ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE BILL CORPORATE SERVICES 10 MAY 2004
LOCAL GOVERNANCE BILL: ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
1. SUMMARY
1.1 This report is intended to provide an update on the progress of the Local Governance Bill particularly in relation to matters concerning the election of Councillors and single transferable vote, and to raise issues for discussion.
1.2 In view of the timetable for consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Transport Committee of Stage 2 of the Bill the Leader of the Council wrote to Members of the Committee and the local MSPs. A copy is attached at Appendix 5.
2. RECOMMENDATION
The issues in Section 4 below are for consideration and the Policy Development Group may wish to note the developing situation and the letter sent by the Leader of the Council.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The Bill was published in November last year and has been the subject of Stage One consideration by the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Transport Committee and has had its first stage reading in the Chamber. The Council gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Committee just before Christmas and a copy of the Council’s submission is attached at Appendix 1. This sets out particularly the Council’s views about the implications of the Bill for wards in rural and islands areas. Councillor Scoullar presented the Council’s evidence and a copy of his remarks to the Committee are enclosed at Appendix 2.
3.2 The Scottish Parliament Local Government and Transport Committee completed their consideration of the Bill towards the end of March. A summary of the Committee’s report is attached at Appendix 3. The Bill subsequently received a first stage reading in the Chamber. The Local Government and Transport Committee will commence its Stage 2 consideration of the Bill in the early/middle part of May.
1 4. ISSUES
4.1 Amendments have begun to be tabled by MSPs and the Executive – a copy of those tabled up to 30 April is attached at Appendix 4. The most interesting development has been that the Executive has tabled a series of amendments that delete the sections laying out the detail of how STV will operate from the face of the Bill. It is now proposing that the details of the quota, transfer of ballots etc will be dealt with in secondary legislation. It has also done a U turn on deleting the rules for the Boundary Review from primary legislation (currently they are in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The Bill intended that the boundary review rules were to be made through secondary legislation, but the Committee was strongly against his approach and the Minister has now tabled amendments to reinstate this to primary legislation.
4.2 There are a number of key issues that the Council should consider. The key issues are – - decoupling Council and Scottish Parliament elections - changing the number of members per ward - deleting the detail of how STV will operate and leaving it to secondary legislation - re-inserting an amended “Schedule 6” – rules for boundary reviews in the primary legislation
Decoupling Council elections from Scottish Parliament elections
4.3 Amendments to the Bill to decouple the elections will be ruled inadmissible. Decoupling would require amending other legislation. However, the Council has had a view on this and may wish to continue to argue for de-coupling. As an alternative to decoupling, although second best, the Council might wish to endorse views which are being expressed elsewhere, including COSLA, that if elections remain combined they should be moved to a Tuesday to allow both counts to be concluded by the weekend. It is noted that David Mundell has tabled an amendment the effect of which would require would be to require a separate polling station for the local government election from that used for the Scottish Parliament election. While the sentiment behind this is no doubt aimed at reducing voter confusion there will be real difficulties in rural and islands areas in terms of being able to provide space in polling places and in recruiting staff.
Number of Members per Ward
4.4 The Bill says 3 or 4. The Council’s evidence to the Parliament’s Local Government Committee argued that there needed to be flexibility in this to take account of –
2 - the potentially very large mainland wards that might be created in rural areas;
- particularly the impact on islands. This focused on Tiree and Coll but the implications extended into the other Atlantic islands – Mull, Colonsay, Jura and Islay.
4.5 An amendment to provide 2-5 Members per ward has been tabled by Tricia Marwick. John Farquhar Munro supported by George Lyon has proposed 2, 3 or 4 members per ward. COSLA has previously argued for 2-3.
4.6 As noted in the Council’s evidence, 3 or 4 may cause a problem in at least one part of mainland Argyll and in the Atlantic Islands (particularly Tiree and Coll). Tricia Marwick’s proposed two amendments have the combined effect of providing a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5. The minimum 2 could happen only in a ward that is remote or sparsely populated.
4.7 John Farquhar Munro’s further amendment proposes that the number of councillors may be two only if the Boundary Commission so proposes on the grounds that – (a) the area of the ward is remote or sparsely populated or comprises an island or islands (b) having regard to Sch 6 of the 1973 Act (see below) the number of electors does not merit more than two councillors (c) the ward better reflects local community ties than would a ward with a greater number of electors
4.8 George Lyon’s further amendment proposes that the number may be two only if the ward is in the former Highlands and Islands European Constituency.
4.9 These all go a considerable way to recognise the position of concern that this Council expressed. The Munro further amendment is perhaps trying to tailor the section. The Lyon further amendment would appear to leave the determination of a ward with two members (within the Highlands and Islands) to the Sch 6 Boundary Commission review process (see below). The Council may consider this goes sufficiently far.
3 4.10 On the other hand the Council may feel all this does not quite go far enough and may wish to express a further option to recognise that in extreme islands situations (in effect Tiree and Coll) there might only be one member but still elected under the same electoral system. It is perhaps worth noting that, with a possible 5 member ward, because the larger the number of members means the smaller the quota for election, this could assist a candidate whose electoral strength lies in a small community. Conversely of course the larger the number of members, the larger the ward will be geographically. 4.11 So would the Council wish to propose that section 1(2) might be amended to provide? –
“The number of Councillors to be returned in a ward shall be one, two, three, or four, ………….”
and the number of councillors returned in a ward may be one only in exceptional circumstances on the grounds that –
(d) the area of the ward is remote or sparsely populated and comprises an island or islands (e) having regard to Sch 6 of the 1973 Act (see below) the number of electors does not merit more than one councillor (f) the ward better reflects local community ties than would a ward with a greater number of electors
A one member ward will be hard, if not impossible, to persuade MSPs to support and the Council did not suggest it in its evidence.
