal voting. However, one point that I did find striking elections have found that, although there are was, when I asked my Australian counterpart about practical diYculties involved, professional compulsory voting, his response to say, “It works in administrators know how to deliver elections and Australia because it has been here for nearly 100 are able to deliver an all-postal election as much as years and was brought in at a time when there was they could deliver another election. We have been the kind of deference in society that accepted its asked by government to suggest the names of three imposition. If we did not have it and tried to European Parliament regions which might introduce it now in Australia, I would say forget it”. undertake pilots for all-postal ballots next year. We So it is not an easy thing to say that because country will put in our response to government on 8 A has it, country B, even if it has some similarities, December. One of the dimensions we are looking at would necessarily be able to implement it and looking at quite hard is, in consultation with the successfully. regional returning oYcers and the local returning oYcers, what are the practical diYculties they see Q170 Mr Weir: You mention in your report The both in terms of capacity and in terms of willingness. Shape of Elections to Come that a number of pilot Obviously there is a link between capacity and programmes were undertaken in the English local experience. There are some areas where people who elections on diVerent types of voting—all-postal, have not done any pilots with all-postal before are electronic, and so on. Can you summarise for us how more nervous of it than those who have experience. successful or otherwise each of these was? That is inevitable. We are therefore looking at that. Mr Younger: I will not summarise each of them. Very briefly on e-piloting, we are at a much earlier Collectively, however, I think it is fair to say that the stage. We are at an earlier stage in terms of all-postal pilots that there have been—and there experience. Many fewer pilots on e-voting— have now been a fairly large number, 70-plus, very principally Internet and telephone voting. Our view many of them on whole council elections—have is that we need a good deal more piloting in terms of been, on the average, notably successful in terms of developing the experience. Also, we need a good deal raising turnout. There has been an average 15 more confidence. This is not something on which I percentage point higher turnout in all-postal am expert—but a lot more confidence in the elections than in the other elections. Interestingly, technical robustness of the systems in terms of that seems to be sustainable. There was a suspicion security. We are therefore much less further down in the early days with these pilots that it was maybe the road in terms of e-voting. Nevertheless, I think it because it had novelty value. There had been big is something that it is right that we actively explore. publicity. It was the first time it had happened, and In the context of developing an electoral system that then it was no longer so novel. However, there are a fits with emerging lifestyles, in terms of the use of number of authorities who have now used all-postal those remote techniques, in particular the Internet ballots in local elections two and three times and telephone, other parts of the electorate would running. The higher figures have been sustained and, expect to be able to do that now. There will be many interestingly, sustained even in local authority by- more parts of the electorate proportionately that elections, which traditionally have attracted a much would expect to be able to do so in another lower turnout. So I think that there is a very strong generation. body of evidence on the eVectiveness of all-postal ballots in encouraging people to fill in their ballot paper. Set against that are all the concerns about Q172 Mr Weir: We are often told that e-voting security, which are very well known. We have put would appeal to younger people. Is there any forward in The Shape of Elections to Come a whole research on the age make-up of those who have range of measures designed to improve the security. taken part in the pilot scheme and the various Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 51

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh systems of e-voting to demonstrate whether it pilot, Bolton, where a very significant number of attracts a younger voter or any particular set of votes were not counted because the declaration was voters at all? not signed properly. I think that the reason that was Mr Younger: I do not have to hand any particular tentatively identified was because people had the evidence on that. We would be happy to let the suspicion that by signing the declaration they would Committee have any, if we turn it up. In a sense, give somebody a clue as to how they voted. So there where there is evidence in terms of the interest in are some things to work out there. Regarding the e- using Internet or telephone, it is not surprising that pilots, I think it is fair to say that there has been no it should be so. The research does show that non- observable eVect on turnout yet, but equally we voters will say in much higher proportions that should be careful about trying to read too much having a diVerent system, such as Internet or detail into any of the e-pilots so far. Their key telephone, would be more likely to make them vote, usefulness up to now has been to demonstrate that it compared with people who already go out and vote. is possible to oVer a channel, and that those who One of the things we are not absolutely sure of is the have access to it welcome it. However, the pilots degree to which people in pilots who have used the have been of small enough scale so far for us to be Internet up to now are people who would vote wary of drawing any longer-term conclusions as yet. anyway and are interested in experimenting with that system. In the e-pilot so far, there is no Q175 Ann McKechin: If you are proposing all- significant evidence of increases in turnout. postal ballots, what conditions do you put in place Sir Neil McIntosh: Can I add some information on for those people who suVer from disabilities, where that specific point? We are about to report on the a postal ballot, you feel, is not appropriate for them? Scottish Parliament elections. Part of that backdrop Mr Younger: There are a number of suggestions as was to survey non-voters. There was an indication to how that should be handled. We have been in that up to about 50% of non-voters were saying that close touch, in the course of all the piloting— they would be more likely to vote. They were not whether with Scope in England or with Capability saying that they would not vote, but were more likely Scotland and anything in the Scottish context—to to vote if they had other options. make sure that one provides special arrangements for those who cannot undertake a postal vote. It is Q173 Mr Weir: Our own interest in this is whether, often a matter of having people from the local with the pilot schemes, there is any evidence that that authority going and giving assistance; also having would actually be true. drop-oV points—we call them “delivery points”—to Sir Neil McIntosh: In a Scottish context there have which people who want assistance with filling out a been three pilots. They were all eVective, in that ballot can go. An all-postal ballot, yes, is all-postal, voting rose to 60%, just above. In that sense, they but it is important that there remains a possibility for were very eVective, but there is limited experience. a voter who wants to go somewhere physically to be Part of the programme now in Scotland is to try to assisted to do so. In a sense, therefore, it is more like move forward, to build on that experience. It is part turning the traditional system on its head—from of some of the concerns about the European pilot: where polling stations were the rule and postal was that there is not a breadth of experience, although the exception to postal being the rule, but with an the expertise is there. Postal options are available at option that allows you to cast a vote personally if every election now, and therefore there is experience that is what you wish to do. In some cases of of dealing with the postal voting. disability that may be appropriate. Mr Younger: We will send you, if you wish, some Sir Neil McIntosh: We work very closely with detail on this. We do not have the details to hand, Capability Scotland and indeed they have carried but MORI did some work for us in the context of the out a review of all access which was in relation to the 2003 pilots and there is a section of that report on the Scottish Parliament election, which has been the attitude of younger voters to the pilot scheme. We most accessible yet. It does not mean that it is will send you that detail. perfect. I think that it is fair to say that returning oYcers do work hard to try to ensure that those who Q174 Ann McKechin: Of the various types of pilot have disability are met. I know myself, in the morning on the day of the election, arranging in one schemes which you have used, were any of them V more obviously successful than others? For of the polling stations for a member of sta to go to example, did the postal ballots always have a better the home of a voter who could not possibly be turnout than those using electronic voting? enabled to have access to the polling station itself. I Mr Younger: The answer to that is yes. Very clearly think that these examples are good practice and and very consistently and, by all the evidence, should be followed wherever possible. sustainably, the all-postal had a higher turnout. There are still some diYculties surrounding all- Q176 John Robertson: Do you think that the postal, not just in terms of making sure that the programmes we have been talking about could be security measures are there; not just the technical successfully replicated for the local elections and for security measures that would satisfy the experts, as the Scottish Parliament elections? We are talking it were, but also the winning of public confidence— about doing an all-postal ballot for a region, which which is not the same issue but is equally important. would be Scotland. So we could quite easily transfer There are some details still to be ironed out in terms these things over to the Scottish Parliament or even of how a postal ballot goes. There was one particular this Parliament. Ev 52 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh

Sir Neil McIntosh: Not necessarily quite easily. That your view who should pay for this explanation? may be too optimistic. The reason I say that is that Local government, the Scottish Executive or the the Electoral Commission for Local Government in Scotland OYce? England and Wales has recommended that there Sir Neil McIntosh: In terms of the public should be a rollout of all-postal standard practice for information campaign, I suppose the Commission local government, but subject to the requirements would pay in terms of its responsibilities, where it which we identified in terms of greater security being has a duty to do so for the Scottish Parliament. Local brought into place and individual registration. It is government is the responsibility of the Scottish therefore important to have a framework where Parliament, and therefore the responsibility rests there is public confidence in voting patterns which there, as matters stand. So it is split. We had that are being piloted—that there is a confidence there situation at the combined elections, where it was that they can carry through. I think the short answer necessary to work together on campaigns and to self-evidently is that if European pilots for postal share the costs, in order to avoid a situation which voting were successful and shown to be so, there would mean two major costs being incurred by two would be the prospect of seeing future European bodies for one combined election. Hopefully, elections being all-postal as a possibility. The same however, the money will come from government. applies in terms of the referendums in England which are taking place for regional status for three regional areas, where the Government has indicated Q182 Mr Sarwar: Should they pool the resources that its intention is that they will be all-postal. So together to launch a major campaign? you can see a move taking place in that sense. Our Sir Neil McIntosh: I think that certainly it makes concern is that it is important that public confidence sense to try to work together. It would be a nonsense is quite safely ensured. Also, we still think that we to be working apart in a situation like that. should be exploring the other avenues and Mr Younger: The general point you make about opportunities, and not simply taking one as being information campaigns is very important. However, cast in tablets of stone. whoever controls diVerent pots of money, what you need to have is something that is coherent and gets Q177 John Robertson: One clarification on postal through to the voter. That is the key thing. ballots themselves. Has there been any analysing of Interestingly, it is one of the things that we have very postal ballot returns outwith the pilot areas, to much taken on board, in relation particularly to the compare the number of papers sent to households referendums we shall have to run next year in the and the number of papers returned—to compare north of England. We were looking at the conduct of them with your ordinary voting patterns? the Swedish referendum campaign on the euro. One Sir Neil McIntosh: Yes, again in the Scottish of the things which was most impressive there was Parliament context, there has been work done. We the coherence of the branding of all the mailings could obviously get that for you. Interestingly, on a relating to the referendum that went to the voter. turnout of 49%, in terms of those who received They all had consistent branding. Whether it was postal ballot papers, the response rate was 74%. So information about the issues; whether it was polling there is an indication there that those who choose to cards; whether it was information about making vote by post are likely to continue to do so. sure you were on the register—whatever it was, it was all very much of a piece. I think that is a real Q178 John Robertson: Are there any plans to extend benefit to voters. these kinds of trials in Scotland? Sir Neil McIntosh: Also, the Swedish voters were Sir Neil McIntosh: Yes. There was a seminar which given one ballot paper which had “yes” and one was held just a week ago, with the Minister for Local which had “no” and a blank paper. They could use Government present, encouraging local authorities any one of these. to think about trialing, with some examples of how that had been done south of the border. Indeed, Q183 Mr Duncan: Given the experience of diVerent there are already a number of approaches coming election systems—you alluded in your earlier forward in that sense. evidence to the fact that there are non-coterminous boundaries in England, in Australia and Q179 John Robertson: So we will keep our fingers elsewhere—how could a campaign be mounted to crossed in the Scottish region to get a postal ballot? explain these boundaries? What would the Sir Neil McIntosh: I could not possibly comment. information that was being disseminated be? Mr Younger: I could not answer that in practical Q180 Chairman: Was the incidence of spoilt papers terms. We have not got to it. I think that the starting any diVerent with postal ballots than with those point for us in all of this is what are the key things attending polling stations? that an elector wants to know. With non- Sir Neil McIntosh: To be honest, I cannot answer coterminosity, a lot of the detail of that non- that question. I would need to check it out. coterminosity is not necessarily something that an individual voter needs to know about. There is a Q181 Mr Sarwar: The memorandum states that, in danger of overwhelming the voter with detail. All I order to mitigate against potential confusion, there would say at the moment is that it starts from the will be a need to explain the diVerent constituency point of view of what does a voter need to know in boundaries. This explanation will cost money. In order to enable them to cast a vote eVectively. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 53

18 November 2003 Mr Sam Younger and Sir Neil McIntosh

Sir Neil McIntosh: It is also my recollection that ways of voting, there may be fatigue for some in William Pollock, whom you are seeing today, in the having to go out on a wet day to a polling station. area of South Ayrshire has non-coterminous There is not the same degree of fatigue if you are boundaries. So I am sure that he will be able to sitting at your computer and able to vote by Internet. tell you how he addresses that in practice. My There are all sorts of issues that are of interest to us, understanding of it is that the impact is actually on in terms of trying to ensure that voting is as the administration. The objective is to ensure that accessible and as simple as possible. Although, at the the electors have no problems in having to deal with end of the day, people still have to believe that it is that situation. worthwhile, and that is a wider issue. Mr Younger: Perhaps I may refer to something I have been given, Madam Chairman, which gives you Q185 Chairman: Do you think that if we have a more detail on the issue of spoilt postal ballots. The great number of elections people would resent 6,171 spoilt votes in 2003 were postal ballots; 2,666 having to go out more than once a year or, if we were in 1999 were postal ballots. to play the role of devil’s advocate, would they be Chairman: That is quite a high incidence of spoilt more irate if we were to suggest, for example, terms papers in postal ballots. for Parliament and the Scottish Parliament of 10 years? Mr Younger: I have not seen any convincing Q184 Mr Lyons: You mentioned in your research yet as to whether there is real resentment in submission and have discussed today the frequency voters, but I think there is an assumption that we all of elections, referendums and so on. Do you think make—reflected, for example, in the moves towards voters in Scotland almost have election fatigue, in having a combination of local elections that are a way? taking place this year with the European Parliament Mr Younger: In terms of Scotland, Neil may wish to elections. It does not aVect Scotland, but elsewhere. say something. Interestingly, we are just coming to I do not think that, with the voter, we are absolutely the end of a detailed review that we are doing which sure which it is. There clearly is a tension, given a Y the O ce of the Deputy Prime Minister asked us to number of elections, whether it is better to combine do on the local election cycle in England, looking at them so that you are never going to the polls more options for simplification—very much on the than once a year. As Neil McIntosh says, it becomes proposition that maybe there is voter fatigue and, a slightly diVerent equation when you have postal potentially, voter confusion. This is particularly in voting or remote voting. The critical thing, at the end reference to local authorities in England, where of the day, is making sure that voters are in a some of them are all-out elections; some are electing position to understand what it is they are voting for. by third; some counties by halves, and so on. There I think that it is something we need to do and on will therefore be indications there. which, over the coming period, we will be doing Sir Neil McIntosh: I suppose that it is diYcult, some more research—to try to pin it down rather having voted for a Scottish Parliament, to complain more than has been done in the past. Our review of that you then have to go out and vote for it—in that local elections is one part of that. sense. Given that the Scottish Parliament and local government elections are combined to a degree, that Q186 Chairman: Gentlemen, we have exhausted all has handled that. Clearly, there are a series of votes, our questions to you. Is there anything you wish to and all you need are one or two referendums coming add before you go? in and there is a pattern there. Hopefully, it is an Mr Younger: No. Thank you very much for opportunity to use something that is absolutely inviting us. invaluable to the individual—it is part of our Chairman: Thank you for your attendance. This will democracy, it is your right to vote—and that people be very helpful to us when we come to make our would see it in that way. Again, if there are diVerent report.

