NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM No. d.ah>.. REPORT

To: POLICY AND RESOURCES Subject: INQUIRY INTO BOUNDARIES, COMMITTEE 1 VOTING AND REPRESENTATION IN - CONSULTATION From: DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION I

Date: 13 April 2005 Ref: JAFllL

1. Purpose of Report

1.I The report refers to the decision of the Committee to remit to the MemberlOfficer Group on Local Governance the consultation document issued by the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems (the Arbuthnott Commission) and submits, for consideration, a draft response.

2. Background

2.1 The Committee, at its meeting on 8 February, having considered a report of 24 January by the Director of Administration including, as an appendix, the consultation document issued by the Arbuthnott Commission, agreed that detailed consideration be given to that document by the MemberlOfficer Group on Local Governance with a view to the formulation of a draft response.

2.2 The MemberlOfficer Group on Local Governance have now considered that document and have agreed that a draft response, as detailed in the appendix to this report, be formulated.

2.3 The Working Group had regard to the draft response considered on behalf of COSLA. The Working Group had regard, also, to the public meeting held in Glasgow in the course of which representatives of the Arbuthnott Commission indicated that

the Commission is particularly interested in the integrity of the with regard to the organisation of elections; the Commission is prepared to meet with individual local authorities;

0 the Commission anticipates receiving views on the advisability of the introduction of the Single Transferable Voting System to local government elections and anticipates a requirement to form a view on this prior to reporting to both the and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

2.4 With regard to the advisability of the introduction of the Single Transferable Voting System, the Working Group had regard to the decision taken by the Council, at its meeting on 2 October 2003, to reaffirm the position that the best way of electing local Councils is first past the post for individual wards. The Working Group noted that that decision had not been taken unanimously by the Council and, by a majority, the Working Group agreed to recommend that, as regards the introduction of the Single Transferable Voting System to local government elections, the Council adhere to the view that the best way of electing local Councils is first past the post for individual wards and advise the Arbuthnott Commission accordingly.

Arbuthnott Commission 2.doc 139 2

2.5 The Working Group also agreed, unanimously, to recommend that the Council approve a submission to the Arbuthnott Commission consultation as detailed in the appendix to this report.

3. Recommendation

3.1 It is recommended that the Committee give consideration to

(a) the possibility of seeking a meeting between representatives of the Council and representatives of the Arbuthnott Commission and (b) a draft submission to the Inquiry into Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland as detailed in the appendix to this report.

cto r of Administration

Members seeking further information on the contents of this report are asked to contact John Fleming, Head Rof Central Services on Extension 2228.

Arbuthnott Commission 2.doc 140 3

APPENDIX

INQUIRY INTO BOUNDARIES, VOTING AND REPRESENTATION IN SCOTLAND - CONS U LTATlON

Question: How important do you think it will be, either in voting or for dealing with your political representatives to have common boundaries for Scottish Parliament and Westminster constituencies?

Proposed Response: Within North Lanarkshire the situation envisaged by the proposed COSLA response - that it will be confusing for members of the public where the constituencies for MSPs and MPs have the same name but cover different areas - pertains in only two constituencies - Airdrie and Shotts and Motherwell and Wishaw. It has to be said that while some degree of confusion will be inevitable, it is impossible to completely avoid it if the current level of MSPs are to be retained. It should be noted that separate questions are posed as to methods of electing members of the Scottish Parliament.

Question: Do you currently experience difficulty in identifying who to approach - Local Councillor; Constituency MSP; Regional MSPs; MP or MEPs - to deal with a particular issue? If so, what changes might make this easier?

Proposed Response: It is noted that COSLA take the view that this is likely to be an issue where Councillors’ roles are being confused with those of MSPs, but is more likely to arise from confusion over competency for each sphere of governance, rather than being an issue arising from physical boundaries to wards and constituencies.

It is considered that the main thrust of COSLA’s response merits support: it is submitted that there is a requirement for a clear protocol whereby Members of the Scottish Parliament, both Regional and Constituency, Members of Parliament and Members of the , when approached regarding a matter which is the responsibility of local government, confine their response to referring the matter to the appropriate member of the Council. This issue goes beyond the question of jurisdiction of elected representatives and impacts on the treatment of local government as a tier of government. Clear role descriptions and a protocol on jurisdiction are required.

Question: If it is decided to keep the same boundaries, or a system of common ones, for Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, what structure (such as in the examples listed below) would provide the best way of achieving this?

