House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee
Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems
Third Report of Session 2005–06
HC 924
House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee
Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems
Third Report of Session 2005–06
Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 May 2006
HC 924 Published on 16 May 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00
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 Mr Mohammad Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central) (Chairman) Danny Alexander MP, (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) Gordon Banks MP, (Labour, Ochil & South Perthshire) Ms Katy Clark MP, (Labour, North Ayrshire & Arran) Mr Ian Davidson MP, (Labour, Glasgow South West) Mr John MacDougall MP, (Labour, Glenrothes) Mr Jim McGovern MP, (Labour, Dundee West) Mr Angus MacNeil MP, (SNP, Na h-Eileanan An Iar) David Mundell MP, (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) Mr Charles Walker MP, (Conservative, Broxbourne) Mr Ben Wallace MP, (Conservative, Lancaster & Wyre)
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 Camilla Brace (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].
Scottish Affairs Committee 1
Contents
Report Page
1 Introduction 3
2 Putting Citizens First 3
3 Further debate? 5
Formal Minutes 6
Witnesses 7
Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2005 8
Scottish Affairs Committee 3
1 Introduction
1. In Session 2003-04, the Scottish Affairs Committee held an inquiry into the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change,1 which followed the Government’s decision to retain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) at 129, and the provisional proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to reduce the number of Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster from 72 to 59.
2. The Committee’s inquiry focused mainly on the consequences of the creation of different constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to Westminster and to Holyrood, and the different voting systems used for different types of elections in Scotland.
3. In the wake of the Committee’s inquiry and Report, the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, (“the Arbuthnott Commission”), was established by the Secretary of State for Scotland in May 2004 to consider the consequences of having four separate voting systems for elections in Scotland and having different constituency boundaries for elections to Westminster and to Holyrood. 2 Putting Citizens First
4. The Arbuthnott Commission’s report, Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland,2 was published on 19 January 2006, and submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the First Minister; its main recommendations included:
the current mixed member system for electing the Scottish Parliament should be retained, but with open lists to increase voter choice;
constituency and regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament should be based on local authority areas rather than Westminster constituencies, with the regions revised to better reflect natural local communities;
candidates for election to the Scottish Parliament should not be prohibited from standing in a constituency and on the regional list;
clearer and more positive roles should be developed for constituency and regional MSPs;
the single transferable vote system should be introduced for European parliamentary elections; and
Scottish Parliament and local government elections should be held on different days.3
1 Scottish Affairs Committee, First Report, Session 2003-04, Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change, HC (2003-04) 77. 2 Published by Edinburgh: The Stationery Office, ISBN 0108881792. 3 News Release from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, 19 January 2006.
4 Scottish Affairs Committee
5. The House of Commons Library has produced an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the Commission’s report in its Standard Note SN/PC/3918,4 and therefore we have not rehearsed such an analysis in this Report.
6. Following the report’s publication, the Committee held a one-off evidence session on 14 February 2006, with evidence being taken from Professor Sir John Arbuthnott, the Chairman, and Dr Nicola McEwen, a member, of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems. We wish to thank them for their evidence.
7. When we questioned Sir John Arbuthnott and Dr McEwen, we raised with them several matters of concern about the Commission’s report, in particular, those matters which we considered needing clarifying. Such concerns included, for example:
coterminosity of Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries (Q3);
the remit of the Commission and honouring the devolution settlement (QQ4-10);
the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament (QQ11-16, 35-38 and 40);
the boundaries and size of Holyrood constituencies (QQ17-21 and 25-29);
Scottish local government elections (QQ22-24);
wasted votes (QQ30-33 and 48);
the multiplicity of MSPs representing Scottish Parliament constituencies (Q34);
voter confusion (QQ39, 41-47 and 49);
dual candidacy for elections to the Scottish Parliament (Q50); and
elections to the European Parliament (QQ54-58).
8. The Commission’s evidence attached to this Report. Coincidentally, the day after our meeting, Brian H Donohoe MP initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the Arbuthnott Commission Report,5 and the evidence taken by us was referred to during that debate.