Memorandum submitted by the Association of Electoral Administrators (Scottish Branch)

1. Written Evidence

The Association of Electoral Administrators (Scottish Branch) welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to the Scottish AVairs Committee Inquiry into the “Incidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the consequence of change”. I have also sought the views of the Chair of the Electoral Registration Panel of the Scottish Assessors’Association.

2. Association of Electoral Administrators

The Association of Electoral Administrators was founded in 1987 and has since made rapid progress in establishing itself as a professional body to represent the interests of electoral administrators in the United Ev 54 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Kingdom. The Scottish Branch was founded in 1990. The Association now has over 1,100 members and the Scottish Branch has 122 members, some of whom are from Northern Ireland, where there are insuYcient numbers to form a branch of their own. All Branch OYcers are voluntary and undertake Association business in conjunction with and in addition to their substantive posts, mostly in local government/joint boards in electoral registration and election administration.

3. Likely Effect of the Introduction of a Differential Between Constituency Boundaries Involving the Scottish and UK Parliaments At present, as well as previously, there are situations existing within Scotland where boundaries are not coterminous between local authorities and UK/Scottish Parliament constituencies. In practice, this means that all the Returning OYcers involved require to liaise with each other regarding such matters as equipment, access to polling places (particularly in relation to voters with physical disabilities), transport of ballot boxes and other matters. At local levels there are generally good working relationships in this regard. Two examples of this are the arrangements that operate in the Hamilton North and Bellshill Constituency which straddles two local authority areas, South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley Constituency which is in both South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire. At present all UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament Constituencies are identical with the exception of Orkney and Shetland which is each represented separately in the Scottish Parliament. Currently electoral ward boundaries at local government level are used as the “building block foundations” for larger electoral areas, namely, constituencies and regions. It would be hoped that such a practice could continue. As there are combined polls already for the Scottish Parliament and Local Government Elections on a quadrennial basis where the boundaries are not always coterminous between constituencies and local government areas, the respective Returning OYcers have to make an agreement as to who will undertake each duty in respect of the election. As the Scottish Parliament election is deemed to be the major event, the local government Returning OYcer then delegates the relevant parts of his/her responsibilities to the Returning OYcer who discharges the duty in respect of the Scottish Parliament Election. This arrangement generally works well in practice as a method of accountability. Some Electoral Registration OYcers (but no all) across Scotland work through a system of Joint Boards to supply Registers of Electors to several Returning OYcers within their Board’s area. They also administer the applications for absent voting passing on the relevant information to the appropriate Returning OYcer. However, as more varied boundaries come into force, Electoral Registration OYcers are required to produce a Register that is adaptable and ready to use in each of the diVering types of electoral areas. Where there is a multiplicity of boundaries this will entail further work for Electoral Registration OYcers. Electoral Administrators will wish to avoid, because of the confusion that may arise for electors, the development of boundaries that will require electors to vote at one polling place at one type of election and at another polling place at a diVerent type of election.

4. Turnout Whilst one of the aims of the Association is to raise awareness of the democratic process, including increasing turnout, this has been the subject of research undertaken by, inter alia, the Electoral Commission. The Commission would be in a more informed position than the Association to comment on turnout.

5. Four Voting Systems Although the prospect of operating four types of voting systems in Scotland appears daunting, electors seem able to understand the basic concept of how each system works even if they do not fully comprehend the operational methods used to calculate the final results. The introduction of the Additional Member System for the Scottish Parliament Election and the List System for the European Parliament in 1999 has highlighted the fact that many electors vote for a party more so than for a particular candidate as they have done, and still do, in the First Past The Post System used at UK Parliament and Local Government Elections. Although this is a devolved matter, and outwith the scope of the Scottish AVairs Committee, the Scottish Parliament has announced plans to introduce a system of Single Transferable Voting for Local Government Elections and intends to introduce this for the next scheduled Local Government General Election in 2007. This is mentioned because the current voting systems all require the voter to place an “X”against his/her preferred candidate or political party, whereas the introduction of Single Tansferable Voting will require voters to make a preference using numerals “1, 2, 3 . . .” up to the number of seats to be filled. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 55

It will be essential, therefore, that voter education is prioritised to minimise the risk of ballot papers not being completed satisfactorily. Both central government and The Electoral Commission have undertaken previous campaigns in this regard and it is hoped that this work will be continued and developed in future. Confusion already exists in the minds of some of the public over which tier of political representation they ought to contact regarding specific issues. Whilst elected representatives will guide constituents to the right person to contact, people who may already be disillusioned with some or other aspect of pubilc services may be further disheartened at apparently being turned away.

6. Conclusion The lack of coincidence between Parliamentary Boundaries in Scotland is more likely to cause bewilderment for electors, especially those who reside in cross-boundary areas, as well as additional work, with the additional scope for error, for both Electoral Registration OYcers and Returning OYcers. Whatever boundaries are introduced an Electoral Register and electoral arrangements can be accomplished, albeit with greater diYculty in some instances, but if given a choice, the Association would prefer boundaries to be coterminous as far as is practical for UK/Scottish Parliament constituencies. Thank you for giving the Association an opportunity to comment. November 2003

Witness: Mr William Pollock, Scottish Branch Chair, Association of Electoral Administrators, examined.

Q187 Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Pollock. Q188 Mr Sarwar: As you said in your May I thank you for your attendance and for your memorandum, the existing lack of coterminosity for written submission. Before we start, is there local and parliamentary elections means that anything you wish to add to that? returning oYcers have to liaise with each other Mr Pollock: Yes, if I may. Thank you for asking the already over matters such as equipment, access and Association of Electoral Administrators to give transport of ballot boxes. If there were diVerent evidence to this inquiry. May I introduce myself as boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood Billy Pollock, the Chair of the Scottish Branch. The elections, would this in principle make any real Association of Electoral Administrators is a diVerence to the duties you and your members professional organisation which brings together would have to undertake? staV involved in electoral registration under the Mr Pollock: It would give us a continuation of the electoral registration oYcer, and election work which we already undertake. Where administration under returning oYcers. Electoral boundaries are not coterminous, it certainly will registration oYcer’s staV are employed either by involve more work. Where a local authority area local authorities or by evaluation joint boards, and a parliamentary constituency are identical, where such arrangements operate. Returning obviously it is the same patch of ground that you are oYcers’ staV are employed by local authorities and Y able to administer and deal with. Where you are returning o cers often work with small ad hoc dealing with a neighbouring local authority, you teams, seconded from their substantive posts for have then to develop a working relationship with the the duration of an election or referendum. The staV in that particular area to make sure that the Association is impartial and non-political and has arrangements run smoothly on polling day. I would excellent working relations with the Department of say that, throughout Scotland, most of us are able to Constitutional AVairs, Scotland OYce, the accomplish that with our neighbouring authorities, Scottish Executive, the Electoral Commission, and other professional associations such as the Scottish where it is required. Assessors’ Association, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, Scottish Branch, and Q189 Mr Sarwar: Would it give you some the Society of Lawyers and Administrative OYcers confusion as well? in Scotland. Our members are very much at the Mr Pollock: I think that it would just give us more coalface in the delivery of electoral services. work. I do not see there being any development in Facilitating ease of registration, absent voting and the confusion that possibly may exist already. voting in person, access for voters of disability, are a large part of our raison d’eˆtre. We have a good record of initiating administrative legislative Q190 Mr Sarwar: Would there be any actual changes in Scotland in the conduct of elections, diVerence? For example, would there be more work which have been well received by candidates, involved for returning oYcers by having to be election agents, returning oYcers, electoral physically present at polling stations and/or at the registration oYcers and, last but not least, the count, or by having to explain how the voting system voters themselves. May I also thank your clerk, Mr works to confused voters? Clark, and Ms Larcombe, for their assistance prior Mr Pollock: The count arrangements usually can to coming today. operate fairly easily when there is a single-event poll. Chairman: Thank you, Mr Pollock. The first It is a case of just arranging the transport of the question is about the loss of coterminous ballot boxes to the right destination for counting. boundaries. Problems arise where there is a combined election, as Ev 56 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr William Pollock now exists between the local government and the places and the polling districts, and polling Scottish Parliament elections on a quadrennial arrangements are made from that. Where diYculties basis. Arrangements then have to be made to make can arise—may I use an example, because it will sure that the right returning oYcer gets the right make it easier to explain this? I currently work for ballot papers for the election that he or she is South Ayrshire Council, so I am based in Ayr. As Sir responsible for counting. These arrangements are Neil McIntosh just referred to, we administer the already in place following 1999 and this year’s arrangements for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon elections. Valley constituency. The Carrick part is in South Ayrshire Council; the Cumnock and Doon Valley Q191 Mr Lyons: You have mentioned in your part is in East Ayrshire Council. East Ayrshire memorandum that there would be additional work Council selects the polling places for East Ayrshire, related to the question of a multiplicity of but I have to deliver the election in that area, boundaries. Can you expand on that at all? according to the law we work under. This means Mr Pollock: If I could start with the electoral that, in eVect, the returning oYcer could registration issue, obviously all registers are theoretically be lumbered with a council decision published on the lowest common denominator; that that is not workable as far as the arrangements for is, the smallest electoral area that is involved, and an election go. Where the local authority and the they are then built up in tiers from there. With constituency are coterminous, that issue should not modern technology, it is possible to produce an happen unless the council and the returning oYcer Electoral Register for any given electoral area have fallen out. fairly quickly, once the initial input has been accomplished. Where the diYculty can sometimes Q194 Mr Duncan: You are eVectively alluding to a arise is that you will end up with people who are in, potential breakdown in communication. You are as I have said, the border areas between two major not saying that it will happen but that it could areas. In one Scottish Parliament constituency it happen? relates to, say, the eastern part of that area and, in Mr Pollock: It could happen, yes. There is a scope the parliamentary constituency for Westminster, it for such a thing happening. As we are talking about relates more to the western area, and they are caught polling arrangements, perhaps I could mention at in this middle bit. I do not think that there is an easy this point that, until 1996, the responsibility for solution to that. These people may not then feel a selecting polling places and making the polling part of either communities. On the other hand, they district boundaries was a responsibility of the may feel that they have the benefit of both. parliamentary returning oYcer. That was changed in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994, Q192 Ann McKechin: The Committee has expressed Section 142, which then transferred that power to a concern about the many thousands of Scottish the local authority. Prior to that, the returning voters who seem to be simply disappearing from the oYcer was personally responsible for making the Electoral Register in recent years. Do you consider polling arrangements. Our association would prefer that the multiplicity of boundaries could exacerbate to see that law reversed, so that it goes back to this problem or would have no eVect? the parliamentary returning oYcer to select the Mr Pollock: I do not think so, because the annual arrangements as far as elections are concerned, and canvass is carried out irrespective of what all other elections would then follow on from there. boundaries are in force at any time. People are asked, “Are you on the Electoral Register?”, without Q195 Mr Duncan: When you say the parliamentary necessarily knowing onto which register for a given returning oYcer, you are talking about political area they would ultimately be registered— Westminster? whether it be that constituency, ward, or whatever. Mr Pollock: In election terms, the Westminster They merely return that they are registered to vote at parliamentary returning oYcer is senior to all other all elections and referendums. returning oYcers, if there is a combined election.

Q193 Mr Duncan: Your memorandum is Q196 John Robertson: The Scottish electors, as you interesting but raises the worrying prospect—and know, could be faced with four diVerent voting you voice concerns over the prospect—of individual systems for four diVerent types of elections. As you electors having to vote at diVerent polling stations, say in your memorandum, further education is depending on whether they are in a marginal area for essential to minimise spoilt ballot papers. Do you one constituency that overlaps with perhaps a have any views on how this education should be marginal area for another. How real is that as a undertaken? possibility? How likely is it to happen in practice? Mr Pollock: I see my Electoral Commission How have you made your concerns over this colleagues have now gone, but it is very much possibility known to the wider environment? something that the Electoral Commission, since it Mr Pollock: The position at present is that polling started, has taken on board in conjunction with places are selected by the local authority for that the appropriate central government departments, area, usually on the recommendation of a report by whether that be the Scottish Executive or the the chief executive, who is very often the Department of Constitutional AVairs. At a local parliamentary returning oYcer but not necessarily level, some local authorities will undertake a voter so. Each local authority then chooses the polling awareness campaign. Indeed, in my own authority in Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 57

18 November 2003 Mr William Pollock

South Ayrshire we did so earlier this year, before the Q199 Mr Duncan: For local government elections? 2003 elections. Most local authorities, however, are Mr Pollock: Local government elections, yes. I also not in a position to fund such awareness campaigns represent the association on that particular working to any substantial extent, in comparison to central group, which has now met three times. When our government. association was asked to comment on the Local Governance Bill, we asked that the day of polling be changed because we think the first Thursday in May Q197 John Robertson: So who do you believe is possibly not the best day for an election. It should be responsible for leading such a campaign? invariably falls either immediately after or before the Mr Pollock: It has to be the central government May holiday weekend, which is the first Monday in department which would be responsible for that, but May. We thought that something like the second or I would expect them very much to involve the third week in May would be more appropriate, and Electoral Commission in that process. also that the polling day be changed to a Tuesday— which was the case for local government elections until 1975. Then if we have to count we have three Q198 Mr Duncan: Mr Pollock, we are humble more working days on which to count the votes, politicians and what we are looking for is a rather than drifting into possibly a holiday weekend professional in the election industry to give us their and being expected to work Saturdays, with all the preference and to give us some guidance. If you had attendant staYng problems and diYculties that that your choice, what particular voting system would would have. A single transferable voting system you prefer to administer? Should there be the same certainly would involve more work. voting system for the four types of elections? Mr Pollock: Our association has not discussed this and therefore I cannot put out the view of the Q200 Chairman: COSLA have commented to us at association, but I suspect that you will want to know great length about the time that it would taken to what my personal view is. From an administrative count the votes under an STV system, and have also point of view, the first-past-the-post system is made the comment that it would remove a lot of the probably the easiest to administer. It usually gives immediacy and excitement surrounding the count itself. Perhaps you would like to comment further you a clear result. However, I have had experience in V the Ayr constituency of having four recounts, so that on the e ect it would have on your members is not always the case—and I am sure that you have and how many hours you think it would take? Would you have to recruit more administrators to also experienced recounts elsewhere in Scotland. It do that? does not always produce the clear result that we Mr Pollock: At present there is probably a would expect, therefore. There is a tendency now— finite resource as far as experienced electoral and it is documented elsewhere—that people vote administrators are concerned. For the length of more so for party allegiances than for individual time these counts are likely to take, I would expect candidates. The first-past-the-post system, however, that we would require more staV.However,youstill relies more so on the individual candidate being the would only have one returning oYcer, possibly one person who is elected and the party name is not senior deputy returning oYcer—who, I know from deemed to be quite so important; whereas, if you are experience, will not go to sleep until every last vote voting for a list system, it is the party name that is counted and when they know that it has all been is then put forward. The argument I have heard done according to law. So there is a degree of stress against that is that then the parties select who is to be and pressure put on returning oYcers and their listed and the order in which the candidates appear. immediate support staV. However, that happens in That has become an issue with the list candidates at Northern Ireland at present and they seem to get the Scottish Parliament election and it is one which through it. So I would hope that we might be others—the Electoral Commission, et cetera—are able to learn from the experiences they have had addressing. The additional member system does not there. take any more eVort to count than the first-past-the- post system. There is one cross on the ballot paper Q201 Chairman: You said just now that there was a and, once that is sorted into the relevant bundles, the diYculty in recruiting administrative staV for result is then declared or at least transmitted to the counts. Why is that happening now? Are we not Y regional returning o cer, who will accumulate all paying them enough? the local results. Single transferable voting will Mr Pollock: You have hit the nail on the head right involve a much longer count under a manual system. away. Remuneration is one of the main factors at We are fortunate in our branch that we also take in elections. For many years—and the Electoral members from Northern Ireland who have had some Commission has now said this—elections have experience of single transferable voting, and they been substantially under-resourced by central have advised us that it does take a two-day count to government where there were central government do. Indeed, as you are aware, the draft Local elections. In eVect, local authorities subsidise the Governance Bill currently being considered by the costs associated with running elections. With the Scottish Parliament is putting forward a system of easier and greater degree of accountability within single transferable voting for Scottish Parliament local authorities now, every last pound is accounted elections, with the intention of bringing that in in for. Many people say, “We are not doing that. It is 2007. not part of my remit. It is not within my budget”. In Ev 58 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Mr William Pollock

February this year the Commission published Q202 Chairman: Mr Pollock, is there anything you recommendations about funding the elections. I wish to add to the submission you have made, or would hope, and our association would hope, that anything you feel that we have failed to ask you? the recommendations will be taken on board, and Mr Pollock: No, I do not think I have. that we will be given financial resources that would Chairman: Then can I thank you once again for your then enable a lot of other things to fall into place. attendance? Your evidence will be a part of the report at the end of this investigation.