Deleting the detail of how STV will operate and leaving it to secondary legislation
4.12 The Bill was unique in attempting to provide what are in effect the election rules in primary legislation. In other Acts of Parliament for other institutions including the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments and local government, these are prescribed in secondary legislation, and the Council it is suggested should support this.
Rules for Boundary Reviews
4.13 On the other hand the original proposal to include the rules for boundary reviews in secondary legislation was most unusual. The criteria for determining which wards have which number of members is, it is suggested, fundamental and should bear the most careful scrutiny which is best given as part of primary legislation. As a matter of principle therefore the Council may wish to support this.
4 4.14 The current rules for local government wards are set out in Sch 6 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 as follows –
1. (2) Having regard to any change in the number or distribution of electors of a local government area likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the consideration [by the Boundary Commission], the number of local government electors shall be, as nearly as may be, the same in every electoral ward of that local government area.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, in considering the electoral arrangements referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above regard shall be had to –
(a) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable; (b) any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary
2. The strict application of the rule stated in paragraph 1(2) above may be departed from in any area where special geographical considerations appear to render a departure desirable.
4.15 The Minister’s tabled amendments reinstate and amend Sch 6. Sub-paragraph (2) would be amended by providing for how the number of electors will be calculated –
“calculated by dividing the number of local government electors in each electoral ward of that local government area by the number of councillors to be returned in that ward shall be, as nearly as may be, the same.”
Sub-paragraph (3) would be amended by providing in relation to the two criteria (a) and (b) that –
“but if, in any case, there is a conflict between those criteria, greater weight shall be given to the latter”
Thus, as amended the Sch 6 three criteria for boundary reviews would be, in order of priority –
- to achieve parity in the number of electors per councillor in each ward in the local authority area - to try not to break “local ties” - to fix boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable
5 4.16 Parity is important because primarily in any electoral system each voter’s vote should carry the same weight. However the Council may wish to emphasise, as provided for in paragraph 2 of Sch 6 that the parity rule should be capable of being departed from in circumstances where special geographical considerations appear to render a departure desirable. This is the current position with Tiree and Coll.
Nigel Stewart, Director of Corporate Services 30 April 2004
(1663-Val/Reports)
6
APPENDIX 1 Submission to the Scottish Parliament Local Government and Transport Committee by Argyll and Bute Council Previous response 1. We would draw the committee’s attention to the Council’s response to the draft Local Governance Bill submitted on 25 September 2003 (which is attached to this submission). 2. In presenting evidence to the committee we would emphasise three particular areas of that response: • The implications of multi-member wards for islands; • The difficulties caused in sparsely populated rural areas; • The practical difficulties of managing the voting and counting processes in a combined local authority and parliamentary election; Creating new wards 3. The Bill gives no indication of the guidance that will be issued to the Boundary Commission to aid them in carrying out the review of ward boundaries, nor on the factors to be taken into account in determining whether a given area should have three- or four-member wards. As a working assumption in this submission, the Council is building its case on the basis that existing ward boundaries are likely to form the building blocks for the new three- or four-member wards. 4. It is clear from the Bill that the Executive’s intention is to allow no discretion to the Boundary Commission to extend or reduce the number of members returned for a given ward beyond three or four. It is not clear whether there is to be any scope for the Commission to vary the ratio of electors to councillors in specific local circumstances – a feature of the current guidance to the Commission. 5. In devising the current ward boundaries within this rural authority, the Boundary Commission worked to a target of 2,000 electors per ward. Argyll and Bute’s electoral ratio (mean number of voters per councillor) is 1,896. A list of the wards in Argyll and Bute and their electorates at the time of the May 2003 elections is also attached to this submission. 6. In some cases, the combination of existing wards into three-member wards can be accommodated reasonably straightforwardly (e.g. Bute, Oban) where there already exist three wards with an electorate that is reasonably close to the appropriate electoral ratio. We also recognise the argument that in these cases, a grouping of wards may constitute a more natural community (i.e. the whole of a town or an island) than the sometimes arbitrary division of those areas arising in the current single-member ward system.