0 2 MSPs for each new Westminster constituency (2 x 59) with a top up of 11 MSPs from a national list 0 60 constituency members and 69 (or 60) list members from either regions or a national list 0 Grouping the new Westminster constituencies to form larger Holyrood multi-member constituencies 0 Hybrid system, with rural constituencies the same as for Westminster and multi-member seats in the cities and urban areas

Proposed Response: It is noted that the COSLA accept the need to balance the memberlwardlconstituency link - which is a long-standing policy of COSLA - with the confusion that multiple voting systems are likely to contribute which may put off voters. It is noted, also, that COSLA reached the view that STV is the best voting system for MSPs

Arbuthnott Commission 2.doc 141 4

because of its consistency with a new 2007 arrangement for Councillors. It is, however, noted, also, that the Commission would expect to receive representations, formulate a view and make recommendations on the advisability of the introduction of the Single Transferable Voting System to local government elections. It is the view of North Lanarkshire Council that, whatever the nature of the electoral system chosen for local government, the primary objective must be to ensure that the membedward link is not weakened and the Council take the view that the STV system, as proposed, which provides for larger wards each of which will have three or four members, will fundamentally and adversely alter the current individual relationship between a Councillor and the ward he or she represents. Against that background North Lanarkshire Council do not support the introduction of STV either for local government elections or for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

0 Question: How important is it to have close identification between elected representatives and specific areas? If this is significant, what is the maximum size and population for effective representation?

Proposed Response: It is the view of the Council that, in considering the response to this question, the primary factors must be the importance of membedward links and governance issues as well as issues regarding service delivery. Against the basic backdrop of the issue of subsidiarity and of decisions being devolved to the lowest appropriate tier of government, the Council is of the view that, while the establishment of the Scottish Parliament has gone a long way to dealing with issues of national identity and decision making, the temptation to retain decision making at that national level requires to be resisted.

0 Question: Would it be useful if other public bodies, such as Health Boards, also fitted within constituency and ward boundaries?

Proposed Response: In light of the Council’s experience of operation of the community leadership role and of community planning, it is the submission of North Lanarkshire Council that there is no fundamental requirement for other public bodies, such as Health Boards, to fit within constituency and ward boundaries.

0 Question: What impact do you think having four different systems of electing representatives will have on voters, and on how effectively constituents are represented?

Proposed Response: It is the view of the Council that any requirement for the electorate to vote, on the one day, using three entirely different voting systems will inevitably lead to electorate confusion and will make it virtually certain that there will be a significant increase in the number of votes spoiled through confusion as to the three electoral systems. That, in the view of the Council, will be extremely harmful to the democratic process. For that reason it is the recommendation of the Council that the Commission recommend to both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that there should not be a requirement in 2007 for the electorate to vote, on the one day, using three entirely different voting systems.

0 Question: What is your view on the operation of the voting systems used for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament?

Proposed Response: It is the view of the Council that the operation of the voting systems used for elections to the Scottish Parliament and European Parliament underline the importance of membe r/consti tuency Ii nks .

Arbuthnott Commission 2.doc 142 5

0 Question: Do you think electors will be confused by having to vote using the new system for local government elections on the same day as using the for the Scottish Parliament elections?

Proposed Response: As advised above, it is the view of the Council that any requirement on the electorate to vote, on day, using three entirely different voting systems will result in electorate confusion leading to a significant increase in the number of votes spoiled and harm to the democratic process. It is, also the view of the Council that no clear justification has been advanced for the difference between the voting systems being adopted for each tier of govern ment .

0 Question: Does the existing structure of Constituency and Regional List MSPs generally work to the benefit of constituents, or have you experienced difficulties in the representative role of those two types of MSP?

Proposed Response: The Council notes that, irrespective of the fact that, in legal terms, there is no difference in terms of authority between MSPs who are territorially elected and those who come from the Regional List system, there continues to be a perception that one carries more legitimacy than the other. The Council notes also the COSLA view that, as list MSPs do not have a clear constituency based role, the current system leaves them open to accusations of being under-occupied and “cherry picking issues that appeal to them” and the Council concurs with COSLA’s analysis of the position.

0 Question: Are there improvements that could usefully be made in the way MSPs are elected?

Proposed Response: Having regard to the factors identified above, it is the view of the Council that the way MSPs are elected could profitably be reviewed in light of the importance of membe rlconst it uency I i nks .

Arbuthnott Commission Z.doc 143