Memorandum submitted by Professor Robert Hazell

Summary of Key Points This information is based on research by the Constitution Unit into local representative roles, including postal surveys of MPs, MSPs and AMs in 2000 and 2002, interviews with MPs in 2000 and 2002, and interviews with MSPs and AMs in 2002. The work is ongoing and surveys and interviews are due to be repeated in 2004. It is supported by the Leverhulme Nations and Regions programme and the ESRC programme on Devolution and Constitutional Change. The ESRC funded research, which began in 2002, is directed by Dr Jonathan Bradbury at the University of Wales, Swansea and also involves Professor James Mitchell, University of Strathclyde. The work is as yet unpublished. Following devolution, the local representative role of MPs is now shared with MSPs and AMs, as well as local councillors as it was in the past. The main impact of this locally concerns casework for constituents, although it also has implications in other areas such as relationships with local organisations, including the representatives’ local parties. Our research shows that although many local relationships between elected members are harmonious, there is also significant friction in many cases. This is largely based on party political diVerences. At the constituency level, friction is greatest where MPs and MSPs/AMs represent diVerent parties. Where they are from the same party, three quarters of MPs report a generally cooperative relationship with the local MSP/ AM. Where the MSP/AM is from a diVerent party, only one quarter of MPs report a generally cooperative relationship. The ending of constituency co-terminosity will make these relationships more complex. Each Westminster constituency will overlap with two or more Scottish Parliament constituencies. This has two consequences. First, it may lead to misunderstanding amongst the public about which boundary applies if they wish to approach a local member. Second, it means that more MPs are likely to have areas of their constituencies that are covered by MSPs from other parties. From 1999–2003 relatively few MPs shared constituencies with AMs and MSPs from diVerent parties. However, all MPs also share the local representative role with list members from diVerent parties. This relationship may oVer a better guide to future relationships, as members are from competing parties and boundaries are not coterminous. In the case of list MSPs from diVerent parties, only around a quarter of Scottish MPs report that the relationship is cooperative rather than competitive. The co-operative relationship is demonstrated in part through practical arrangements. For example, one half of MPs reported to us that they share oYce resources with their constituency MSP or AM. Only one in 10 said they share similar arrangements with list MSPs/AMs. Arrangements such as these may help to deal with some of the public confusion that can result from a multi-tier system of representation. MPs have long been approached about local government matters. They have often taken up these cases themselves rather than forwarding them to the relevant local councillor. Similar issues now exist between MPs and MSPs, with the public not always approaching the “correct” representative for their particular problem. Where members represent the same party, and particularly where they share oYce resources, they are likely to co-operate in passing cases to each other. Where members represent diVerent parties, this is far less likely to be the case. Some MPs complain that list members from opposing parties actively seek casework in the local area in order to raise their local profile. What seems to often be occurring is that members of the public approach whichever local representative is most visible, or whichever they feel greatest political aYnity with (eg Liberal Democrat voters seeking help from a Liberal Democrat member). Several members have suggested that a “free market” in constituency work is developing. Constituency casework has not traditionally been a party political matter, but following devolution it has become another forum for local party competition. In some ways this may improve the level of service to citizens, who are unaware of precise boundaries and levels of representation, and will continue to approach whoever they think will get them a result. But in others it may create confusion and duplication, particularly if cases are not passed on to the appropriate representative. Competition is most likely where local members represent opposing parties, so is likely to grow when co-terminosity ends. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 59

In 2002 our survey evidence suggests that both MPs and MSPs favour keeping identical constituency boundaries, but with MPs more strongly in favour. 85% of MPs said that they strongly agreed or agreed with continuing with identical boundaries, with only 4% disagreeing. Amongst MSPs, 46% agreed with keeping identical boundaries, while 31% disagreed. November 2003

Witnesses: Professor Robert Hazell, and Dr David Butler, examined.

Q203 Chairman: May I thank you for your Professor Hazell: Nothing at all, no. There is a lot of attendance and for your written submission. Before academic evidence about what might contribute to we start questioning, is there anything you wish to low turnout or falling turnout. I am not aware of any add to that? evidence which suggests that the voting system itself, Professor Hazell: May I just add one thing very and in particular PR, has any contribution at all. briefly? As you will know as Westminster MPs, the introduction of the Scottish Parliament has led to Q206 Chairman: So it would not matter then if the some friction between the diVerent levels of elected voting system remained the same or changed? That members. I think that is overwhelmingly the result of would make little diVerence to the turnout? devolution itself, not of the electoral system or Professor Hazell: Yes. The most important thing to constituency boundaries. Because of devolution, say about the choice of voting systems—forgive me you, the Westminster MPs, now have to share if this is terribly basic—is that there is no perfect your representative function with a new level voting system. It is horses for courses. of politicians—the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The one thing I want to say by way of Q207 Mr Lyons: Following on from that area of introduction is to repeat something said by Sam questioning, do you think that we would be better oV Younger in earlier evidence. That element of friction with one system for all elections or a diVering system may be more of a problem for the elected politicians for diVering elections? and for the political parties than it is for the general Professor Hazell: I think that it follows from what I public. I do hope that, in your report, you will keep said earlier that the most important thing is to the interests of the public and of voters at the choose the appropriate voting system for each forefront. It is the people out there, I would like to political institution. The voting system that has been suggest, who matter more than you, the professional chosen for the Scottish Parliament is a system which politicians, or us, the academic commentators. is partly proportional—the additional member Chairman: I think we are aware of that, Professor system—and that choice was made at the time of the Hazell, because we have to go out and get their votes passage of the Scotland Act. at the end of the day. So it is in our interest to bear that in mind. Q208 Mr Lyons: Does that make it the most appropriate? Professor Hazell: As you will know, it is the choice V Q204 John Robertson: Does the Constitution Unit, that was made e ectively by the Scottish or do either of you personally, have a view about the Constitutional Convention, in long discussions in desirability or otherwise about having four voting the early and mid-1990s. The new Labour systems for the four types of elections in Scotland? Government, elected in 1997, largely adopted the model and design for the Scottish Parliament that Professor Hazell: There is not much evidence, if any, had been hammered out in discussions in the to suggest that the public are confused by having Scottish Constitutional Convention. diVerent voting systems, even when they vote on the same day. There was reference earlier today to the Q209 Chairman: In view of your comments, would election in Northern Ireland, where they voted by it be correct to assume that you take the view that first past the post in the general election and, on the the ending of coterminosity of Westminster and same day, by STV in the local election. David Butler Holyrood boundaries will have a negative eVect on will correct me if I have got this wrong, but my voters? You do not take that view, do you? understanding is that there were relatively few, Professor Hazell: I think that coterminosity is likely surprisingly few, spoilt ballot papers on that day. to end because, as you know, the number of Scottish Dr Butler: In Australia, where I have been to in at MPs at Westminster is set to reduce and the Scottish least 14 general elections, they have two systems: the Parliament, the Government has said, should alternative vote for single-member seats in the remain at its present size. That means breaking the Lower House and an STV system for the Upper link. We can tell you a little about experience in House. Again, the amount of confusion in almost all other countries where coterminosity, so far as we cases has been completely negligible. know, is not the rule. Classically, if you look at levels of representation, the size of electoral districts increases as you go up the levels of representation. In Q205 John Robertson: Would you say that the local government or municipalities, therefore, falling turnout, particularly poor in Scotland, has electoral districts tend to be relatively small. At the nothing to do with the new electoral systems that next level up, in federal systems of the state or have been introduced? conventional parliament, the electoral district is Ev 60 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

18 November 2003 Professor Robert Hazell and Dr David Butler larger. However, it is not as large as the next level up, down your Scottish Parliament seats to 59 so that the federal government. Taking a fourth tier—for you can preserve coterminosity, or whether you our system, Europe—one would expect the electoral move to some other solution. I know that there are district to be the largest of all, as they are. So to have people who think it does not matter. A man you a system where what I would call levels 2 and 3— must all know, a friend of mine, John Curtis, says the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster firmly, “Let it go. Just sort the muddles out”. On the Parliament—actually share electoral boundaries, I whole, they will be sorted out, but it does seem rather would suggest, is relatively unusual. The countries messy to me. It is not my business to give a we have looked at—and forgive me, this is not a huge recommendation, but I would say add to the list comparison—are Australia and Canada. They are seats. Go down to 59 seats, add to the list seats, and countries where, in Canada, they use first past you would still have a parliament of approximately the post and are well used to single-member 129. constituencies and, in Australia, the alternative vote is not that diVerent from first past the post, and it Q211 John Robertson: What about the theory of also has single-member constituencies. Of the 10 doubling the seats? Instead of having only 59 first- provinces in Canada, nine do not share the same past-the-post seats, doubling it and then topping up constituency boundaries as the federal parliament in with the list? their provincial boundaries. David Butler can tell Dr Butler: Topping up would be diYcult. You would you about Australia. have to do a national top-up, because the number of Dr Butler: It is worth stressing how completely list seats you would need would be so few that unique the Scottish and the Welsh situation is. It you would not get any kind of proportionality might be worth your while consulting with Lord worked out. You might not even be able to get Richards’s commission looking into reorganisation proportionality with the number of residual, in Wales, where they have talked to us about whatever it would be, 20-odd seats. coterminosity. What is unique about these two cases is that you have one for one. In all other cases, the Q212 John Robertson: The top-up list is not done by nesting bodies are several constituencies in one. proportionality anyway, is it? The way it is Nobody gets very worried about it and it does not calculated, the parties that have the most seats do produce great problems. What you face is a problem not get anything and the parties with the least get of trying to merge 59 into 72, or 72 into 59, where some. you would have constituencies which are largely Dr Butler: But you can get a situation where you similar but had chips at the side which had to be have to add to the number of seats to get lifted oV. Then you have great problems of proportionality, as they do in Germany with nomenclature. However, I do not think that looking U¨ bereinesmandat where, if one party is winning big, overseas to Australia or to Canada will give you a in order to get proportionality you have to add seats great deal of further insight. I think that you are so that you can end up with the parties being facing a new problem while you are having just an properly balanced. I think that it would be diYcult. MSP and an MP occupying more or less, but not If you did double the 59 to 118 seats, that would exactly, the same territory. It just does not occur in leave you with 11 seats over to distribute other polities that I know about. proportionally, and that would not be enough to create proportionality. It would not let the Q210 John Robertson: The way you describe the tier Conservatives in; it would not give the Liberal system is very interesting. It would appear—and Democrats any top-ups. It might be very desirable maybe you would correct me if I am wrong—that from the Labour Party’s point of view, but I cannot the tier is built round the big one; the big one splits see that they will get fair play. and then the second one also splits, so that there is Professor Hazell: You asked me some time back, in eVect a coterminous boundary, albeit in groups. Madam Chairman, whether I saw problems with the There is one at the top, two, and maybe five— ending of coterminosity. We mentioned briefly in depending how many tiers of government you have. our written submission two possible diYculties You are right to say that we are doing something which might arise, but I have to say again that these completely diVerent. In some cases it is merging are problems largely for the elected representatives councils with two MPs or one MP, along with four and for the political parties. There is very little or five diVerent MSPs. Would you say that is a recipe evidence that it would cause any problems for the for disaster? public. Dr Butler: No, I do not think it is a recipe for disaster. Obviously, you do work with Q213 Mr Sarwar: You have made it clear that building blocks. As the Westminster Boundary the ending of this coterminosity between the Commissioners for each of the four parts of the constituency parties and the Scottish Parliament will United Kingdom work with wards as the building cause some degree of problems. As you have said, blocks and they do not cross ward boundaries, there are all these building blocks for the council, the they sometimes merge wards from diVerent smaller wards, then the regional constituencies, the constituencies or diVerent counties together. I do not Scottish Parliament, and so on. Is there a system think that we have to worry at all about that. The anywhere else where we will have one constituency worry—and I think that it is a horribly diYcult party overlapping into two or three, as here, Scottish problem that you are facing—is whether you do cut parliamentary constituencies? Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 61