7 7. However, our concern is that in the specific instances of islands and of sparsely populated rural areas the effect of a rigid application of the ratio coupled with the requirement for three- or four-member wards will have a limiting effect on the ability of communities to secure effective representation through the franchise available to them. This point is explained further in what follows. Islands 8. Parliament’s standing orders require the Executive to consider in its policy memorandum, the implications of a Bill for – among other groups – island communities. For ease of reference, we quote the following extract from the Scottish Executive’s Policy Memorandum in relation to the Local Governance Bill: “As noted above, multi-member wards will generally be larger than those which exist at present. The Scottish Executive recognises the challenges this will pose, particularly in islands authorities where wards may contain more than one island. The Scottish Executive expects councillors in such wards to work in a co-operative, consensual way, in the interests of the ward and its constituents. In the meantime, the Single Transferable Vote Working Group will be examining the practical issues which the introduction of multi- member wards raises for rural and islands and communities.” The Executive’s memorandum misses the point – it is a problem of real practical hurdles – irrespective of the ability or willingness of councillors to co-operate. 9. It is also the case that the incentives in the electoral system are for candidates – even from the same party – to compete rather than co-operate: certainly at the time of elections. This point is borne out in the report considered by the Executive’s STV working group on the experience of the use of STV in Ireland. 10. To illustrate the point, the current electorates of the island-only wards in Argyll and Bute (excepting Bute) are as follows: • Islay, Jura, Colonsay: 2,761 voters in two wards • Tiree and Coll: 676 voters in a single ward • Mull: 2,266 voters in a single ward 11. In continuing this discussion, it needs to be understood that there is a strong tradition and expectation in these communities that their councillor will have a clear local connection and be resident in the ward concerned. 12. In order to be elected in a three member ward, a candidate would need to command the preferences of one-quarter of the electorate (or one-fifth in a four member ward). In a ward which combines Tiree, Coll and Mull – even as a two-member seat - then there would be a real likelihood that all the councillors elected would be from the larger island given that only 23% of the voters in a combined ward would be resident in Tiree and Coll. 13. Whatever the exhortations of the Executive, a Councillor will know that their best chance to be re-elected will be to represent effectively the main part of the ward, and not spend too much time in travel to the other part of the ward. Conversely, if a meeting is to take place on one of the islands on a particular community issue, then all the councillors are likely to attend – adding to the costs and time consumed in local representation. Again, the reported experience from Ireland suggests that those members who devote energy and
8 time to purely local issues are often successful at the expense of those who are in leadership positions. 14. We have argued in our submission that the Boundary Commission should have the opportunity to consider these local circumstances in developing their scheme. This can be done either by allowing – in extremely limited circumstances such as Tiree and Coll – the retention of single member wards or by allowing the Commission to create multi-member wards returning two or five members as well as the three or four-member wards presaged by the Bill. Transport links 15. You cannot assume that because islands appear close to each other, they are easily accessible one from the other: there are no direct ferry links between Mull and Coll/Tiree and limited links (in the Summer only) between Islay/Jura and Colonsay. See attached map of ferry routes to these islands. 16. It should also be borne in mind that there are not daily ferries to all of the islands: Coll and Tiree receiving a ferry service on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays only, with it being impossible to conduct any business on either island in time to catch the return ferry the same day. 17. To attend a meeting on Tiree on a Tuesday evening, a councillor whose home is on Mull would need to leave home on Monday afternoon – and could return home no sooner than Thursday evening – the only way to avoid such a journey being to drive to Glasgow Airport and fly to Tiree. In that case, a councillor based on Mull would still need to leave on Monday, but might be able to return home on Wednesday. 18. Combining all of Argyll’s Atlantic Islands in a single ward (while it would bring together the requisite number of voters) would exacerbate these practical difficulties still further: the ferry terminals for the two sets of islands being at some distance from each other. 19. Combination with mainland, or with other islands would be equally problematic, due to the difference in interests and issues being experienced by those communities, though the travel issues might be eased somewhat. 20. The foregoing are to illustrate practical considerations/difficulties which may be associated with fixed three- or four-member wards.
9
Remote rural areas 21. Argyll and Bute’s total hectarage is 694,277. In a pattern of twelve three- member wards the mean ward area would be 57,857 ha, but the mean figure conceals some significant variations. For example, the three northernmost mainland wards might well be grouped together. This would allow the three Oban town wards also to form a single grouping. This ‘Lorn’ three member ward would be 160,500 ha (620 square miles), the councillors representing this ward would need to contemplate a territory which from Toberonochy in the south-west of the ward to Bridge of Orchy in the east would be 50 miles, or to Port Appin in the north a distance of 37 miles. 22. Such a ward would contain an area larger than the total area of 21 of the 32 Scottish local authorities. It would be larger than 61 of the 72 parliamentary constituencies and larger in area than three of the seven regional list areas. If the Executive’s view is that Councillors should be predominantly part-time, then a judgement needs to be taken as to whether the demands that such a unit of territory would make on those part-time councillors would be reasonable.
10 Counting – the cost 23. The counting process in Argyll and Bute is always a logistical challenge – with the ability of the count to take place on election night dependent on the availability of helicopter transport for ballot boxes from the islands and remote parts of Argyll and Bute to the count in Lochgilphead and then on reasonable weather conditions. In the 2003 elections, the Argyll and Bute constituency result was declared at approximately 0430 on Friday May 2, and the list results at approximately 0600 that day. 24. A new corps of counting staff were required at 1200 on the Friday to commence the count for the local authority elections with the last of the 36 ward results being declared at approximately 1600. 25. It should be noted that although the counting staff were changed between the two counts, the supervisory staff were not. It would not be possible for the count to continue indefinitely on the Friday out of consideration for both the health of supervisors in the process and for the quality of the process itself. It seems likely that the count under STV may not be completed on the first day after the election, and may need to continue into a second day. 26. In Northern Ireland, STV elections are held on a Wednesday to avoid having to continue the counting process into a weekend. The costs of counting staff would rise and their availability fall should Saturday counting be necessary. 