4 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03918.pdf. 5 Official Report, 15 February 2006, cols. 498WH-505WH.
Scottish Affairs Committee 5
3 Further debate?
9. During our questioning of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, David Cairns MP, in March on our inquiry into The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective, we took the opportunity to ask him when the Government would be publishing its response to Arbuthnott. The Minister’s reply was non-committal:
“Our response will be forthcoming in due course….”6
10. The intervening weeks have not provided any further indication of exactly when “in due course” might be. We consider that, before the Government does publish its response to Putting Citizens First, all interested Scottish Members should have the opportunity to raise their own concerns with Ministers, and to seek to influence the Government’s response.
11. During his opening of the Westminster Hall debate on 15 February, Brian Donohoe pointed out that a Scottish Grand Committee had not met since 12 November 2003, and continued that a Scottish Grand might be:
“…the vehicle for a full debate on the whole issue of the contents of the report and the way forward on its conclusions.”7
12. In replying to the debate, David Cairns agreed that there had not been a Scottish Grand Committee since November 2003, but went on to say:
“…. As far as I am aware, there have been no such requests since then….However, it is within the right of any Scottish Member of Parliament to request a Scottish Grand Committee, and then it is up to the usual channels to allocate one.” 8
13. We endorse the suggestion that a Scottish Grand Committee would be an appropriate vehicle for a debate on Putting Citizens First. This Committee, composed of Members from all Parties representing Scottish constituencies, therefore makes a formal request that a Scottish Grand Committee be held to consider the matter of Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland, and recommends that such a meeting of a Grand Committee be held before the Government makes any substantive response to that report.
6 HC (2005-06) 983-ii, Q116. 7 Official Report, 15 February 2006, col. 498WH. 8 ibid, cols. 501WH-502WH.
6 Scottish Affairs Committee
Formal Minutes
Tuesday 9 May 2006
Members present:
Mr Mohammad Sarwar, in the Chair
Danny Alexander Mr Jim McGovern Gordon Banks Mr Angus MacNeil Ms Katy Clark David Mundell Mr Ian Davidson Mr Charles Walker Mr John MacDougall
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1–13 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
The Committee deliberated further.
Resolved, That the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2006: Memorandum by the Scotland Office be reported to the House.
The Committee deliberated further.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 23 May at 4.00 pm.
Scottish Affairs Committee 7
Witnesses
Tuesday 14 February 2006
Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott, Chairman, and Dr Nicola McEwen, Ev 1 member, the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems
8 Scottish Affairs Committee
Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2005
The following publications have been produced by the Scottish Affairs Committee since the beginning of the 2005 Parliament:
Session 2005-06
Reports First Report Work of the Committee in 2005 HC 836 Second Report Meeting Scotland’s Future Energy Needs: the Westfield HC 1010 Development Centre First Special Report Meeting Scotland’s Future Energy Needs: Government HC 579 Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2004-05
Minutes of Evidence Minutes of Evidence Scotland Office Annual Report 2005 HC 580-i
331738PAG1 Page Type [SO] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence
Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee
on Tuesday 14 February 2006
Members present:
Mr Mohammad Sarwar, in the Chair
Danny Alexander Mr John MacDougall Ms Katy Clark Mr Angus MacNeil Mr Ian Davidson David Mundell
Witnesses: Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott, Chairman and Dr Nicola McEwen, Member of the Commission, Commission on Boundary DiVerences and Voting Systems, gave evidence.