18 November 2003 Professor Robert Hazell and Dr David Butler

Professor Hazell: Yes, we have said that you will find may have a constitutional stalemate in Scotland, that situation in nine out of the 10 provinces in where you are bound to have a permanent coalition Canada and, I think, in all the states in Australia, and people cannot get excited. Then I can see because the state or provincial parliament has more turnout going down. I may be totally wrong, but I members in it than there are members from that state do not think that it will be the voting system that will or province in the federal parliament. It is a problem drive things up. Perhaps I may make one other point for the political parties in terms of how they then about coterminosity, which you might want to refer organise at constituency level. You will each know to in your report. If you did actually have 72 Scottish about your own constituency organisation, whether parliamentary constituencies instead of 59, people you share an oYce with the constituency MSP or would be very uptight about the names and who not. Those arrangements, I imagine, will probably would have the name. Many of your constituencies continue, because you have leases on oYces or have ancient names, very much appreciated by the maybe you own buildings. However, this is an area MPs themselves and known by the public, and you where you are far more expert than we are. Again, I would always have very considerable confusion if do not myself see that it will cause that much you had two members for a name when the diYculty for members of the public, who will constituency means something else. You might continue to go to what they think of as their local have to go to the Australian way of naming Labour Party, or they may have been referred by constituencies, giving them a politician’s name or their local Citizens’ Advice Bureau, or by the local something. At diVerent tiers you would have to have council, or by all the other diVerent routes by which diVerent names. It is a problem with coterminosity. members of the public come to you, the elected politician. Q216 Mr Duncan: You have mentioned that we should dismiss any suggestion that non-coterminous Q214 Mr Sarwar: There are diYcult relationships boundaries are a major factor in turnout. What in between the Members of Parliament and the your view could be done practically to increase Scottish Members of Parliament, especially when voter turnout? there are diVerent political parties’ representation Professor Hazell: I would go back to the evidence on those bodies. Do you think, in ending this you have just heard from Sam Younger. coterminosity, there will be greater disputes and Overwhelmingly, the evidence suggests that turnout bigger problems, or will it remain the same? increases when there is a strong ideological divide Professor Hazell: In our written submission we between the leading political parties. If we had a suggested that it might lead to a bit more friction, for rerun of an election where one party was led by the reason that you have just given. Where, as is now Margaret Thatcher and the other party was led by mostly the case, the Westminster MP and the Michael Foot, there would be a strong ideological divide. Voters would know very strongly that their Scottish Parliament MSP are from the same political vote was going to make a big diVerence to the kind party, there are generally harmonious relations of government that was then going to assume oYce, between them. Where the constituency boundary depending on who won. The other is the closeness of link is broken, it is likely that slightly more often the likely result. In a closely fought battle, turnout they may be from diVerent parties and, for that increases. reason—the reason of party diVerence—there may not be such co-operative relations. Q217 Chairman: May I thank you for your attendance this afternoon. Is there anything you Q215 Ann McKechin: We have spoken today about wish to add to the submissions you have made to us? voter disenchantment. Do you think the logical Professor Hazell: Could I very briefly add one conclusion is that, if voters continue to be concluding remark? Our evidence was based on disenchanted by the political process and politicians, interviews as well as surveys that we have conducted the turnout will continue to drop, or do you think with MPs and MSPs and I should like to say that, that we will eventually get to a figure which will not despite the problems and the criticisms which have drop any lower? been made of the possible friction resulting from Dr Butler: I think that turnout will go up when there having a new level of government, what was is a battle royal. At the next general election, if the reported to us by MSPs as well as by MPs is that the polls are showing the parties relatively close, we shall overall service of local representation to the public, go up quite a lot from the 59% of last time. I am sure in their view, has improved. the same applies in the Scottish Parliament in terms Chairman: Thank you very much. This will be very of whether there is something really at issue. You helpful to us when we come to make our report. Ev 62 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Tuesday 2 December 2003

Members present

Mrs Irene Adams, in the Chair

Mr Alistair Carmichael Mr John MacDougall Mr John Lyons John Robertson Ann McKechin Mr Mohammed Sarwar

Memorandum submitted by the Scottish Executive Thank you for your letter of 14 October to the Permanent Secretary, requesting information about the likely eVect of the introduction of any diVerential between constituency boundaries involving the Scottish and UK Parliaments and also about the implications for turnout at elections and clarity for the electorate of there being four separate voting systems in Scotland involving the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, local government and European Parliament. As you will be aware, many of the matters under consideration are reserved under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. Moreover, agencies such as the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission have a leading role in the operation of the electoral systems in place in Scotland. Therefore, as a consequence of the Scottish Executive’s relatively limited formal responsibilities in this area, the issues that you raise have generally not been a focus for independent research or development by us. Having said that, however, I hope the following comments will be useful to the Committee in its inquiry into the consequences for Scotland’s governance and political life of the creation of diVerent constituency boundaries in Scotland for the UK and Scottish Parliaments.

Constituency Boundaries

We have noted that it has been suggested by some that having two sets of Parliamentary constituencies could be problematic. Specifically, concerns have been expressed about the potential for public confusion, diYculties for the political parties and practical problems for local authorities and Returning OYcers. The Executive believes that the interests of the public must come first when considering the issue of electoral boundaries. Scotland already has a range of diVerent boundaries for local, parliamentary and European elections and three diVerent electoral systems. To date these systems have operated without significant problems. Other countries, such as Germany and Australia, have entirely diVerent arrangements between Federal and Land / State boundaries without reporting significant diYculties. Therefore, the Executive does not believe that having diVerent constituency boundaries for Holyrood and Westminster will necessarily give rise to serious diYculties, either for political parties or for the electorate. In terms of determining the constituency boundaries for both Holyrood and Westminster, the Executive believes that the requirement for the Boundary Commission to have regard to local authority boundaries is important. Local wards, reflecting the importance of community boundaries should be the basic building blocks for both Westminster and Holyrood constituencies. Also the Boundary Commission could also be requested to propose the retention of contiguous boundaries wherever possible, and to maintain the integrity of historic boundaries such as towns. As has been stated previously, it seems likely that, as between 73 Holyrood and 59 Westminster constituencies, the diVerences involved could in many cases be relatively marginal. While there is no evidence to suggest that diVering electoral arrangements have had a detrimental impact on the ability of political parties and returning oYcers to organise themselves, further change should be closely monitored in the interests of the electorate. The Executive previously proposed a joint UK–Scottish Advisory Commission to consider the experience of the Parliament since devolution. The Executive is therefore pleased that the UK Government announced its intention to institute such a Commission and believes it is a good mechanism for addressing and resolving any practical issues that may emerge. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 63

Voting Systems The electoral systems for the European Parliament, the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament are all reserved to Westminster. The legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament itself extends only to the electoral system for local government in Scotland. As regards the electoral system for local government in Scotland, in June 1999 the McIntosh Commission, which had been established in January 1998 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, reported its conclusions on modernisation. It confirmed that there was an agenda for change and modernisation in local government and set a challenge for local government to be more open, eYcient and accountable. It also recommended that “proportional representation (PR) should be introduced for local government elections. A review should be set up immediately, to identify the most appropriate voting system for Scottish local government”. Further, the Commission recommended five criteria for determining the system of PR to be adopted: — proportionality; — the councillor-ward link; — fair provision for independents; — allowance for geographical diversity; and — a close fit between council wards and natural communities. (While turnout at elections was not identified specifically as one of the criteria for determining which system to select, it has been argued that a proportional system such as STV gives people more of an incentive to vote because their votes are less likely to be “wasted”.) Following the report of the Commission, the Renewing Local Democracy Working Group was asked to consider the electoral system that would be most appropriate for local elections, taking account of the McIntosh criteria. It concluded that the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system was the most suitable. The Group also took the view that the electoral system for local government in Scotland should be as democratic as that for the Scottish Parliament, but that there was no compelling need for the systems of proportional representation used to be the same. They considered that a programme of voter education would be an essential component of the successful introduction of a new electoral system for local government. The Executive’s White Paper “Renewing Local Democracy: The Next Steps” of March 2002 also considered a number of diVerent systems for local government elections in Scotland. The responses to that overwhelmingly favoured the introduction of STV for local government elections here. A Bill which includes the introduction of STV for elections will be introduced to Parliament before the end of this year. Consultation on a draft of that Bill emphasised the need for a significant voter education campaign to ensure that people understand the new system. Otherwise, any concerns expressed in the consultation responses related to the practicalities of running an STV election on the same day as the election to the Scottish Parliament, rather than the risk of voter confusion or low turnout. That being said, while the features of particular electoral systems may be straightforward in isolation, it can be argued that there may be scope for confusion if a range of diVerent electoral systems are in play for diVerent levels of government, especially if elections for diVerent levels take place on the same day. However, this is not an unprecedented situation. There are already diVerent electoral systems for the European Parliament (list proportional representation, with each elector having one vote each), UK Parliament and Scottish local government (first past the post) and Scottish Parliament (Additional Member System, with each elector having two votes each). Most recently, the elections for Scottish local government and Scottish Parliament, using their diVerent electoral systems, both occurred on 1 May without undue diYculty. November 2003

Witness: Patricia Ferguson, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Scottish Executive, examined.

Q218 Chairman: Good afternoon ladies and Executive does not have a position and again it gentlemen. Minister, can I thank you for your would not be appropriate for me to comment on attendance and for your written submission. Before those particular issues. I very much welcome the the Committee starts on its specific questioning, do opportunity to be here today and to help with the you have anything you wish to add in support of inquiry you are undertaking. your memorandum? Ms Ferguson: As I stated in the letter which I sent on behalf of the Executive, many of the issues that your Q219 Chairman: As Minister for Parliamentary Committee is considering are reserved and therefore Business and therefore equivalent to the Leader of matters on which it would not be appropriate for me the House of Commons, you are presumably able to to comment today. I think it is also fair to say that speak with equal authority on the views held by the some of the issues that you may wish to discuss in Scottish Parliament and by the Scottish Executive. Is your Committee are perhaps issues on which the that right? Ev 64 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

2 December 2003 Patricia Ferguson MSP

Ms Ferguson: I do not speak for the Scottish Ms Ferguson: I think that is a matter for Parliament, no. Westminster to consider in the first instance. Obviously the Scottish Executive at least accepts that it is a devolved institution and we have the Q220 Mr Sarwar: Generally speaking, do the settlement that we have. Therefore it falls to Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive and Westminster to make these decisions. all the political parties in Scotland agree that the number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament should remain at 129? Q225 Mr Sarwar: So you are happy that this matter Ms Ferguson: Yes. The Scottish Executive took the should not be a devolved matter for Westminster. opportunity to respond to the consultation that was Ms Ferguson: For the time being that is the way it put under way by the then Secretary of State for stands and we are happy to accept it. Scotland on the issue and commented that 129 seemed to us to be the right number for the moment. Q226 Mr Sarwar: So what you are saying is that as In addition, the Scottish Parliament itself debated long as Westminster does what the Scottish the issue and came to the same conclusion. We do Parliament wants then it can remained a devolved have a shared view in that respect. matter, but if we intend to make a decision diVerent from what the Scottish Parliament wants or the Scottish Executive wants then you will demand that Q221 Mr Sarwar: Is there any support for an there should be a devolved Scottish Parliament. increase in the number of MSPs? Ms Ferguson: Those discussions have never taken Ms Ferguson: I think at this point in time our place in fact. What we have done is respond to a preference over all is to maintain the stability that we request from the Westminster Government to have. We have found that 129 members enables us to respond to its consultation on what the number do our business and to do it—we think—fairly should be. We are very much of the view that 129 V e ectively. I think for that reason we would prefer to should be the number that was retained. We were see some stability for the foreseeable future. also supported in that by the vast majority of those who responded to that consultation, as I understand Q222 Mr Sarwar: You are determined to stay at 129. it. It is not just the Scottish Executive that thinks it What diVerence would half a dozen more or half a should be 129; it think it is a more broadly held view dozen less make? It is not in the Bible that it should that that should be the correct number to work with. remain at 129. Ms Ferguson: That is true. However, the figure of Q227 Mr MacDougall: The Scottish Executive have 129 was arrived at after a great deal of discussion stated that they do not seem to consider that there within Scotland. It was the recommendation of the will be any real problems caused by a loss of Constitutional Convention who arrived at that coterminous boundaries, but is it necessary to have figure after consulting very widely in Scotland and diVerent constituency boundaries for elections to after a great deal of deliberation. It was certainly Westminster and to Holyrood? For example, could their view that that was the correct number to have. we not have 60 Scottish Parliamentary As you know, we have only been around for just constituencies—perhaps 58 coterminous with over four years and it seems to me and to the Westminster with separate constituencies for Executive that to change the number at the moment Orkney and for Shetland—each returning two without having good reason and without having MSPs, with the remaining nine MSPs being elected consulted widely and without having built that on a Scotland wide list basis? Would that not be consensus in Scotland, that would not be the right another option worthy of consideration? way forward. Ms Ferguson: I think again I would come back to the issue of stability. I think it is very important that given that we are such a new Parliament and given Q223 Mr Sarwar: Have any views been expressed in that we are still in the process of finding our way—I either the Parliament or the Executive that Schedule would argue that we have done pretty well so far— 1 of the Scotland Act should not be replaced, and I think it is important that we retain what we have that consequently the number of MSPs should be at the moment. I do not think the issues of lack of reduced pro rata when the number of Scottish coterminosity are necessarily issues that we cannot Parliamentary seats at Westminster is reduced? overcome. The Executive, in its submission, Ms Ferguson: I think we very much welcome the indicated that we would be more than happy to be announcement that was made in the Queen’s speech involved in any commission—Westminster might last week, that there will be a Bill about the like to consider setting up a joint commission—to constituencies of the Scottish Parliament, but I think look at these issues in more detail and to work them it would still be our view that 129 should be the through in the process. number that we work to. Q228 John Robertson: I want to talk about the Q224 Mr Sarwar: Is it a source of irritation or relationship between MPs and MSPs, something frustration that Westminster rather than Holyrood very dear to my heart: your husband is my MSP. determines the size of the Scottish Parliament? Do There were problems highlighted by COSLA and by you see a time when this matter will be devolved to Professor Robert Hazell and it was said by them that Holyrood? a reduction in the number of MSPs would solve Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 65

2 December 2003 Patricia Ferguson MSP some of the friction that was highlighted. Would you to be very, very cautious about doing anything that agree with that? Many MPs—and MSPs for that changed that. I think we would have to be very, very matter—see the regional list MSPs muscling in on sure that there was a consensus and a mood in their territory. Would you accept that such frictions Scotland for that. actually exist, one between the MPs and the MSPs and then for the list MSPs? Q232 John Robertson: Would you say that there is a Ms Ferguson: I am pleased to note that Mr need for a list system in Scotland? Robertson and I share a common cross to bear in Ms Ferguson: We have a list system in Scotland and that I am my husband’s MSP as well at the moment. we have a list system for the purpose of making the I think inevitably when you introduce a new layer of Parliament more proportional. government there will be issues, tensions and frictions that have to be worked through. I think Q233 John Robertson: Is there a need for it? personally that those have been worked through in Ms Ferguson: I think the system we have works the course of the last four years and we will see that pretty well for the Scottish Parliament. increases as time goes on. I think many of the problems that were forecast did not happen in reality Q234 Mr Lyons: Do you think it is sensible that we and those that did are much less now than they were have list MSPs holding a surgery next door to in the early days of the Parliament. We have someone who is directly elected to the Parliament? established protocols about how MSPs work one to Ms Ferguson: I think constituents have to be able to another and I think it is very important that we all choose who they want to talk to and who they want try to observe those protocols and that it is up to us to take up their problems. I might, as an individual, to make it work. I think there can be frictions but I find that a little bit galling sometimes, but it is do not necessarily think that it is as much of a something I have to work with and that I do work problem as it sometimes appears to be. with. If we have problems with the system we have a protocol that is more than capable of sorting out any Q229 John Robertson: Do you have problems with diYculties there may be. the list MSPs? Ms Ferguson: We have a protocol that enables us to Q235 Mr Lyons: What does the protocol say in work one with another. terms of constituents who have a problem and want to go to a surgery? Q230 John Robertson: It is not working, is it? It Ms Ferguson: The protocol recognises that all MSPs certainly is not working between MPs and list MSPs. are equal in the first instance and it also recognises Ms Ferguson: I do not have a lot of experience of the that diVerent MSPs—list MSPs and constituency relationships the members of Parliament have with MSPs—may be approached on occasions by the the list MSPs, but I certainly know from the work same individual and so it lays down what procedures that the list MSPs in my own party do that they are have to be followed if that occurs. MSPs, by and very, very careful about how they operate and what large, follow that and there are mechanisms to deal they do. However, it is quite early days and I think with those who do not. everyone is trying to find a role and a place in the governments that we have and to find out where they Q236 Mr Carmichael: Can I just pick up on the point should position themselves. I think at the end of the of 120 elected by two MPs per constituency? That day the job we do for our constituents is the most presumably would not be a proportional important element of it. Parliament. Presumably the Scottish Executive has committed to the retention of a proportional system Q231 John Robertson: Is there a need for list MSPs of election. at all? We could change the voting system Ms Ferguson: The Scottish Executive has made it completely and we could introduce 120 MSPs—two quite clear that it sees the current system as being a MPs per constituency—and if there was some feeling system that we have at the moment. We want to that list members still were required they could be retain the number of 129 and that is what we have topped up by a Scottish list rather than by a regional said in our submission. The answer is yes. list. Is that not really where the problem lies, in the regional list? Q237 Mr Carmichael: You are committed to a Ms Ferguson: I am not a hundred per cent sure that proportional system, whatever it is. taking that scenario you would actually solve the Ms Ferguson: The Scottish Executive is committed problems that you are outlining, but I do think that to that proportional system, yes. we need to give the system time to bed down. I do think we need to be prepared to work with one Q238 Mr Carmichael: Your own memorandum another and I do think we have to discuss problems speaks about the diVerent systems which we and issues that we might have across the Parliaments potentially now have. If we have STV for local if need be to make sure that they work. The system government we would potentially have four diVerent we have was arrived at in a similar way to the systems operating in Scotland. We would have first number of 129, after a great deal of discussion and past the post; we would have the additional member debate within the Constitutional Convention and system; we would have the Single Transferable Vote; mirrored what civic Scotland and what political and a closed list for the European system. I think you parties agreed to at that time. I think we would have make the point yourselves that each in isolation is Ev 66 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