27. The Parliament and Executive should consider moving elections to Wednesdays if they are to be held under STV. 28. There will be fewer separate counts in an STV election (i.e. 9 or 12 rather than 36), but more stages to go through. Inevitably the final results will take longer to declare, and the counting process will go on longer – there is no case where STV elections have not taken longer to declare than first past the post. 29. The Executive’s Financial Memorandum says the following: "Returning officers are currently responsible for the administration of local government elections, which are funded by local authorities themselves. The Bill does not seek to change those arrangements, but instead changes the system of election used. The Scottish Executive does not therefore expect there to be significant additional costs to local authorities arising purely from the introduction of STV for local government elections. The Executive intends to fund voter education and training for elections administrators at a national level, but recognises that local authorities may also wish to undertake some activity at a local level as they do at present. This will be a matter for individual local authorities to decide on the basis of local circumstances nearer to the date of the elections, and it is not therefore possible to identify any resultant costs. In addition, the Scottish Executive recognises that a manual count for an STV election will be more complex and may take longer than has been the case for elections using the first past the post system. A number of the responses to the consultation on the Bill noted that this could result in additional costs, although no estimate of those costs was offered at this early stage. Local authorities have not yet undertaken detailed assessments of the possible implications for their election procedures of introducing STV, and, until they do so, it is not possible to estimate to any extent whether there will be any increase or decrease in the costs of running local government elections in future." 30. The cost of counting staff in Argyll and Bute in the 2003 election was approximately £2,000. If count is three times as long, the cost will be at least three times as great. It should be possible, by comparison with the Northern
11 Irish experience, to estimate how the length of a count would vary from the First Past the Post and the Executive ought to make such an estimate. 31. However, there is no part of the process of conducting an STV election that will be cheaper than the current system: and the count will definitely be more expensive. The absence of a specific estimate of costs from local authorities should not be taken to mean that it is not clear that costs will rise – the only question is by how much. Nor can there be any real doubt that the increase in costs would be significant in the context of local authority budgets. Combined elections 32. The combination of Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections on the same day requires voters to cast three ballot papers – two for single constituency elections and one for the regional list. The evidence is that voters have been remarkably resilient in being able to understand the practicalities of the voting process. In varying degrees to a lesser extent they have also been able to differentiate on the likely effects of their vote in different systems. 33. An STV ballot is not just an additional paper to be completed, but one which must be completed in a different way. The voter needs to understand both how to complete the ballot paper and the likely effect of their vote in the system. While a single ‘X’ on a ballot would presumably count as a first preference vote for the relevant candidate, voters who mark more than one ‘X’ on a paper will be spoiling their ballot. In the first combined elections for the Scottish Parliament and local authorities in 1999 the largest number of spoilt papers was on the list ballot paper. We would be concerned that continuing with the combined elections may give rise to larger numbers of spoilt papers in the local government elections.
APPENDIX 1A Response from Argyll and Bute Council to the Draft Local Governance Bill, as agreed at special Council meeting held on 23 September 2003
Impact on remote and island areas 1. The Council is concerned about the impact that the proposed ward sizes will have on the ability of electors in remote and island areas to be effectively represented. The provisions of the Bill in respect of ward size will result in severe communications difficulties and excessive travel times and distances. 2. The Council therefore believes: a. That the provisions in the Bill specifying that wards will comprise either three or four members should be amended such that in the particular circumstances of islands the Bill should provide for the possibility of a different number of members being specified. b. That the guidance to be given to the Boundary Commission should be such as to provide flexibility to the Commission to take account of remote islands issues in assessing the appropriate councillor/elector ratio to take account of remote islands issues. 3. The Bill, and its explanatory memorandum, give no information on the instructions/guidance that will be given to the Local Government Boundary Commission in carrying out the ward boundary reviews. Given the significance to Argyll and Bute of the issue of ward size, then it is difficult
12 to express a view on the working of that review (beyond that mentioned in para 2 above) without knowing the basis they will work on and the extent to which they will be able to exercise discretion to suit local circumstances. 4. The council would take this opportunity to remind the Executive of the provisions of clause 9.3, (c), (iv) of standing orders of the Scottish Parliament which requires that an Executive Bill be accompanied by a policy memorandum setting out: “an assessment of the effects, if any, of the Bill on equal opportunities, human rights, island communities, local government, sustainable development and any other matter which the Scottish Ministers consider relevant.”
Practical implementation of STV 5. The change to the STV system will require significant changes to the current organisation of local elections, and the count itself can be very complex: the Executive should undertake to commit resources to training for returning officers and election staff in the practicalities of the conduct of the count; 6. Similar commitments should be sought from the Executive in respect of voter awareness campaigns; 7. Since local elections are currently held on the same day as the elections to the Scottish Parliament, voters will be presented with three different ballot papers – one of which needs to be completed in a fundamentally different way than the other two. They will be voting under three different systems. The Council believe that the two elections should be held on different days, with local government elections taking place midway through the four year parliamentary term.
Electronic counting 8. The Council favours any initiative that will ease the process of voting and counting the STV elections, and in principle has no objection to electronic voting and/or counting. However, it seems unlikely that any proposed electronic system can be adequately tested in advance of 2007 – no STV elections of a similar scale will be taking place anywhere else in the UK. 9. Similarly, there is a danger that the outcome of STV elections is already less transparent to the ordinary voter than the simple FPTP process. To add to this the loss of transparency that has been a feature of some electronic counting systems might run the risk of undermining the legitimacy of the whole electoral process.
Remuneration Committee 10. As with the Local Government Boundary Commission, little information is given on the guidance which will be given to the Remuneration Committee, nor is any detail given about the basis upon which appointments will be made. 11. The Remuneration Committee should include representation of a cross- section of interests. Specifically, it should include members with first hand experience of the challenges of operating in Highland and Island areas and some representation with direct recent experience of the difficulties faced by elected members in carrying out their duties.
13 12. The appointment of the Remuneration Committee should be subject to normal procedures of appointment to public bodies, but local government should be involved in the appointment process – whether through CoSLA or some other mechanism. 13. The Executive makes clear that it expects most councillors to view the role as a part-time commitment. This is a view that was expressed first in the Kerley Report. It should be understood by the Remuneration Committee that the difficulties of representing remote and sparsely populated areas are such that even those councillors with no additional responsibilities beyond the representation of their constituents face a real challenge in the time commitment that is required to carry out their duties effectively: it may not be full-time, but it does require extended absences from home that make the continuation of any other employment all but impossible.