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon. Sir John, Dr Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We took very McEwen, could I welcome you to this evidence seriously the very point you have raised, because it session of the Scottish AVairs Committee on your had been raised by a number of individuals and by Commission’s report Putting Citizens First? Before MPs and a much smaller number of MSPs. On the we start on the detailed questions would you like to question of coterminosity, in the section of the make an opening statement? report you refer to we were looking to test, as far as Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Thank you for we could and we did this quite thoroughly, the extent inviting us to this Committee meeting. I think the to which any of the possibilities which would prime purpose is to respond to questions raised by embrace the idea that we used coterminous your Members. I hope and expect you have received boundaries for both the Westminster and the the report and recommendations. You know that Scottish parliamentary elections would yield not just the remit of the Commission was to consider the the complement of MPs for the UK Westminster consequences of diVerent boundaries and four Parliament but also the appropriate number of diVerent voting systems, the voter participation, the MSPs for the Scottish Parliament. One of our relationship between public bodies and authorities principles, and the principles are laid out in the in Scotland and between MPs and MSPs and the report, was to honour the devolution settlement and representation of constituents by the diVerent tiers to embrace the extent of proportionality and of elected members. We were specifically asked to diversity which that has yielded. The three make recommendations on arrangements between possibilities raised would not yield that degree of elected representatives to ensure best possible service proportionality and therefore would have breached provision, the pattern of electoral boundaries in one of the primary considerations and principles of Scotland, the relationships with other public bodies the Commission. and the method of voting for the Scottish Parliament. I draw your attention—and I am sure Q4 Mr MacDougall: Was it a question therefore of the Committee Members have seen this—to the constraints rather than practical solutions? At the activities of the Commission and the evidence we end of the day we are all trying to encourage people have taken. The record of activities is listed at the to think well of the electoral system and trying to back of the report. That is really all I should want to encourage people to value the democratic process say by way of introduction. and in some ways you actually have to reflect that in decisions which are taken but, again, accept the fact Q2 Chairman: Have you had any initial response that there may be constraints placed upon the from the First Minister or Alistair Darling? options and alternatives which are there. What Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: No, I have had no would you say if Alistair Darling told you to exclude direct response from them yet. They have those three particular options in setting up? acknowledged receipt of the report; politely doing Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: You raise as a that and indicating that there is much to be theoretical constraint. It is the fact that the considered by various bodies including yourselves. devolution settlement, which established the Scottish Parliament following the work of the Scottish Convention, and indeed the referendum, Q3 Mr MacDougall: You considered three possible embraced certain principles including that which I options to achieve coterminosity of Westminster stated of diversity and the element of and Holyrood boundaries, but rejected all three of proportionality and we embraced that as one of the them. Could you expand upon your comment that principles. In the consultation document which we none of the options would provide an appropriate or used close to the beginning of our process, we were desirable solution to the range of concerns which very open in saying that we should be seeking not to you had been asked to address? Why did you make undermine that principle or to come up with that judgment? something less clear in relation to that issue. 3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 2 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen
Dr McEwen: On the issue of proportionality, that settlement. We positively value the diversity and specifically aVected the proposal which was put plurality of views it has permitted and accordingly forward to have an electoral system which would any proposals we bring forward will reflect our have two members of the Scottish Parliament elected commitment to maintaining the benefits of per Westminster constituency. We looked at all the proportional representation to the country” et possible scenarios by which that could be developed cetera. It does seem to me that at the very beginning and the detailed calculations are in the report, but you misinterpreted your remit in such a way as to none of those could produce anything like the degree close oV any examination of anything else except of proportionality that the current system achieves. proportional representation. Would you accept On that basis, on that particular option, we had to that? reject it in keeping with our remit and principles. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: No, I would not There were other options which did not have a accept that. detrimental impact on proportionality, having 60 constituency members, 60 list members, but then Q8 Mr Davidson: Why not? you have the downside that you are reducing the Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: A number of things number of MSPs by a significant amount there, or 60 come in here. I fully accept what you have said about plus 69 list members and we did not think that would the principle of devolution being the principle of be especially popular with very many people. For as subsidiarity. What we were asked to do was to make long as we do not have a clear role for regional recommendations about the future and I have to members, then we felt it was problematic to suggest emphasise that what we are trying to do is not to a system where they would be in the majority. The come up with some kind of quick fix in this other option we looked at was having a mixed document, we are actually trying to come up with a system, a hybrid system of some PR and some first signpost or an analysis which any group—it past the post. That seemed very messy with a happened to be the group I chaired—of potential risk of bias. We did not really find any commissioners would actually thoroughly explore in system which would bring forward a workable order to present to parliamentarians and indeed to proposal for coterminosity. Over and above that we the public and to political parties what the options did not really find a strong case for having were for the future. The consultation document coterminous boundaries anyway, at least not as a which we issued and the response we received to it driver for the design of the electoral system. and indeed at any meetings we had about this with members of the public or indeed MSPs or other Q5 Mr MacDougall: So you were working within groups we have talked to, including experts that we certain constraints and no practical consideration consulted, did not other than accept that the could be given to them. You were working within a devolution settlement for Scotland, which had been confined area of options. a compromise put together at that particular time, Dr McEwen: Yes. had yielded a system which was to an extent—and I have to say it was to an extent—proportional, Q6 Mr MacDougall: And the three options you were because it is not a fully proportional system. In that given should not be under those kinds of confined regard it had become respected by the electorate and constraints. had been accepted by the electorate. To go back on Dr McEwen: Yes. that would have been challenging the devolution settlement as it had transpired and as it had been put V Q7 Mr Davidson: You seem to have interpreted very into e ect in Scotland. That is why I actually tightly the eight words in the remit “. . . while disagree with the terms of your question. respecting the principles of the devolution settlement” and assumed that meant you could not Q9 Mr Davidson: Would you not accept that if the move at all away from proportional representation. Secretary of State who set you up had wanted you I interpreted the principles of the devolution specifically to take account of the compromise that settlement as being the principle of decentralisation, was reached on the electoral system, he would have of subsidiarity, but I had not actually interpreted a said so rather than being delightfully vague. The principle of the devolution settlement as being a words “. . . while respecting the principles of the particular electoral system. I and many others, devolution settlement” do not mean what you just having campaigned for devolution for Scotland for gave me as your interpretation of them. While I many years, have never actually been specific in accept that many of your responses were framed terms of electoral systems. The electoral system within the context of accepting proportional which emerged was a political fudge; it was a representation, that was because the whole exercise compromise rather than a principle. What I do not was rigged from the very beginning because of the quite understand is the mechanism or the thinking statement you made in your consultative document. that those eight words in there, which are When you say “maintaining the benefits of delightfully vague, should then be translated into the proportional representation” which you think is a very hard statement in your consultative document wonderful thing, obviously the responses you get which says “The introduction of proportional will then reflect those parameters and many such as representation for the Scottish Parliament elections myself, who would have wanted to oppose in 1999 has been a welcome innovation and our proportional representation, took the view that remit requires us to respect the devolution there was no point in responding to you because you 3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen had already made your minds up and that the fight Q12 Mr MacNeil: Yes, or did you feel constrained about proportional representation would have to by the backing, especially of Westminster, of first take place after you had reported. past the post? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I should say that I do Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I am not sure whether not agree with that and I do not think that is a you are asking the same question as I have just been reasonable interpretation of where we finished up asked or not. following our consultation, for the following reason. We received very open responses on all aspects of what we asked people about and I have to say that Q13 Mr MacNeil: Slightly diVerent. I am interested the view you are putting was not a view that we to see what the thinking was. Did you have a blank encountered with any degree of commonality. slate in front of you or was the electoral climate in Dr McEwen: I agree with you that the statement in the United Kingdom already set for you by the sort the remit is vague and open to interpretation and we of electoral system we have for the Parliament here had to interpret it and we had a full discussion at the in Westminster? outset to interpret what we felt was meant by Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I cannot remember “respecting the principles of the devolution the phrase in the report; I wish I could remember it settlement”. My own feeling as an academic reading oV by heart. There is a phrase that there is no easy the literature of the period and engagement birth for a political system: it is dragged kicking and with it was that an element of proportional screaming from the dynamics of the discussion and representation—not complete proportional the political interactions of the time. Obviously, to representation but an element of that—was central to the devolution settlement, it was central to the an extent, that is what has happened in the initial proposals of the Scottish Constitutional stages of devolution and in the establishment of the Convention, it was central to the proposals which electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. I think were put forward in the referendum and the White that the position of the Commission on this was to Paper. We took the view—and we can debate set out a clear set of principles, clearly stated— whether that was the right view—that to deviate in whether you agree with them or not they are clearly any significant way from the level of proportionality stated—to seek responses on that, not to be hung up which had been achieved in the existing system on any previous views that members had taken. I would be inappropriate and unacceptable and have made the point that they left these as far as against the wishes of the electorate as expressed in possible behind them and considered all options. If the referendum. you are asking whether we could have moved further, it would have depended to a pretty considerable extent on the kind of information and Q10 Mr Davidson: Would you accept that a majority the kind of response we were getting from the of the members of the Commission “had form” in the sense that they were known to be supporters of Scottish people and from local authority proportional representation before the first meeting representatives, MSPs and so on. These are the took place? people who responded. We worked with the Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Having chaired responses we got. The evidence and the movement innumerable meetings of this Commission, both in towards our final discussions were conditioned on full form and in partial form, in public and in closed what system has been established as a result of session, I should maintain stoutly that this devolution, and what we think could be done to Commission acted in a logical and analytical improve it. We tried to answer the questions we were manner and did not come to the discussion table asked and that is why I read out the remit at the with that degree of pre-condition that you have beginning, “. . . to make recommendations on . . . stated. arrangements between elected representatives . . . pattern of electoral boundaries . . . relationships with public bodies . . . method of voting . . . while Q11 Mr MacNeil: First of all, congratulations on respecting the principles of the devolution your report; it has been quite diYcult. We have here a great example of the poachers and the settlement”. We genuinely went about our task to try gamekeepers being the exact same people and the to achieve these things. We also realised that the system you are dealing with really is a system where, Commission favoured an evolutionary approach as the feller said “You wouldn’t start from here”. rather than a revolutionary approach, that the You are having to cope with a system which has been evolution of the system in Scotland was going to be a compromise between a first-past-the-post system progressive. We are at the earliest stages in the life of and something which looks vaguely democratic and this new Parliament, it is six years into existence, I think you have managed to achieve that to a there is a long way to go. We have set our targets reasonable degree and have probably improved on actually in terms of evaluating what we have the system we had, not the most proportional and recommended, if that is accepted and implemented therefore not the most democratic system. Do you in two elections after 2011. By that sort of time it think you really could have moved to a more would be natural to ask where we are going, how far proportional and more democratic system? we have advanced, how we have evolved, whether Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Are you asking this is working in the interests of Scottish people and whether I think that the Commission could have the delivery of services for citizens. That is why I moved further than we did in the report? used the title Putting Citizens First. The ultimate test 3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 4 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen is whether the electoral system serves the interests of voting systems which now existed and what our the citizen. So there is an evolutionary approach and opinion was on that and what our guidance was. We I hope that has answered your question. have given that advice.