2 December 2003 Patricia Ferguson MSP not particularly diYcult, but there is a potential for Ms Ferguson: There is no plan at the moment for confusion when you are operating all four, possibly there to be a split. However, as you probably know, even in tandem. The STUC, in their submission, there is an independent working group on the STV made reference to the Partnership for a Better set up as part of the package of measures being taken Scotland Agreement, including a commitment to forward with the Local Government’s Bill and if it reform voting arrangements in order to increase were to come forward with any recommendations participation. Where are you with these planned that suggested otherwise then the Executive would reforms at the moment? have to consider those. Ms Ferguson: The reforms to local government elections? Q244 Ann McKechin: Your memorandum states that the Scottish Parliament is responsible only for Q239 Mr Carmichael: Yes. the electoral system in terms of local elections in Ms Ferguson: The Bill, amongst other things, to Scotland and not for the Scottish Parliament reform the system of elections for local government elections. Does the Scottish Executive consider that was introduced to the Parliament last week. responsibility for the electoral systems used for other elections in Scotland should be devolved to Holyrood? Q240 Mr Carmichael: I want to explore this question Ms Ferguson: I think the Scottish Executive about systems themselves and confusion then recognises that it is at Westminster at the moment leading to—or having an eVect on—turnout. Do and that there is no prospect of that changing. We you actually find this is something that people will are quite comfortable with that. raise with you in the course of your work as a constituency MSP? Ms Ferguson: No, I do not find that. I do not Q245 Ann McKechin: Do you consider that there necessarily think that the system deters people from should be one voting system for all four types of turning out at elections. election, even though you have made your comments that you do not think that the voters are particularly confused about the diVerent systems? Q241 Mr Carmichael: What do you think it is that Ms Ferguson: I do not think it is necessary. I think does deter people? electors are more than able to cope with diVerent Ms Ferguson: I think there is a whole range of issues electoral systems. In fact, in very many other that aVect people. I think we all know if it happens countries it is the norm that there are diVerent to be a wet day the turnout will be down. There is a electoral systems for diVerent layers of government. whole host of things: people’s individual I do not think that is something that we would be circumstances, the way that we vote. The pilots on particularly concerned about. Obviously if there are postal voting, for example, have made a huge diYculties arising from it we would want to try to diVerence where they have operated. I think there work those out, working with partners at are a whole host of reasons why people do not turn Westminster and in local government and, indeed, out to vote. I do not necessarily think that there is a with the European Parliament too. I think it is confusion about the electoral system that aVects that something that can be worked through. particular issue. Q246 John Robertson: Although in your Q242 Mr Carmichael: When we were taking memorandum the Executive does not put forward evidence from COSLA they identified the need for any views on how to increase voter turnout, you do some sort of campaign to inform and educate voters. mention that it has been argued that STV gives When the thorny question of finance was raised they people more of an incentive to vote. Do you agree said that this should be something that should be the with this argument? What evidence do you have to joint responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the support it? Scotland OYce. Would you agree that such a Ms Ferguson: I do not think we were necessarily responsibility should rest with the Scottish making that particular argument. I think we were Executive? suggesting that other people make that argument for Ms Ferguson: I think it currently rests with the STV and that is something that might want to be Electoral Commission by and large and I think born in mind when discussions are going on. that’s really where it should lie. I think once you get politicians involved in it, it becomes a totally Q247 John Robertson: It says, “While turnout at diVerent discussion and argument. I think the work elections was not identified specifically as one that the Electoral Commission does—and is doing— criteria for determining which system to select, it has is very welcome and I know they are committed to been argued that a proportional system such as STV making sure that there is much more work done on gives people more of an incentive to vote because that basis in the future. their votes are less likely to be wasted.” Ms Ferguson: It has been argued, but not necessarily Q243 Mr Lyons: The last Scottish Parliament by the Executive. elections and the council elections were on the same day. Do the Executive have a view that that should Q248 John Robertson: Does the Executive not agree continue or should there be a split in some way? with that? Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 67

2 December 2003 Patricia Ferguson MSP

Ms Ferguson: The Executive is putting it forward as Ms Ferguson: That is really a matter for the a debating point I think. Electoral Commission but any suggestions the Electoral Commission made that were within the remit of the Scottish Executive I am sure we would Q249 John Robertson: So if I put a debating point to look at. them that I think the STV is a load of rubbish will you take it on board and perhaps get rid of it? Ms Ferguson: Or no doubt debate it. Q256 John Robertson: “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas” do you think that might have something to do with the attitude taken by the local Q250 John Robertson: Is it your opinion that STV government establishment and COSLA in refusing will be adopted for local government elections in to support the Single Transferable Vote for local Scotland? elections? Ms Ferguson: We have a Bill making its way through the Parliament at the moment and it is part of the Ms Ferguson: I do not claim to speak for COSLA; I partnership agreement that helped to form the have not idea why they would say that. coalition after the elections in May, so I see no reason why it will not. Q257 John Robertson: Would you agree with the suggestion that it is voters’ attitudes to politicians Q251 John Robertson: Has there been consultation that may influence their decision as to whether or not with the local government authorities on this? they vote? What should we, as politicians, be doing Ms Ferguson: There has been consultation all over to encourage our constituents to take part in the Scotland on a number of occasions now on the Bill. electoral process? There have been two commissions and there was Ms Ferguson: I think as politicians we all can also consultation on the draft Bill at the beginning of improve the amount of access that our constituents 2002. There has been a three month consultation on have to us and I think we can be very assiduous at all the Bill as introduced. times. I am sure everyone tries very hard to be assiduous, but I think we can all monitor our own processes and the way we deal with things and see Q252 John Robertson: Why is it that only four local what lessons we can learn. I do think that in part, at authorities want STV and all other local authorities least, the attitude to politicians is part of the package do not? Why have you not listened to them? of things that I think discourages people from Ms Ferguson: Obviously we have to take into voting. However, it is not a problem that we only account what the individual local authorities are have in Scotland or the UK; it is a problem we have saying, but we also have to take into account the in all the western democracies. I think if there were broader range of responses to the consultations. a magic solution to it somebody somewhere would have found it by now. I think it will involve a lot of Q253 John Robertson: You will appreciate that if we work by a lot of people over a period to turn that did the same with the Scottish Parliament you would particular problem around. not be left with the system you have. Ms Ferguson: I think from memory the response Q258 Mr Lyons: Earlier you mentioned the from consultation that Westminster issued actually relationship to the numbers and the question of came out with very high numbers of respondents in coterminosity, the possibility of a joint commission. favour of retaining the current system. Could you just expand on that a little? Ms Ferguson: It was one of the things that was Q254 John Robertson: It is funny that you should say suggested in our submission to the initial that because I was just writing a note to my colleague consultation that the Secretary of State launched. and what I wrote was, “Turkeys do not vote for Obviously it has been suggested that there may be Christmas”. The question has to be asked, should diYculties with the loss of coterminosity and it was the MSPs have actually taken part in the felt that it would be helpful in order to take that consultation considering that it is there jobs we are process through that a commission established talking about? between the two might actually be something that Ms Ferguson: Normally the Scottish Executive does would be helpful to try to work through those not comment, as you probably know, on matters problems and to find solutions to them where they that are reserved to Westminster. We made an arise. exception on this particular instance as an Executive because we were specifically invited to do so by the Q259 John Robertson: As you know, we are trying to Secretary of State and because the issue that was persuade people that Scotland should be postal being suggested to us was actually the viability of the ballot. Do you consider that would be a good idea, devolution process. It was felt to be important to make it all postal ballot? enough to have us break with our normal tradition. Ms Ferguson: I think that is really a matter for Westminster to decide. Where there have been Q255 John Robertson: Are there any other postal pilots they seem to have increased the turnout innovations that the Executive is considering in substantially and I would certainly welcome any order to change or encourage voter turnout? measure that helps increase the turnout for elections. Ev 68 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

2 December 2003 Patricia Ferguson MSP

Q260 John Robertson: One of the concerns I have Ms Ferguson: I think it is part of the inevitability of about the four electoral systems that we may end up the system that we have that that will occur. I think, with is the turning-oV of people. The fact that we do at the end of the day, we have to recognise that they not have anybody to blame and that would certainly have been voted for by the electorate. They may not happen in any kind of PR system where the person have been voted for in the same way as constituency you would blame—the leader in this case—the local members have been, but there has still been a vote person who maybe worked hard would be the person cast and the vote has gone in their favour. who would suVer at the end of the day and they would lose their job. Do you see that as a problem, Q266 Mr Lyons: Would it not be simpler if they that a good person could end up being taken out for either stood in a first past the post seat or on the list the reason that they are low down the list system and rather than both? to the misuse of the list system in that it is Ms Ferguson: I think that the system is such that it deliberately put someone who, you might say, was a is still quite early days. Most of the political parties thorn in someone’s side as was observed by the SMP are trying to find their way around that to see how list at the last elections. it works best for them. I suspect that there might be Ms Ferguson: I am not quite sure what argument changes to that in the future amongst parties. That you are making there. is a matter for the parties to work out and not for the Executive. Q261 John Robertson: The misuse of the list system Q267 Chairman: You said earlier that four years was itself where you, as a party, can decide who is on the quite a short time to bed in and you seem to place list and what order they are in. I have taken a look great emphasis on the fact that the consultation that at two SMPs who were very highly rated in Scotland was done by the Government brought the result that and who were deliberately put down the list system you should retain 129, but that consultation was and the way the elections went they were out of a job. only done two and a half years from the first meeting Ms Ferguson: I think the way the list system operates of the Scottish Parliament. Do you think that is really a matter for the individual political parties. consultation was launched too early and it was far Each of the political parties has its own mechanism too soon to work out what was happening? for deciding who is on its list and whereabouts on the Ms Ferguson: I think if there was going to be a list they appear. That really is a matter for them. consultation it was almost inevitable that it would be done round about that time. If you consider that the Q262 John Robertson: Can you see that there is a Scotland Act puts us in the position that we are problem there and it could be misused? currently in, if there was going to be a consultation Ms Ferguson: I very much think it is a matter for the it would have to be done to influence that debate so parties to determine. I think the timing was inevitable.

Q263 Mr Sarwar: If the party puts number one, two Q268 Chairman: Before we finish, could we ask if or three in the council ward but if the electorate either the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish decide diVerently then how is it going to be worked Executive have a collective view about the number of out? It is not the party who is going to make the Scottish Parliamentary seats at Westminster? decision, who is going to be one and two. I thought Ms Ferguson: I think that really is a matter for it was the electorate who would be doing it in a Westminster to consider. We would not want to multi-ward system. interfere on that. Ms Ferguson: The electorate always makes the decision about who it elects, regardless of what Q269 Chairman: So there has not been any view Y system we operate. taken o cially? Ms Ferguson: No.

Q264 Mr Sarwar: Mr Robertson’s point is that the Q270 Chairman: Can I thank you very much for parties will be numbering who is first, second and your attendance today. Is there anything you wish to third, but I was under the impression that it was the add either that we have already raised or that we electorate who will decide. have not raised before we come to the end of this Ms Ferguson: I think Mr Robertson was talking session? about the system for the Scottish Parliament. Ms Ferguson: I do not think so, Chairman, thank you. Q265 Mr Lyons: I understand that a lot of people are oVended that people can stand on a first past the Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister, for your post seat, be solidly defeated and then appear on help today which will be greatly helpful to us when the list. we come to making our report. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 69

Memorandum submitted by the Scotland OYce

Introduction 1. This memorandum sets out the Government’s view on diVerent boundaries for local government, Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections. In addition it provides a summary of responses arising from the Government consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament, recording specifically those comments received on boundary issues. Also enclosed is a factual note on diVerent electoral systems either currently or prospectively in place for local government, Scottish Parliament and national (including European) elections.

Background 2. The Government recognised that in considering the case for and against removal of the existing link between Holyrood and Westminster parliamentary boundaries, it would be important to seek views on the implications of introducing a distinct set of boundaries between the devolved and Westminster administrations. It specifically raised the question of non-coterminous boundaries as part of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament, launched in December 2001. 3. The consultation paper made clear that, to some extent, the introduction of a set of new boundaries raised organisational issues for individual groups or bodies. The need for reorganisation per se was not one for Ministers to evaluate but for the political parties or other interested organisations themselves. 4. Annex A sets out in summary form the views received. Some respondents to the consultation claimed that the electorate would be confused and administration made much more diYcult. However, a considerable majority did not believe that this would be the case or thought that any diYculties could be overcome. A number pointed out that diVerent boundaries were already a fact of life in some areas. Although most electoral administrators expressed reservations about the burdens involved in working with diVerent sets of boundaries, they did not state that these diYculties would be insurmountable. They would need to be addressed by proper resourcing, training and voter education. 5. In December 2002 the Government announed its decision to retain the current number of MSPs in the light of overwhelming support for this option through the consultation exercise. However, the then Secretary of State for Scotland noted that concerns about the impact of introducing a further set of new boundaries had been raised and not solely from the political parties’ perspective on organisation. Issues around the scope for voter uncertainty and potentially greater complexity in the administrative conduct of elections were important factors to be evaluated. 6. The December announcement concluded, therefore, that the consequences of introducing non- coterminous boundaries merited further consideration and that the government was minded to set up an independent commission to examine any issues that might arise. It would begin its work after the next Holyrood elections, by which time some experience might have been gained of operating non-coterminous boundaries following from the preceding UK General Election. This was premised on the assumption that the boundary commission recommendations for reducing Scottish constituencies at Westminster would be implemented in time to have eVect for the next General Election in 2005 or 2006. 7. In advance of the Queen’s Speech it is not possible to be more precise about the timing of legislation to achieve the objective of retaining the existing number of MSPs. It remains the position, as indicated by the then Secretary of State for Scotland in December last year, that the Government would bring forward amending legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed.