Boundary changes 14. There is merit in the Boundary Commission being able to agree, in an accelerated way, minor boundary changes of a technical nature where the authorities concerned agree, and where the number of electors affected is extremely small. 15. Significant boundary changes – those which affect more than a trivial number of electors – should be subject to a full process of statutory consultation. If Parliament is prepared to devolve responsibility for such changes to a body other than itself – and the Council is not convinced it should do so – then it is unclear that the appropriate body should be the Boundary Commission – which was not established for such purposes. If the relevant authorities are agreed, then a better process would be to subject such changes to a local referendum to establish the views of the electors concerned. There would need to be significant safeguards put in place to manage any such process to ensure that there was no prospect of changes being pursued in a fickle way, for simple partisan advantage, or in such a way as to undermine the basic stability of local authority areas. 16. Such a change in local governance should not be dealt with in secondary legislation, nor as an afterthought to legislation which is primarily concerned with other matters.
Harmonisation of local and parliamentary election rules 17. The Council welcomes proposals to harmonise the regulation of the two types of elections – particularly given the coincident timing of those elections – but has no specific proposals to make in that regard.
Other issues 18. The council supports the following additional provisions of the Bill: • The reduction of the qualifying age for candidates from 21 to 18; • The removal of the salary threshold for local authority posts to be deemed politically restricted; • That employees of the council will no longer be required to resign their post on being nominated to stand for a council election but only in the case of their being elected.
14 19. However, in respect of the proposed lifting of the prohibition on former councillors being employed by the council, the council is concerned that this relaxation would be open to misinterpretation by the community and, on reflection, is of the view that the prohibition should remain at twelve months.
15 APPENDIX 2 Scottish Parliament Local Government and Transport Committee 2 December 2003 Introductory remarks by Councillor Len Scoullar, Independent, Bute South Introduction I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear
before them today, and to say a little about the likely effects of the
Single Transferable Vote and multi-member wards in the
particular circumstances of Argyll and Bute.
I sit as an independent member of Argyll and Bute Council, and
am not a member of the majority group on the council. I am here,
however, representing the council as a whole and with the
support of both majority and minority groups on the council.
You will have received the submission prepared by Argyll and
Bute Council in advance of today’s session, and I don’t wish to
spend a long time repeating the information that is in that
submission, but I would like to emphasise and illustrate three
issues in particular as they impact on our communities.
The principle of Argyll and Bute Council is on record as being content with the STV first past the post system in single member wards. The
discussion today, is not about that principle but about the
practical implications of the proposed system. I am asking the
committee to recognise that the consequences of some of the
proposed features of the system will be damaging to the pattern
and quality of community representation in Argyll and Bute and
needs to be considered in more depth before proceeding. In
particular, the implications for some of our islands communities,
16 and for those living in the more sparsely populated parts of Argyll
and Bute will be difficult in practice. The practicalities of running
and counting an STV election also gives rise to two particular
issues of timing.
Island Communities The Council’s submission to the Committee – in paragraphs 8 to
14 – outlines the possible impact that multi-member wards might
have on our Atlantic islands in particular. I have to say –
regretfully – that the advice offered by the Executive in their
Policy Memorandum is – at best – disingenuous. I represent Bute
South. My colleagues, Councillors MacIntyre and Strong
represent Bute North and Central respectively. I like to think we
work well as a team of councillors on issues affecting the island
as a whole. That is easier to do when we are not in competition
with each other for votes in three years time. I do not say that co-
operation is impossible in a multi-member ward, and there are
doubtless examples of it happening elsewhere – but the reality is
that I will need to compete to be re-elected, and so too will my
colleagues. And this is true even among members of the same
party.
But setting this issue aside, there are real hurdles in the way of
effective representation in island communities. If ferries only
travel to an island three times a week, then the ability of
councillors to attend constituents is limited.
Islanders on Coll and Tiree currently enjoy a representative of
their own – in a multi-member ward they face the real prospect of
17 having to persuade a councillor from a different island to listen
and represent their concerns. As members will know, there is
sometimes no substitute for a face to face meeting, and
constituents do expect their representatives to spend time in the
communities they represent – even – or especially – when their
residence is elsewhere.
When the McIntosh Commission reported it cited five criteria
which should be used for judging the appropriateness of an
electoral system:
• The ward-member link;
• Proportionality;
• Fairness for independents;
• Allowance for geographical diversity;
• Matching wards to natural communities.
For the sake of the last two criteria then we believe that, if the
parliament is fixed in its intent to do away with single member
wards (even in exceptional cases such as Tiree and Coll) then it
ought to allow the Boundary Commission the opportunity to
create two-member wards in these areas in order to minimise the
practical difficulties or the need to stray from natural communities.
Sparsely populated Similar issues arise in sparsely populated areas. Although the areas barriers to effective representation are less, they are still
significant. We have illustrated in paragraphs 21 and 22 the
potential scale of one ward that might emerge from a boundary
review. Other council areas will have similar or worse examples:
18 Highland, Dumfries and Galloway, Perth and Kinross.
Again, we believe there is a case for a more flexible approach to
the size of wards and the numbers of members to be elected in
each.
Practical issues Argyll and Bute Council is concerned about the length of time
required to count STV elections and about the impact of the
continued combination of parliamentary and local elections.
One of our delegation today – Mr Stewart – has just returned
from a visit to observe the counting of the Northern Ireland
assembly elections. The length of the counting process was
considerably longer than we have come to expect in Scotland.
Some eighteen hours of counting to elect six MLAs for the North
Down constituency – spread over two days. For this reason, we
would ask that the parliament consider holding elections under
STV earlier in the week as they do in Northern Ireland.
It was also alarming to note that in Northern Ireland – where they
have been holding elections under STV for thirty years – three in
ten of the spoilt papers were spoilt because voters had
mistakenly entered multiple X’s on their ballot. It seems likely that
in a combined election -where voters were asked to cast an X for
a constituency MSP, an X in the list vote and then a 1,2,3 for the
local council - that we would experience a significant number of
spoilt papers, and that those papers would disproportionately fall
in the local election. I think the executive and parliament always
recognised that the arguments in favour or against the
19 combination of elections were finely balanced. In our view it
seems clear that this issue lends weight in favour of decoupling
the elections and that this issue should be reconsidered by the
parliament.
Conclusion I will not go on, and I am looking forward to answering your
questions (with the assistance of my colleagues). I should say
that STV is a solution to a problem that does not exist in Argyll
and Bute – we do not have a pattern of universal party
competition in elections to our council and it is impossible to say
whether or not the issue of proportionality of votes to seats is a
real concern of our voters. The issues I have spoken about are of
concern, and our view is that we are entitled to expect the
Executive to give them the consideration that this Committee
clearly intends to.
20 APPENDIX 3
Local Government and Transport Committee
2nd Report 2004 (Session 2)
Stage 1 Report on the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill Volume 1: Report SUMMARY OF KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
1.The Committee recommends that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Bill.1
Consultation
2.The Committee is satisfied that the Scottish Executive has consulted appropriately on the provisions of the Bill.
Part 1 - Local government elections
Overall conclusions on the proposed changes to the electoral system (paragraphs 118 to 125)
3. The Committee considers-
· Any disadvantages of the proposed changes are outweighed by the advantages. These include a wider choice for voters both at election time and subsequently when seeking to consult a councillor; a higher degree of proportionality between votes cast and seats won by parties; possible benefits for under- represented groups gaining access to council membership, and an increased likelihood of larger opposition groupings in councils which historically have been dominated by one political party2; and
· Reform of the voting system, is an essential plank in the drive to modernise local government across Scotland. 3
Electoral system - specific issues
Differential proportionality (paragraphs 73 to 80)
4.The Committee notes that the proposals for three or four member wards will provide moderate proportionality.
The member/ward link (paragraph 82 to 89)
5. The Committee concludes that whilst there may be some diminution of the member/ward link as it is presently understood, the
21 proposed new system can offer some advantages in terms of widening choice for the elector both at election time and subsequently when he or she wishes to consult a councillor.4
Number of members per ward (paragraphs 127 to139)
6.The Committee concludes that wards of three or four members as proposed in the Bill offer the most acceptable compromise between proportionality and the member-ward link.5
Turnout (paragraphs 91 to 92)
7.The Committee concludes that the introduction of STV in local government elections may have a limited effect on turnout.
Prospects for election of traditionally under-represented groups under STV (paragraphs 93 to 97)
8.The Committee concludes that there is some evidence that the introduction of STV in local government elections may have a limited effect on increasing the chances of election of traditionally under- represented groups.
Impact of STV on the composition of councils (paragraphs 98 to 103)
9.The Committee concludes that whilst, under STV, there may be an increased possibility of councils being returned with no overall control, the moderately proportional nature of the proposed system means that a single-party majority remains a possibility in a number of councils.
Impact of STV on independent councillors and candidates (paragraphs 104 to 117)
10.The Committee considers that whilst independent candidates, in common with political parties, may need to be prepared to make some tactical alterations to the way in which they plan and organise their election campaigns, the system in itself is unlikely to prove either especially advantageous or disadvantageous to independent candidates.
Options for drawing up new ward boundaries (paragraphs 140 to 151)
11. The Committee-
· Was persuaded by the LGBCS's evidence that it would be able to deliver proposals for new ward boundaries-the `starting from scratch' option-in time for the next local government election;6 and
· Considers that the new ward boundaries should reflect natural communities. The Executive's timetable for the LGBCS should,
22 therefore, allow time for consultation with councils and other interested bodies, and for revision of draft proposals before full public consultation.
12.The Committee recommends that Ministers should instruct the Local Government Boundary Commission Scotland (LGBCS) to deliver proposals for new ward boundaries in time for the next local government election.
Potential for voter confusion and spoilt papers (paragraphs 173 to 184)
13. The Committee-
· Acknowledges that the introduction of STV will pose significant challenges in respect of voter education and other measures to ensure that the Scottish electorate understands fully how to express its preferences in local government elections; and
· Notes that any increase in the number of spoilt papers would be disappointing, but that risks could be minimised by a properly resourced campaign of voter education, awareness raising and other measures in relation to the management of election venues. The Committee considered this issue in the context of the debate over the possible decoupling of local government elections from the Scottish Parliament elections.
Technical issues surrounding the counting of votes (paragraphs 185 to 200)
14. The Committee-
· Concludes that the method set out in the Bill is the most appropriate one for local government elections in Scotland at this time, given the currently available counting technology;
· Believes that its preferred alternative, the 'weighted inclusive Gregory method,' is, theoretically, the most effective counting method as it ensures that the preferences expressed by all voters are counted; but notes manual counts using this system would be unrealistically time consuming; and
· Recommends that the 'weighted inclusive Gregory method' be introduced to replace the system set out in the Bill when electronic counting becomes available.
Financial implications of the introduction of STV (paragraphs 201 to 210)
15. The Committee-
· Concludes that there are likely to be increased costs to local authorities in respect of the administration of elections and
23 election counts, but it is impossible to quantify them at present until more detail about how future elections are to be administered is available; and
· Welcomes the Minister's commitment to discuss the issue with local government.