Voting Systems in Scotland 8. Annex B to this note attaches a factual description that either currently or prospectively may apply in Scotland to local government, Scottish Parliament, European and UK parliamentary elections. Responsibility for the electoral system for local government in Scotland (other than franchise matters) lies with the Scottish Executive. October 2003 Ev 70 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Annex A

Consultation on “The Size of the Scottish Parliament”

RESPONSES ON NON-COTERMINOUS BOUNDARIES

Introduction 1. The consultation document on the size of the Scottish Parliament which was issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 18 December 2001 argued that it would be important, in considering whether to retain or end the link between Westminster and Holyrood constituencies, to address the practical issues of how elected representatives could function if they did not have the common identity of constituency boundaries. In particular, views were sought on: — What practical eVect and issues would arise in their relationship as constituency representatives between MPs, MSPs and councillors if the present number of MSPs were to be retained and non- coterminous boundaries between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament constituencies created, and how could any diYculties be overcome? — What are the implicaitons where shared constituency boundaries are not in place for electoral administrators and local authorities in relation to the registration of voters and the conduct of elections, and what would need to be done to ensure the eVective and eYcient running of the democratic process? 2. In addition, although not a matter directly for the Government to consider, views were sought on the implications for the structure and operation of political parties if boundaries ceased to be coterminous, and on how any diYculties could be overcome.

Summary 3. The views of those who commented on the boundaries issue are set out below.

Scottish Parliament 4. The Scottish Executive noted that the concerns about separate boundaries were legitimate, but in its view they were far from decisive. Electors, Returning OYcers and the political parties already had to contend with diVerent boundaries (and diVerent electoral systems) for local, Parliamentary and European elections. There was no evidence that in practice this has led to any significant problems. In practical terms, therefore, the Executive did not see any reason why diVerent constituency boundaries between Westminster and Holyrood should give rise to any serious diYculties either for political parties or for the constituents they served. The Executive accepted, however, that moving away from identical constituency boundaries at Westminster and Holyrood could give rise to a number of practical diYculties which would need to be addressed and resolved. It suggested that establishment of a joint UK-Scottish Advisory Commission after 2007 to consider the experience of the Parliament since devolution. 5. The Scottish Parliament Labour Group accepted that while non-coterminous boundaries might not be ideal, these were not unusual—the key issue was to ensure communication between MSPs, MPs and councillors, in the best interests of their constituents. In their view, there was no evidence that the frequent crossing over of local government and parliamentary constituency boundaries had led to any significant problems. 6. Of the 27 individual MSPs who responded, most were of the view that there was no need for coterminous boundaries. While this would not be ideal or convenient, there were already diVerences and whatever problems would be created should not be insurmountable. It was believed that there was little evidence of significant problems or confusion for constituents and electors, although it was argued by some respondents that improved communications would be important and electors and constituents needed clear information on the boundaries and their representatives. The co-ordination of boundaries between Scottish Parliament constituencies and local government areas were seen by some to be more important for eVective representation. It was acknowledged that there would be problems for political parties in organising themselves if there were diVering Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, but these could be limited by developing a more flexible or regional system. While coterminosity would be considerably more straightforward for the purposes of party organisation, parties and administrators should be able to adapt to circumstances without any real problems.

MPs and Other Parliamentarians 7. The Scottish National Party Westminster Group believed that working across boundaries and having to interact with a greater number and variety of other elected representatives should improve the working relations with MPs and others. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 71

8. Seven MPs were in favour of retaining 129 MSPs. Where the issue was raised, they did not see any requirement for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies to be coterminous, nor any diYculty for the operation of elections. 9. Four MPs supported retaining 129 MSPs or thereabouts, but also believed that coterminous boundaries were important or essential. They supported an alternative electoral systems. Six MPs argued that the number of MSPs should be reduced in line with the provisions in the Scotland Act. Their main concern was that diVerent boundaries for MPs and MSPs would cause considerable confusion for the electorate and complications for electoral administrators and political parties. 10. One Lord did not see that it would be much more diYcult to deal with boundaries which were no longer coterminous. 11. One MEP did not think that there would be any particular diYculty in liaison if there were diVerent MSP and MP constituencies.

Political Parties 12. The Scottish Conservatives believed that although it was possible to have diVerent first-past-the-post constituencies in the two Parliaments, it would be simpler for all concerned if the same boundaries were used. While they would wish to minimise the diYculties for those involved in the administration of elections, constituency boundaries already overlapped with local authority areas and accordingly this was not seen as a significant factor in determining the size of the Parliament. 13. The Scottish Co-operative party had reservations about implementing a system that would end the present coterminous Parliamentary boundaries. However, it did not rule out separate boundaries if it was proven that these would not result in conflict of interest between Westminster members and directly elected members of the Scottish Parliament. 14. The Scottish Green Party stated that the division of responsibilities between the Parliaments indicated that boundaries were not a major issue. 15. The Scottish Liberal Democrats said that provided all constituencies repsected wards boundaries, no insurmountable practical diYculties should arise from non-coterminous boundaries, although coterminosity was both helpful and practical for political and parliamentary administration and should occur wherever possible. 16. The Scottish National Party did not see coterminous constituencies as necessary for good working practices, and non-coterminous constituencies should not add confusion to electoral registration and the administration of elections more than the current system. There was also no reason why political parties needed to organise themselves along constituency boundaries and, more importantly, the convenience for parties should not dictate electoral boundaries or the system of election. 17. The Scottish Socialist Party believed that there would be very little impact on constituents’ ability to receive representation if MPs and MSPs had diVerent constituency boundaries.

Constituency Parties 18. Ten constituency branches or groups stated that lack of coterminosity would not present significant diYculties to political parties and their local organisations, and that they should have little diYculty in adjusting to diVerent boundaries. 19. One constituency branch had grave concerns that non-coterminous boundaries would lead to further confusion for voters, additional work and costs for local authorities, and acute problems for political party organisations. Another (which supported full implementation of the provisions in the Scotland Act) said that coterminous boundaries must continue for the UK and Scottish Parliaments, to uphold the integrity of the UK, to highlight the partnership between the two Parliaments, to reduce confusion among voters and to assist the organisation of political parties.

Electoral Administrators 20. The Association of Electoral Administrators (Scottish Branch) argued that if constituencies did not remain conterminous, an additional burden would be placed on electoral registration oYcers and returning oYcers in the production of the electoral register and conduct of elections, for which additional resources might be required for these to operate eVectively. This problem would be exacerbated if there were to be combined elections for Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies. 21. The Electoral Commission recognised that non-coterminous boundaries between Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies could create administrative problems that would need to be overcome. But of more importance, it stated, was ensuring a structure under which the electorate could exercise the franchise without undue diYculty or confusion. Ev 72 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

22. The Election Working Group of the Society of Local Authority Lawyers & Administrators in Scotland (SOLAR) was of the unanimous view that coterminous boundaries should be retained since these facilitated both the conduct of elections and the registration of voters. It stated that the absence of this link between the two boundaries would lead to diYculties in the preparation for and conduct of elections, and had concerns about diVerent geographical boundaries, diVerent registers of electors, diVerent absent voters lists and the need for greater cross boundary working.

Councils 23. About seven councils believed that the absence of coterminous boundaries already was or would be of no great eVect or that any diYculties created for the registration of voters and the conduct of elections could be overcome. 24. Five councils supported coterminous boundaries, with one council arguing that non-coterminous boundaries led to confusion of the electorate, potential conflict between elected representatives, and compounded administrative diYculties, decreased eYciency, increased costs and increased the likelihood of errors in administering elections. One other council noted that constituency overlaps in local authority areas could lead to diYculties in administrative responses, and that the introduction of further non-coterminous boundaries would create diYculties in political administration and electoral arrangements. One council commented that it seemed sensible to have the same boundaries.

Civic Organisations and Bodies 25. The Association of University Teachers (Scotland) argued that non-coterminous boundaries already made attempting to place universities in their appropriate constituencies confusing, and further diVerences would produce a chaotic system that would undermine the organisation of the democratic process. 26. The “129 Reflection Group”* thought that boundaries not being coterminous should not be a fundamental problem—as shown by considerable evidence from other countries. Scotland had a politically aware electorate that had long accepted that constituencies vary with the character of elections. The overall views of this Group were endorsed by Action of Churches Together in Scotland, the Committee on Church and Nation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the Methodist Church in Scotland, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, the Scottish Pensioners’ Forum, the United Free Church of Scotland, and the United Reform Church. 27. Professor John Curtice, Department of Politics, Strathclyde University, argued that the provisions of the Scotland Act did not ensure that Westminster and Holyrood boundaries were always coterminous with each other, as elections to the two bodies would normally take place at diVerent times. This suggested that it was already accepted that non-coterminous boundaries could be tolerated to some degree. Existing electoral arrangements in Scotland already required electoral administrators to cope with non-coterminous boundaries, and if electoral administrators and voters were already expected to be able to cope with non- coterminous boundaries for local government and Scottish Parliament elections held on the same day, any argument that they could not reasonably be expected to cope with diVerent boundaries for elections on diVerent days did not appear to have any validity. 28. The Electoral Reform Society saw problems from having diVerent boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies. In its view, these would be confusing for electors and complicated for electoral administrators. More seriously, they would create diYculties for the work of political parties. It concluded that future Scottish Parliament elections should be conducted by the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. 29. The Equality Network did not consider that non-coterminous boundaries should be a significant problem, so long as there were accessible arrangements for identifying details of local MSPs and MPs. 30. The Evangelical Alliance Scotland believed that Westminster and Holyrood boundaries required to be the same and that the number of list MSPs should therefore be increased to keep representation at 129. 31. The Humanist Society of Scotland believed that diVerent boundaries for parliamentary constituencies could cause confusion for the electorate. 32. The Institute of Governance, Edinburgh University, knew of no evidence that people in Scotland were unduly confused by non-coterminous boundaries. 33. Outright Scotland said that while coterminous boundaries were desirable, this should not be the overriding principle for deciding the number of MSPs. 34. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland believed that there was no evidence that the electorate would find it confusing for MPs and MSPs to have non-coterminous constituencies.

* Convened by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy under the chairmanship of Sir Neil McIntosh and including members and representatives of the CSPP, the Edinburgh University Institute of Governance, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Civic Forum, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Action of Churches Together in Scotland, UNISON, the Educational Institute for Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, and individual members of the Scottish Parliament Consultative Steering Group. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 73

35. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry was unconvinced that there would be additional diYculties caused by implementing non-coterminous boundaries in Scottish constituencies. 36. The Scottish Episcopal Church said that non-coterminous boundaries would increase the bureaucratic burden on electoral administrators and local authorities, and lead to greater costs and waste money that could more usefully be applied elsewhere. 37. The Third Sector Policy OYcers Network believed that constituency boundaries did not need to be identical to ensure communication between policy makers. 38. UNISON Scotland believed that it was possible to develop electoral systems and processes that coped with the existence of non-coterminous boundaries. 39. Canon Kenyon Wright, Chair of the People & Parliament Trust and former Executive Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, said the electorate already had experience of diVering electoral boundaries and would have no more diYculty in dealing with further diVerent boundaries.

Individuals 40. Generally, where the issue was raised by members of the public who where in favour of retaining the current constitution of the Scottish Parliament, the lack of coterminous boundaries was not seen as a particular problem. However, those respondents who supported retaining 129 MSPs but argued for a diVerent electoral system tended to see coterminous boundaries as important or essential. 41. Just under half of those who were in favour of a reduction in the size of the Parliament, in line with the provisions of the Scotland Act, commented that diVerent boundaries would cause confusion. October 2003

Annex B

VOTING SYSTEMS IN SCOTLAND

UK Parliamentary Elections 1. The electoral system used in the United Kingdom for Elections to the House of Commons is the single member constituency with simple majority, also known as the first-past-the-post system. 2. The country is divided up into single constituencies. Each party wishing to contest the constituency (seat) oVers one candidate. Each voter has one vote that he or she casts for the party or representative of his or her choice. The candidate with the largest number of votes is elected to be the Member of Parliament for that constituency. 3. A by-election occurs when a Member dies, retires or is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. Voting at the by-election takes place using the first-past-the-post system.

European Parliamentary Elections 4. Before 1999 in Great Britain elections to the European Parliament were on the first-past-the-post system. Northern Ireland’s MEPs have always been elected using the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. 5. The Government introduced the European Parliamentary Elections Act in 1999 which changed the electoral arrangements used in GB for European parliamentary elections to the “list” system of PR. 6. The UK is divided into Electoral Regions, of which Scotland is one. Each Region is represented by a diVerent number of MEPs depending on the size of its population. Each political party prepares a list of candidates ranked in order which does not exceed the number of seats to be filled in the region. The names of each party’s candidates are printed below the party’s name on the ballot paper. 7. Each voter has one vote, which can be for a party or an independent candidate. One completion of the poll, votes for each party or independent candidate are counted. The first seat is allocated to the party or independent candidate with the highest number of votes. If the seat is allocated to a party it will go to the first candidate on that party’s list; that party’s total is then divided by two and the second seat is allocated to the party or independent with the highest number of votes after the initial adjustment. This process continues until all the seats have been allocated. Votes cast for independent candidates drop out of the calculation if and when that candidate has secured a seat. At all stages parties’ original totals of votes are divided by the number of seats that party has been allocated, plus one. 8. When a seat becomes vacant as a result of the death or resignation etc from parliament of an MEP elected on a party list, it will be filled by drawing the next eligible and willing person from that list. Where the list has been exhaused or the vacancy arises as a result of the death or resignation etc of an independent candidate a by-election will be held. Ev 74 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Scottish Parliamentary Elections 9. The electoral system used for elections to the Scottish Parliament is a form of proportional representation—the Additional Member System (AMS). 10. At a Scottish Parliament elections each voter has two votes. The first vote is used to elect a constituency member. There are 73 constituencies and the first-past-the-post system is used to elect the members of each of these. Voters can choose between candidates standing on behalf of a party or those standing as individual candidates. The candidate winning the largest number of votes gains the seat. 11. The second vote is for a political party, or for a candidate standing as an individual, within one of the eight Scottish Parliament Regions. [These regions are the eight European Parliamentary constituencies which were provided for by the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1996—which are no longer in operation for European Parliamentary elections.] Each region covers a group of constituencies and provides seven additional members of Parliament. 12. Within each region, the number of votes each party has received in the second part of the election (the regional ballot) is counted and compared with the number of constituency seats it has won. An individual candidate can gain one of these regional seats in his or her own right if he or she wins enough votes. 13. Each party puts forward a list of candidates ranked in order for the regional ballot. Candidates included in the party lists can also stand for election in a constituency. The list is shown on the regional ballot paper. On completion of both polls, the number of votes cast for each party in the regional ballot is divided by the number of constituency seats gained, plus one—this allows parties which have not won any constituencies to be included in the rest of the calculation. The party with the highest resulting figure gains the first additional seat. The candidate at the top of the party’s list will take the seat unless he or she has already won a constituency seat, in which case that person is simply passed over. 14. To allocate the second to seventh additional seats the calculation is redone, but each time any additional seats gained are added in. 15. When a seat becomes vacant as a result of the death or resignation etc from parliament of an MSP elected on a party list, it will be filled by drawing the next eligible and willing person from that list. Where the list has been exhausted or the vacancy arises as a result of the death or resignation etc of an independent candidate the seat remains vacant until the next general election.

Local Government Elections in Scotland 16. The electoral model currently used in Scotland for elections to local authorities is the first-past-the- post system. Full elections are held every four years. 17. Local authorities are divided into electoral wards each with approximately equal numbers of electors. One councillor is elected for each ward and local authorities vary in size from 18 to 80 councillors. There are currently 1,222 councillors in Scotland. The electoral wards are subject to periodic reviews by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. 18. Each party wishing to contest the ward oVers one candidate. Each voter has one vote that he or she casts for the party or representative of his or her choice. The candidate with the largest number of votes is elected to be the councillor for that ward. 20. A by-election occurs when a councillor dies, retires or is disqualified from membership of a council. Voting at the by-election takes place using the fist-past-the-post system. 21. Legislation will be introduced to the Scottish Parliament before the end of 2003 to bring in the Single Transferable Vote system of proportional representation to elect councillors in Scotland in time for the next elections in 2007. The legislation includes provisions to introduce multi-member wards of three or four members depending on the individual circumstances of the ward. A review of ward boundaries will be required but it is not planned to reduce the overall number of councillors. 22. Voters will be able to rank the candidates standing for election in order of preference, putting a “1” for their first preference and “2” for the next, and so on. A quota of votes will be needed for a candidate to be elected and this quota is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes cast by the number of seats plus one, plus one vote ie (100,000 votes/3 seats ! 1) ! 1 vote % 2,501. Candidates must gain a minimum of this quota of votes to be elected. If the voter’s first preference candidate does not need their vote, either because he or she has already gained the quota of votes and is elected without it, or because he or she has too few votes to be elected, the the vote is transferred to the voter’s second choice candidate, and so on until all the members for the ward have been elected. 23. By-elections will be held where a vacancy occurs in the membership of the ward. October 2003 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 75

Witness: Rt Hon Alistair Darling, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for Scotland, examined.

Q271 Chairman: Secretary of State, thank you for Government to say that that does not matter and the your attendance and for the Scotland OYce written numberwillbe reduced59,plus,ofcourse, tokeepthe submission. The paper was very helpful in proportionality, you would have a top up, but the summarising what political parties, other total size would be reduced. The result of the organisations and individuals think, but it does not consultation was that people felt that because this reveal much about Government thinking. Therefore, Parliamentisinitsrelativeinfancyweshouldkeepthe before the Committee starts its questioning, is there number at 129. That is what we consulted on. A year anything you wish to add in support of the paper? ago Helen Liddell, when she was Secretary of State, Mr Darling: No, thank you, Mrs Adams. I think it announced that she would introduce legislation to would be better if I answered the questions. I was not keep the129 membersand Imade itclear shortlyafter proposing to do an opening statement. I am in your I was appointed as Secretary of State that the hands. Government intended to honour that. That is what we are doing; I think it is the right thing to do and it is Q272 Mr Sarwar: The Scottish Parliament Bill has consistent with what was said at the time by the then now had its first reading, and it confirms that the ministers. number of MSPs will remain at 129 after the number of Scottish Westminster constituencies is reduced to Q274 Mr Sarwar: Are you satisfied that a Scottish 59. In previous evidence, some witnesses warned Parliament of 129 is suYcient or do you consider V about the possible adverse e ects of reduction in the there to be a case for increasing the number of MSPs? number of MSPs if the Scotland Act were applied as Mr Darling: No, I see no reason to increase the enacted. With the benefit of hindsight, do you number. I am not aware of a great clamour on consider that Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act was Scotland to increase the number of MSPs at all. That flawed in providing a link between the constituencies is not to say that there may not be one or two, but I for Westminster and for Holyrood? think people in Scotland will probably take the view Mr Darling: No, I do not. I think it was the right thing that 129 is fine and now let them get on with doing the todoatthetimebecauseitfollowstheWhitePaperon things they were elected to do. which we consulted, then there was a referendum. You will recall that referendum received an overwhelming endorsement frompeople in Scotland. Q275 Mr Sarwar: Do you foresee a time when Ministers said at the time that the link would be kept determining the size of the Scottish Parliament might under review and you will recall that the Government be devolved to Holyrood, or would you expect that to subsequently consulted on the number of MSPs that remain a matter reserved to Westminster? there ought to be. The majority of people felt that the Mr Darling: I think that will remain reserved to number ought to remain at 129. However, if you go Westminster, as is provided for in the Scotland Act. I back tothe firstprincipals, if youlike, twothings were do not see that changing at all. clear. One is that following devolution—and this is explicitly provided for in Section 86 of the Scotland Act of 1998—the number of MPs elected from Q276 Ann McKechin: You stated that the Scottish constituencies to Westminster would come consultation was started in December 2001 at which down because that section provided that the electoral point the Scottish Parliament had only been in quota (which governs the size of the constituency) operation for two and a half years. Do you think that should be the same in England as it is in Scotland. the consultation was launched too early for the That has always been the case, and people have ScottishParliament tobebedded downto reachsome known that since 1998. The second thing is that it was conclusion as to whether 129 should be retained? not necessarily the case that the number of MSPs Mr Darling: I suppose it is always a matter of would reduce; we said we would keep the thing under judgment as to when you consult, but if you recall the review. I do not think anyone should be surprised at time in 2000, that was just after the Boundary what was in the Scotland Bill that we announced last Commission started its work in relation to the week any more than they should be surprised at the Scottish Westminster constituencies and at that time number of MPs being elected to Westminster will go it was a matter of some discussion in Scotland as to downatthenextelection.Boththesethingshavebeen how many MSPs there ought to be. The Government known about for some time. I am not saying people responded at that time by saying, “Let’s consult”. We will like it, but that is what the Government said it did consult; we got the answers and Helen Liddell would do and that is why we introduced the made her announcement on 18 December last year. legislation as we did last week. My guess is that if you look from now, I do not actually see any mileage in re-opening that question Q273 Mr Sarwar: It was said that the number of at the moment. It is fairly settled that the number of MSPs was reduced to the Westminster constituencies 129 will stay for the time being. I do not intend to re- then either it was right then or wrong now. open that consultation otherwise I would not have Mr Darling: It was right then, but Ministers said at introduced a Bill last week to achieve that end. My the time that they would keep it under review. That is recollection is that at the time that this consultation what they did do; they then consulted. What would started it was quite a major talking point, at least in have been wrong, if you like, is having had the some quarters. It was a talking point and the consultation and the consultation having said Government responded to that and said it would predominantly they ought to stay at 129, then for the consult. Ev 76 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

2 December 2003 Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP

Q277 Mr Lyons: Earlier Patricia Ferguson said that towns—rather like your own—then I cannot speak shethoughtapossiblejoint commissionmaybeaway fromfirst-handevidence,butitmightbeabiggerissue forwardtolookatnumbersandthewholequestionof here. Whether or not it is the reason that people vote coterminosity. How do you respond to that? or do not vote, or what bearing it has on people’s Mr Darling: You will recall that last year when Helen understanding of what how their vote actually Liddell announced the maintenance of 129 members works—especially with the proportionate system—I she, at that time, announced that she was going to set do not know. I think you would have to have regard up a commission to look at the whole issue of whether here towhat Butler and Hazelland others havehad to or not it was important and what eVect the lack of say because these are people who have devoted a coterminosity would have and she said that lifetime to studying it. I would not dispute a lot of commission would sit from 2007. I have said, on theirevidencetoyoubecauseIamnotinapositionto. many occasions—I think I was asked about it the last What I would say, though, is that a question has been time I was before this Committee—that that is raised about it and if you were going to look at these something that I want to look at. Over the last few things then this is one issue you have to look at. months there has been quite a lot of debate not just about that but the fact that in Scotland it is likely that V Q279MrMacDougall: Isit actuallynecessarytohave wewillhave fourdi erentwaysof electingpeopleand diVerent constituency boundaries for elections to thatis somethingyoumay wanttocome ontoso Iwill Westminster and to Holyrood? Why not have, for not go any further than that at the moment. I think example, 60 Scottish Parliamentary constituencies— one of the issues you would look at if you were going 58 coterminous with Westminster with separate to look at voting systems would be the coterminosity constituencies for Orkney and Shetland—each of constituencies. You have had a lot of evidence, for returning two MSPs, with the remaining nine MSPs example I had a chance to look at Professor Hazel’s being elected on a Scotland wide list basis? evidence to you and his view was that it did not make V Mr Darling: Once you start getting into that sort of any di erence. As you will know, there are a lot of discussion you very quickly get into the voting people, particularly in political parties who attach— systems you employ. On present plans we will have for understandable reasons—quite a lot of four diVerent ways of electing people in Scotland. I importance to these things for organisational havesaidonanumberofoccasions—andIamnotthe purposes. I am not in a position today—nor would only one who has said this—that four diVerent ways you expect me to be—to say what I am going to do in of electing people in a country of five million is quite a respect of that particular part of Helen Liddell’s lot.Ifyouweregoingtostartlookingatthenumberof announcement because I think if I am going to do people then you would probably have to look at the such a thing that should be done on the floor of the way in which they were elected. If you came up with House rather than in a Select Committee. If we do the sort of model that you are, I think, talking about I lookatthesethingsfurtherthenclearlytheissueofthe V think you would almost certainly changing the di erentconstituencyboundaries issomethingthatis electoral system for either Westminster or Holyrood almost inevitably going go come up because it is or both. I do not think you can look at the seat something that bothers people. numbers and coterminosity in isolation with the method you employ to elect people. Q278 Mr MacDougall: Do you consider that a loss of coterminous boundaries for elections to Westminster Q280 Mr MacDougall: If there was a reduction in the and to Holyrood will be confusing for voters, or do number of list MSPs, would that not counter the yousharetheviewexpressedbytheExecutivethatthe problem of friction caused by what some MPs and diVerences could be marginal? constituency MSPs may see as regional list MSPs Mr Darling: It is very diYcult to say. For example, in muscling in on their responsibilities? Is that another constituencies that are in the city most people are side of it that could be considered? probably not aware of where one constituency starts Mr Darling: As far as I can see—and I have not and another one ends. If you look at my present conducted a detailed study into it for obvious constituency it has some very odd features. You can reasons—there are parts of the country where MPs end up walking away from the city centre and get and MSPs (be they constituency MSPs or list MSPs) deeper and deeper into Edinburgh central. You can are working in as near enough harmony as you get walk right into the city centre and stand in George given that they represent diVerent political parties Street, Edinburgh and you think you are in and have right and proper political diVerences, but Edinburgh Central but youare actually in Edinburgh theyare notfightingturf warsassuch.There areother Leith. I think people are therefore no so aware of it. parts of the country where I know—albeit second Youwouldliketothinktheyareawareofwhoyouare hand—that this is not a happy situation and indeed and in my experience you have varying degrees of there are some cases where they do not have to be in success. I think the situation is that the actual lines diVerent political parties for it not to be a happy where the boundaries are drawn may not be so situation. I suppose inevitably, just as in the olden important to the ordinary voter. Where it is days if you like, occasionally there was friction undoubtedly of some importance is to political between MPs and councillors (there would be a parties who are organised on a constituency basis. If dispute over who does what and you would get you have several diVerent boundaries in one place it councillors who would get upset if you take up a can be diYcult. On the other hand, constituencies in housing case whereas most of us take the view that if more rural areas or where you have freestanding someone has taken the trouble to come and see you, Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 77

2 December 2003 Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP you should do what you can for them), but I do not Within the recent past we have two new systems and think the friction point would be compelling enough we may have a third. It is something that, at the very for us to start going oV into a great inquiry. I think least, does raise a question in your mind. whatever electoral system you have, if you have more than oneperson representingpeople atone particular Q282 Mr Carmichael: So you are a listening area you could have friction, but equally in many, Government. You have your conversation. You hear many cases there is no such friction and the system that there is confusion. Is it then the logical has worked far better than expected. I know there is a conclusion that you try to rationalise the number of separate argument which, again, some people feel voting systems that are on oVer? Is that a desirable strongly about and others do not. That is the end? diVerence between a constituency MSP and a list Mr Darling: Let us bear in mind that we are dealing MSP. You will have seen that some people have said with several diVerent institutions here. For example, many things about these things, but I do not think the election to the House of Commons is something that either of those factors in themselves would be that would have to be the same for the whole of the compelling enough to mount an inquiry into it. There United Kingdom. You could not—indeed you is a broader question, as I have said throughout this should not—change that simply because in one part afternoon, and that is the question of how many oftheKingdomtheremightbesomesortofconfusion voting systems you have and do people understand with other things. Whether or not there is an what the eVect of that is? argument for rationalising the elections that are wholly Scottish, that is another matter altogether. That is something that people will no doubt want to Q281 Mr Carmichael: I assume, Secretary of State, reflect on. This is something which I do not think one from what you have said that you do give some political party should attempt to make a decision on. credence to the argument that the existence of four If it is possible to build some degree of consensus on separate voting systems is potentially a source of whether or not there should be some change and then confusion for the electors. if there is change what that change ought to be, that Mr Darling: I think it can be. I think people would be far better. It is not something that you rush understand well enough the principal of going along into. and putting a cross or a one, two, three against the candidates of their choice. I suspect what is less Q283 Mr Carmichael: Clearly not. This may be a clear—even to people who devote an awful lot of time hypothesis too far, but let me try it anyway. If you do V to politics—is the e ect of your second vote, for rationalise your systems, perhaps even to one, what V V example (because they can have di erent e ects in would be your preference for that one system. V di erent parts of the country). I think people will Mr Darling: It is a hypothesis too far as you rightly want to reflect on actually how much does it confuse say because I have just said that I do not think you people because we, as politicians, have one view; it could possibly justify changing the Westminster could be that people say they are not confused at all. system—or indeed the European list—simply That may be something that is worth looking at. because it was convenient to one part of the What people do find diYcult to understand is why we Kingdom. have first past the post, a pure list, an additional member and STV for local government (if that goes Q284MrCarmichael:CanIjustexplorethatwithyou ahead in the Scottish Parliament). People will want to because, if I am correct, I think in our elections to the know why there are all these diVerent systems and V European Parliament we operate a closed list in the why are they di erent, especially if you take mainland UK and in Northern Ireland we have a something like STV when the way in which you SingleTransferableVote.Certainlyforalongtimewe deploy your vote can have quite an influence on the have had first past the post on mainland UK and STV result. If that is the way we went in local government in Northern Ireland. then I suspectsome people would wantto spend some Mr Darling: The system in Northern Ireland is time explaining to people how it works, just as I know diVerent from what I recall. However, I do not think some political parties at the time of the Scottish that is a good argument for making the thing even elections devote a large part of their manifesto to more complicated thanI have just beensetting out. In explaining how the additional member works relation to the second point, I do not have any because a lot of people do not know. Certainly it was particular preference. I spent three very happy years my experience when I went along to vote that people on a commission that the Labour Party set up at the were doing the first ballot and then getting the long end of the 1980’s chaired by the now Lord Plant. I list and you could hear them talking amongst thought I had had enough of proportional themselves and asking the returning oYcer who, of representation of voting systems to last me a life time, course is not supposed to oVer any advice at all, but here I am back again looking at these things. No, especially when a member of Parliament is standing I donot havea furtherview. WhatI willtell youabout in the same polling station. You could see that some it is that the system you choose really depends on the people were confused. I think the scope for confusion outcome that you want. If you take a pure list system is there but again, looking at Professors Butler and that might get you a purely proportional result but Hazell, they tell me that it need not necessarily be so. you only go for that if you say that the constituency I just think that in Scotland up until very recently we link does not matter. If you want a constituency link hadthe firstpastthe postandpeople understandthat. then a pure list and a pure proportionality does not Ev 78 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