Synchronised elections for the Scottish Parliament and local government (paragraphs 211 to 218)
16. The Committee-
· Considers there are a number of issues likely to arise in future local government elections under STV, should they continue to be synchronised with Scottish Parliament elections, including potential for voter confusion; length of the count; additional commitments which will be required of returning officers, their staff and other staff associated with electoral administration; and
· Calls on the Executive to consider these issues and to report back to it on its proposals for resolving them ahead of Stage 2.
Electronic voting and counting (paragraphs 219 to 230)
17. The Committee-
· Considers that e-counting offers significant advantages over conventional counting methods;
· Welcomes the Minister's commitment to consider e-counting following the passage of the Bill; and
· Recommends that if e-counting can be proven to be reliable, robust and accurate, the Scottish Executive should take measures to put it in place in time for the 2007 election.
18. The Committee notes that there appear to be a number of challenges to overcome before e-voting could be introduced, not least that of ensuring confidence in a system which will dispense with actual ballot papers.
The operation of multi-member wards (paragraphs 231 to 241)
19.The Committee considers that-
· There may not be a need for formal protocols;
· It would be more appropriate to allow councillors to determine their own working arrangements;
· Under STV each elector will have either three or four representatives and it is a matter for them to decide which councillor or councillors they choose to consult about specific
24 issues.
Part 2 - Membership of local authorities etc
Employees standing for election as councillors (paragraphs 242 to 248)
20. The Committee-
· Welcomes the proposal as set out in the Bill as being a sensible means of widening the range of individuals who might consider standing for election to local authorities; but
· Does not accept the suggestion from some witnesses that local authority employees could simultaneously hold office as councillors in the authority in which they were employed.
Reduction of the age at which people may stand for election (paragraphs 249 to 255)
21. The Committee-
· Welcomes the proposal to reduce the age at which one can stand in council elections to 18; and
· Notes that this will not necessarily lead to a growth in the numbers of young people who wish to stand.
Politically restricted posts (paragraphs 256 to 264)
22. The Committee welcomes the Bill's proposals relating to politically restricted posts, and the development of guidance for councils by the Widening Access to Council Membership Group.
Prohibitions on appointment of councillors and ex-councillors to local authority posts (paragraphs 265 to 273)
23. The Committee-
· Supports the proposals in the Bill relating to the appointment of former councillors to local authority posts; and
· Considers that the proposed rules on the appointment of former councillors to posts within the same local authority require further clarification.
Remuneration (paragraphs 274 to 286)
24. The Committee-
· Accepts the argument that it would not be practical to set out
25 details of the schemes on the face of the Bill; and
· Awaits with interest further information regarding the Scottish Executive's intentions in relation to the funding of the new schemes, and how this might impact upon the work of the proposed Remuneration Committee.
Part time or full time commitment of councillors (paragraphs 287 to 295)
25. The Committee considers-
· It is correct to describe the majority of Scotland's councillors as working on a part time basis, but there should be no `stigma' attached to such a label.
· It is important that there are opportunities for people to combine service as a councillor with other activities, including other employment;
· That a new remuneration scheme should be structured sufficiently flexibly to take account of the different roles carried out by councillors.
Severance payments and pension arrangements (paragraphs 313 to 327)
26. The Committee-
· Believes that severance payments should vary according to councillors' length of service;
· Does not accept the arguments that the proposed pension arrangements should be backdated;
· Recommends that the severance scheme should be extended to include those councillors who stand for election at the next local government election but are defeated.7
· Accepts the argument that an on-going resettlement scheme should be established for councillors
· Recommends that a resettlement scheme for councillors be introduced following the 2007 election and that the Scottish Executive instructs the Remuneration Progress Group to consider this matter in more detail and identify possible ways forward.
Part 3 - Miscellaneous and general
27. The Committee is content in relation to the proposals in Part 3 of the Bill.
26 APPENDIX 4 SP Bill 14-ML1 Session 2 (2004) 1 Local Governance (Scotland) Bill 1st Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2 The Bill will be considered in the following order— Sections 1 to 19 Schedule Sections 20 to 23 Long Title Amendments marked * are new (including manuscript amendments) or have been altered. Section 1 Tricia Marwick Supported by: Mr Andrew Welsh, Mr Bruce McFee 1 In section 1, page 1, line 10, leave out
27 After section 2 David Mundell 45 After section 2, insert—
28 David Mundell Supported by: Mr Andy Kerr 7 Leave out section 8 Section 9 Mr Andy Kerr 32 In section 9, page 5, line 4, leave out
29 existing prior to the commencement of the review, except in pursuance of paragraph (a).> Mr Andy Kerr 49 In section 10, page 5, line 36, at end insert— <( ) The Boundary Commission shall, when complying with section 18(2)(aa) of the 1973 Act on a review under subsection (1), also inform the council of the reasons for any differences between— (a) their draft proposals, and (b) the draft proposals which would have been made had they been formulated on the basis that each electoral ward in a local government area is to consist of a combination of existing electoral wards (the rules set out in Schedule 6 to that Act having been disregarded in so far as those rules conflicted with that basis).> Mr Andy Kerr 50 In section 10, page 5, line 40, at end insert— <( ) in section 18 (procedure for reviews)— (i) in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert— “(aa) at least two months before taking any steps under paragraph (b) below to inform other persons of any draft proposals or any interim decision not to make proposals, inform the council of any local government area affected by the review of those proposals or that decision; (ab) before taking any such steps, take into consideration any representation made to them by such a council during the period of two months beginning on the day on which the council is informed under paragraph (aa);”, (ii) after subsection (2) insert— “(2A) The Scottish Ministers may give directions to— 6 (a) the Boundary Commission, (b) the council of any local government area affected by a review, in relation to consultation under subsection (2)(a) above. (2B) Such directions may be given generally or in relation to particular reviews or particular aspects of reviews.”> Mr Andy Kerr 39 In section 10, page 6, leave out lines 5 to 11 David Mundell 35 In section 10, page 6, line 8, at end insert <, but such rules must not be inconsistent with section (10)(1A) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (asp 00).> Mr Andy Kerr 40 In section 10, page 6, line 16, leave out from beginning to
30 David Mundell 46 After section 10, insert—
31 David Mundell 12 In section 22, page 11, line 37 after
32 APPENDIX 5
Allan Macaskill
Leader
Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 604328 Fax 01546 604349 Email:[email protected] To: Members of the Scottish Parliament Local Government and Transport Committee: Our Ref: AMaca/KMM/4071Let Bristow Muldoon MSP; Dr Sylvia Jackson MSP; Paul Martin MSP; Bruce McFee MSP; Michael McMahon Your Ref: MSP; David Mundell MSP; Tommy Sheridan MSP; Iain Smith MSP; Andrew Welsh MSP Date 6 May 2004
To: George Lyon MSP, Jackie Baillie MSP John Farquhar Munro MSP
Dear Member
LOCAL GOVERNANCE BILL: ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS
I am writing to you in connection with the Local Government and Transport Committee’s Stage 2 consideration of the Local Governance Bill, to convey views that Argyll and Bute Council hope you will take account of.
You will recollect that the Council gave evidence to the Committee in December 2003 during the Committee’s Stage 1 consideration of the Bill. I refer you to the evidence that the Council submitted on that occasion, which I enclose again for ease of reference, and particularly draw attention to the requirement included in Clause 9.3 (c) (iv) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders about the assessment of the effect of Executive Bills on island communities.
The Council’s views are on four main issues associated with Part 1 of the Bill.
Decoupling the Scottish Parliament and Local Government Elections
The Council understands that amendments to the Bill to decouple the elections are inadmissible, because decoupling requires amending other legislation. However, the Council has had a view on this and wishes to continue to argue for de-coupling. As an alternative to decoupling, although second best, the Council would endorse views which are being expressed elsewhere, including COSLA, that if elections remain combined they should be moved to a Tuesday to allow both counts to be concluded by the weekend.
It is noted that David Mundell has tabled an amendment the effect of which would be to require a separate polling station for the local government election from that used for the Scottish Parliament election. While the welcome sentiment behind this is aimed at helping reduce voter confusion there will be difficulties in rural and islands areas in terms of being able to provide space in polling places and in recruiting staff.
33
Number of Members per Ward
As noted in the Council’s evidence, 3 or 4 will cause problems in at least one part of mainland Argyll because it is likely to lead to the creation of a geographically extremely large ward bigger than the total size of 21 out of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. It will also create problems in relation to the Atlantic Islands (Islay, Jura, Mull/Iona, Colonsay, Tiree and Coll - particularly Tiree and Coll). There is a strong tradition in these communities that their Councillor will have a clear local connection in the ward. In a ward that combines Tiree and Coll then there is a real likelihood that all the Councillors in a multi member ward will be from another larger island (probably Mull) or the mainland. A Councillor will know that their best chance to be re-elected will be to represent the electors in the main part of their ward. The votes of electors in a small remote island will have less likelihood of ever securing the election of a “local candidate” if that was their wish. In addition the Council’s previous evidence drew attention to the extreme difficulties of access and transport in relation to Councillors servicing electors in remote islands situations.
The Council therefore supports amendment 42 by John Farquhar Munro supported by George Lyon to provide for a ward of two Councillors. The Council would go further and propose that the extreme situation of such as Tiree and Coll justifies provision for single member wards (still elected under the electoral system provided in the Bill) in exceptional circumstances, so that section 1(2) might be amended to - “The number of Councillors to be returned in a ward shall be one, two, three,or four…..”
To restrict this to clearly demonstrated exceptional circumstances the Council would propose a variation of George Lyon’s amendment 48 and John Farquhar Munro’s amendment 44 such that in section 1, page1, line 14 at end insert –
“but the number of councillors returned in a ward may be two only if the ward is located in the area covered by the Highlands and Islands European Parliamentary Constituency, as provided for by the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland ) Order 1996 and may be one only if it is in that area and the Boundary Commission has so proposed on the grounds that – (a) the area encompassed by the ward is remote or sparsely populated and comprises an island or islands, (b) having regard to paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 6 to the 1973 Act the number of electors in that area does not merit the return of more than one councillor, and (c) the ward better reflects local community ties than would a ward comprising a greater number of electors.”
Deleting the detail of how STV will operate and leaving it to secondary legislation
The Council supports the Executive’s proposals that this should be left to be dealt with through secondary legislation.
34 Rules for Boundary Reviews
On the other hand the original proposal to include the rules for boundary reviews in secondary legislation was most unusual. The criteria for determining which wards have which number of members is, it is suggested, fundamental and should bear the most careful scrutiny which is best given as part of primary legislation. As a matter of principle therefore the Council supports the inclusion of these rules in the Bill.
The Minister’s tabled amendments reinstate and amend Sch 6 such that the three criteria for boundary reviews would be, in order of priority –
- to achieve parity in the number of electors per councillor in each ward in the local authority area - to try not to break “local ties” - to fix boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable.
While the Council supports this, it wishes to emphasise that the parity rule should be capable of being departed from in circumstances where special geographic circumstances appear to render a departure desirable. This is provided for already in Schedule 6 and has been applied within Argyll and Bute currently.
Yours sincerely
Allan Macaskill Council Leader
35