2 December 2003 Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP work. The additional member gives you a sort of Mr Darling: I do not know about extensive hybrid system. STV, as you know, is more knowledge; that is the sort of thing you say to proportional, but depending on the numbers of someone who is just about to retire. I have made it representatives per seat you can get diVerent results clear over the last few months that I am quite keen for and diVerent outcomes. Proportional representation there to be an active debate about all these matters isoneof theleaststraightforwardmatters thatIthink which the Government will listen to and reflect upon. I have ever looked at which is why I say that if we were Your conclusions—whenever they may come—will going to decide that change was necessary—and it is a be an important part of that. I really cannot speculate big“if”—andifpeoplewanttodebatethattheyought on what the outcome might be. to do so and give themselves enough time to work out what the consequences might be. For all I know this may be one of the things you want to turn to your minds to when you conclude this inquiry and when you do that the Government, of course, will look at it. Q289 Ann McKechin: There were a number of pilot programmescarriedoutthisyearfortheEnglishlocal Q285 John Robertson: Butler and Hazell, whom you elections which we understand met with varying have mentioned a couple of times, gave us an degrees of success. Do you think that these academic answer that the four diVerent systems programmes can be replicated in elections in would not be a problem, but they had not Scotland and are there any plans by the Scotland Y encountered four diVerent systems at one time. They O ce to do so? certainly did not look at the four systems that we are MrDarling:TheElectoralCommissionwhichwasset about to have all at the same time. Would you agree up in 2000 has been looking at what has happened so with the witnesses who say that there should be far. They are about to make recommendations about V education and information campaigns to explain to di erent forms of voting—postal ballots, for voters the four diVerent voting systems in order to example—and they have to decide where they might minimise the problem of ballot papers being be held. One of the candidates is for Scotland for the inadvertently spoiled? Euro elections. My view is that the evidence so far is Mr Darling: I am all in favour of people being clear as that postal ballots have been successful and have to the consequences of their vote. I think people pushed the turnout up. If that could happen in understand first past the post simply because it has Scotland then that is something all of us will want to been around for a long time. If you take either the encourage. The turnout for all elections has been a additional member or STV—which are proportional matter for concern, but the turnout at the last Euro systems—how you vote, how you deploy your votes elections was a matter of great concern. Provided you and make your choices can actually have a big havethecorrect safeguards—andthatisimportant— diVerence on the outcome. That should not just be I donot thinkthere isanything wrongwith somebody something that is known to academics. It should be exercising their democratic right in their home rather something that all the voters should know. than going to a polling station on a wet Thursday night. Q286 John Robertson: I think you are absolutely right. Could we say then that the Scottish OYce, perhaps in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, would be willing to undertake and pay for such a Q290 Ann McKechin: I take it you will consider it is campaign? particularly important in Scotland because there are Mr Darling: I was wondering if you were going to no other elections going on this year. invite me to enter into a spending commitment in Mr Darling: That is one of the things the Electoral advance of the spending review next year. Probably Commission will consider—and Ishould stress that it as a former chief secretary of the Treasury I will tell is theirdecision, notmine—in looking atthese things, you that I will reflect on what you say, but I am not because they want to see what the eVect would be if promising. you had virtually a total election. As you know, in Scotland, because it has its own media—there are Q287 John Robertson: The Scottish Parliament issues that span the whole country but there are currently has responsibility for the electoral system particular Scottish issues as well—the Electoral used for local government elections in Scotland. Do Commission argue that there are maybe grounds for you think that the responsibility for the system used looking at it. I do not know what they will conclude for other elections, eg to the Scottish Parliament, because, quite properly, they are independent of the should be devolved to Holyrood? Government. There is a huge advantage in having Mr Darling: No, I do not. I think the Scotland Act people who are independent from the Government made it clear that that would be a reserved making these decisions so it is not up to any one responsibility and I think that should remain so. We particular party, let alone the political party that do not have any plans to change it. happenstobeingovernment.Ihavemadeitclearthat if they were to come to the view that it was do-able in Q288 John Robertson: With your extensive Scotland and ought to be done in Scotland then I, for knowledge and experience of Government what do one, would be quite happy about it. I do think that we you expect to happen eventually with the voting should look at other ways of voting rather than systems? requiring people to go out on a wet Thursday night. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 79

2 December 2003 Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP

Q291 Ann McKechin: The Electoral Commission in better turnout or not. My impression is that it does this year’s elections in Scotland carried out a public increase turnout but I would not be in a position to go awareness strategy with newspaper adverts and hard and fast on that. billboards. Would the Scotland OYce be in favour of this exercise being repeated at future elections? Q293 Chairman: We mentioned earlier that the Mr Darling: I would be interested to know what the Scottish Parliament Constituencies Bill has now had ElectoralCommissionhavetosayaboutit.Oneofthe its formal first reading. Are you able to give an matters that is of concern to all political parties—and indication at this point when you expect the Bill to many others besides—is how we engage members of have its second reading debate? the public in politics and, more importantly, deciding Mr Darling: Some time in the New Year I think, but it which one of us they want to represent them. As you is obviously up to the business managers to sort that know, there have been a lot of studies carried out into out. this. I know the Electoral Commission is looking at Q294 John Robertson: Do you envisage the Bill this and when we get their findings we will obviously having its second reading on the Floor of the House want to look at them. or in the Scottish Grand Committee? Mr Darling: It is a constitutional matter and just as the Scotland Act was taken on the floor of the House my expectation is—and I think this has been agreed with the usual channels—that this one will be on the Q292 Mr Lyons: Talking about the turnout in floor of the House too. Scotland, do you think having the Scottish Parliament and the council elections on the same day Q295 John Robertson: If the Bill receives a second enhances turnout or does it harm turnout? reading, have you any idea yet of what type of standing committee the Bill might be committed to? MrDarling: Ido notknow ofany conclusiveevidence MrDarling:Againthatisuptothebusinessmanagers that points one way or the other. I do know the and the usual channels, but my anticipation is that it Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are will be on the floor of the House as well because that is considering that but I am not aware of any evidence how the Scotland Act was dealt with. I am pretty that would point either way. What makes for a higher certain that will be the case unless everybody has turnout frequently is the interest in a particular conspired to put it upstairs, but I think constitutional election. If people do not perceive there is anything at matters are normally dealt with on the floor of the stage then sometimes you get a lower turnout, but House and I do not see any reason why this one there are other reasons as well. This is terribly should be dealt with diVerently. complexand hasbeen wellsetout bypeople whohave madealifetimestudyofthissortofthing.Iappreciate Q296 Chairman: Before we conclude this part of the John Robertson’s point that they may be academics evidence session, is there anything you wish to add in and we, of course, can add in our own observations as conclusion? politicians, but I am not in a position to say to you Mr Darling: No, thank you. thatIthinkthereisevidenceonewayoranothertosay Chairman: Thank you very much for your evidence, that having elections on the same day makes for a Secretary of State.

APPENDIX 1

Memorandum submitted by CBI Scotland Following your letter of 16 September regarding “Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and The Consequence of Change”, CBI Scotland would respond as follows:

1. The Introduction of Any Different Constituent Boundaries Involving the Scottish and UK Parliaments It is felt that there will be little impact caused by this, because business would contact whichever MP/MSP that is relevant to their businesses’ operations. With regard to the position an MP/MSP holds eg Member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee or an MP with a clear local interest.

2. Implications for Turnout at Elections and Clarity for the Electorate of There Being Four Separate Voting Systems in Scotland for the UK Parliament,Scottish Parliament,Local Government and the European Parliament There are a wide variety of possible explanations for the reduction in turnout at Elections. But this is in our view more likely to be disenchantment with the wider body politic, than the impact of any diVerences that exist in voting systems which the electorate should be able to deal with. It is interesting to note that in many cases the closer the likely result of a vote, the higher the turnout of the voter and this may reflect the important role that the local political party machines on the ground can make in aVecting turnout. Ev 80 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

3. What the Implications of Different Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries Might Mean for Business and the Lobbying Process The impact of this on business and the lobbying process is likely to be minimal as business will quickly assess who is the relevant MP/MSP on a local basis, they will also for example, identify who is the relevant contact on what committee and also target Ministers or Shadow Spokespeople in relevant departments to influence. I trust that this will assist the work of the Scottish AVairs Committee investigating these important areas. 8 October 2003

APPENDIX 2

Letter from the Boundary Commission for Scotland Thank you for your letter of 16 September. The functions of the Boundary Commission for Scotland relate to the continuous review of the distribution of seats at Parliamentary elections, the representation of Scotland in the House of Commons, the boundaries of the Regions for returning additional members to the Scottish Parliament and the number of additional members for each Region. In carrying out its functions the Commission is required to give eVect to the Rules set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended, and the Scotland Act 1998. None of the Commission’s functions concerns issues which might arise from diVerences in the boundaries between UK and Scottish constituencies should the existing links be broken. The Commission is, therefore, unable to oVer evidence as requested in your letter. 10 October 2003

APPENDIX 3

Letter from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce The view of Scottish Chambers of Commerce regarding the reduction in the number of constituencies at Westminster is that this will only add further confusion to an electoral system that is already very confusing to the public. We firmly believe that the constituencies boundaries for MSPs and MPs must remain the same. However, whether this is achieved by reducing the number of elected MSPs or leaving the number of MPs at their present level is in our opinion irrelevant. Scotland already has four diVerent voting systems and if this was to be further confused by diVerent constituency boundaries then the whole situation would only be worse. 13 October 2003

APPENDIX 4

Memorandum submitted by Scottish Civic Forum Thank you for your recent communication about the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries and the Consequences of Change. The Forum is grateful for the opportunity to submit evidence on this important topic. I apologise for the late submission of this response due to the Forum’s upheaval in moving premises.

Introduction 1. The Forum is a network organisation committed to building a new culture of active citizenship, in which the people of Scotland have a genuine opportunity to be involved in influencing the Government policies that aVect them. The Forum’s membership currently stands at over 600 with organisational representation covering all sectors of civic life including small community organisations to business associations, church and faith groups, voluntary organisations and professional bodies. The Forum has a strong interest in supporting the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive in fulfilling the principles of power-sharing, accountability, accessible, participative ways of working and equal opportunities, that the cross-party Consultative Steering Group (CSG) recommended should underpin the Scottish Parliament’s work and which were adopted by the Parliament when it endorsed the CSG’s report on 9 June 1999. Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 81

Comments 2. The Forum was a member of a group convened by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy last year to consider the question of the size of the Scottish Parliament on which the Scotland OYce consulted at that Public Policy, the group included: the Institute of Governance of the University of Edinburgh, the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC), the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), Action of Churches Together in Scotland, UNISON, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI). One of the key issues discussed in that context was the eVect of having electoral boundaries which were not coterminous. These comments draw on the report submitted to the Scotland OYce, to which the Civic Forum was a signatory. 3. The group did not regard lack of coterminous boundaries as a fundamental problem. It was felt that the existence of diVerent boundaries for elections had become an accepted fact of political life and that the electorate had long accepted that constituences vary with the character of elections and that the electorate had shown a sophisticated understanding of the diVerences, creating varying voting patterns to achieve a variety of political outcomes. This was evidenced to some extent in the first elections to the Scottish Parliament where minority parties began to emerge as a result of the new electoral arrangements but was even more strongly evidenced at the Scottish Parliament elections in May 2003 where minority parties made significant gains as a result of the greater understanding of the electorate of how their second, proportional vote would count. A number of political commentators suggested that, contrary to concerns being expressed by some that the system was too complex, this showed that voters in fact had got to grips with the new system. Although the group recognised that changes in the size of the Westminster constituencies would alter the landscape again, it felt that there was no evidence to suggest that this would have an adverse aVect on the electorate. 4. Members of the group were also aware that there is considerable evidence from elsewhere that non- coterminous constituencies are not a problem. The Scotland OYce’s consultation document itself stated that “in England...there is in practice less coterminosity between Westminster and local government boundaries”. In Germany the Bundestag and Landtag constituencies diverge considerably in many La¨nder—for example, in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg and in Bavaria. Further afield, Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada is divided into seven federal ridings to elect seven representatives to the 301-strong Canadian Parliament, but split into 48 provincial ridings for the election of the provincial parliament. A similar situation exists in other Canadian provinces. 5. Recent concerns have been expressed at declines in voter turnout, and declining levels of civic participation. One possible explanation for these could be complexity of the political structures. An ICM poll from May 2003 on the Scottish Parliament elections indicated that 13% of non-voters cited confusion about the voting system as a reason for not voting. However, as mentioned in paragraph 3 above, those who voted seem to have been well able to take advantage of the new system to seek alternative outcomes through eVective use of their votes. 6. The Forum carried out an Audit of Democratic Participation which looked at how well the Parliament and Scottish Executive are implementing the CSG principles mentioned at paragraph 1. This work involved a number of meetings with groups from a range of backgrounds, both experienced and inexperienced participants in democratic processes and also a survey of the Forum’s then almost 400 member organisations. The work revealed that there are diVerent levels of understanding about current democratic systems but that the key thing was that there needed to be good communication of information about how the system works. The Forum also ran a series of nine Participation Summits across Scotland in October involving over 200 participants. One participant at the Dundee sumit stated of the Scottish system “The new system is too complicated. I’m a member of the Labour party and I don’t know who’s my European MEP or MP, I think there are thousands of people who know even less than me.” 7. Within the Forum we are certainly sympathetic to the view that the current political system has a complexity beyond the current understanding of some people, particularly those who are not experienced or currently engaged in democratic participation. This can have the eVect of acting as a disincentive to people in participating in elections or other democratic processes. However, our experience of hosting public debates on various issues have shown that the general public is remarkably adept at obtaining a sophisticated understanding of issues. This calls for education to allow this to happen, made available in a range of diVerent formats and media to reach as wide an audience as possible. The Electoral Commission is well placed to support activity of this nature, and while not directly relevant to this particular consultation, it is disappointing to note that they cannot currently fund work relating to the new system of proportional elections that are going to be introduced in local government elections in Scotland since this is a devolved matter and there is currently no agreement with the Scottish Executive to promote such work. 8. Linked to the point about education, is the need for good material which increases clarity about who is responsible for what in a situation where boundaries diVer. There is consistent pressure for government to adopt more joined up ways of working, but clearly there is an enormous potential for “non joined-up” thinking where there are diVering boundaries. It is therefore essential that there is transparency about who is accountable for diVerent activities, both so that people know whom they should contact to express views or to complain and to avoid the potential for unhelpful buck-passing. Ev 82 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

Conclusion 9. In conclusion, the Forum does not consider that there is a fundamental problem with having constituency boundaries that are not coterminous, however, we do consider that there is a clear need for good information to support wider understanding of the system at all levels, whether at local government, devolved government, national government or European level and that the Electoral Commission should be encouraged to support educational work at each of these levels throughout the UK. 25 November 2003

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 2/2004 920946 19585