Q14 Danny Alexander: In that case, did you consider Q17 Danny Alexander: Turning to the subject of whether the people of Scotland would be better boundaries, could you expand on your view that the served by having their representatives to the balance in boundary changes has swung too far in Westminster Parliament elected by a proportional favour of parity in terms of numbers and away from system? natural boundaries? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We were not asked to Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: In the course of our make recommendations on that and we did not work, and indeed we raised this in the consultation specifically make any recommendations on that. All document, we were very interested in the responses I should say about that is that we had some of our of individuals to the issue of the extent to which they first formative away sessions at a time when there were clear about the boundaries within which they had just been a national general election and there were placed with regard to constituencies and was huge coverage of this issue of proportionality voting. We were very interested to have their views generally across the UK at that time. We were also on the extent to which they regarded community or faced with conflicting views from the ordinary locality as being an important aspect of the people. The closest we could get to the ordinary boundary within which they were asked to vote. I people to some extent were focus groups which were should say that, certainly with remote and rural set up independently. If asked, yes, these individuals Scotland, more so than in urban Scotland, there is a and many other individuals at public meetings very, very strong identity with community, would recognise the first-past-the-post system as the extremely strong. People feel they want to know system they were familiar with, but when further where they are, they want to know who they are asked whether they liked the idea of being voting for in the context of the locality which is going represented proportionally with a mix or a diversity to be governed. I am a microbiologist by training, so of representation, yes, they liked that. You have no I am not an expert on political science and you guys easy diVerentiation in the views of the public so that are practitioners of political science and very expert is the kind of background to the discussions we had in it. What I should say is that the issue you have at that time and we simply included in the report the raised is a fundamental issue of political science and Scottish Social Attitudes survey which showed that it has been raised by very distinguished writers in this in that particular survey, as a measure of public area. The issue is: do you restrict yourself to the opinion, a pretty clear majority of people would like narrow issue of parity in terms of numbers, or do proportionality more generally. But that was outside you take account of the fact that there are our remit and we did not make recommendations. community and collective local elements which override strict parity? What we are saying in this Q15 David Mundell: You were though working in a report, because we actually looked at a possible context where certain political decisions had been model for boundaries, is that natural communities made, for example the introduction of the single are as important as parity. transferable vote in local government. Dr McEwen: In the public meetings that we had and Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Correct. the responses to our consultation I cannot recall anybody raising spontaneously an issue of parity or numbers, but people did raise issues of community Q16 David Mundell: Objectively you would not and identity. At the public meeting in Galashiels a necessarily have started this exercise from the point particular issue was raised about the size of that at which that decision had already been made to Westminster constituency. We just felt that, in terms reach the outcome you mentioned in your previous of engaging voters and helping to strengthen the link answer. I am not seeking to draw you into saying between elected representatives and their voters, that the introduction of STV1 was a good or bad community should be at least as important as parity. idea, but that surely was a diYculty in this exercise: a number of decisions had been made which shaped the outcome or made a wider outcome more diYcult Q18 Danny Alexander: I strongly agree with that, to set out. not least the point you made about rural areas Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: The context in which particularly is very important and it has certainly we were working and which any commission which been the grounds for most disputes with the Local was trying to look at this breadth of issues to do with Government Boundary Commission in relation to boundaries, voting systems and representation in a the new boundaries and a dispute is still going on new and evolving political climate was going to be about the boundaries for the Nairnshire ward in my faced with, was the position of evolution that climate constituency for example where two communities has reached at this particular time. You are correct: have been arbitrarily excluded for the sake of a few STV had been introduced by the Scottish Parliament hundred voters. Those sorts of things do help to for local elections and we took that into account. We undermine people’s confidence in the system. Just were specifically asked to look at the number of moving on from that, in the report you place a lot of emphasis on local authority boundaries as the 1 Single transferable vote. building blocks. 3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen
Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: The unit? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I read in a newspaper that apparently he had strongly hinted that the Q19 Danny Alexander: The point we have just Scottish Executive would not decouple the elections. discussed is very pertinent to whether there can be eVective building blocks or not. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Yes. Q24 David Mundell: Given that those elections are 14 months away and your own work would demonstrate that the average member of the public Q20 Danny Alexander: There is also the point that if in Scotland has no idea what the STV system you are going to change local government involved, how do you think that gap in knowledge boundaries there is always going to be a time lag— and operation is going to be overcome? there is currently a time lag—before that leads into changes to parliamentary boundaries. Is it in Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I have purposely practice possible to change those boundaries avoided going through the logic of some of these together at the same time? things because it is actually quite long to go through Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We consider this to it. It is very clear on this issue why the Commission be a very important point and the lag is actually a came on balance out in favour of suggesting that problem in my view and has been a problem decoupling was wise. I go back to a point which I historically. What we are suggesting, and it may be made earlier that this is a point in time. If it is decided a revolutionary suggestion in this case, is that the not to decouple for the next round of elections then Scottish Local Authority Boundary Commission, we may learn from that and they may be decoupled the Scottish Parliamentary Boundary Commission in future. One of the elements of the evidence which and the Scottish Westminster Parliamentary is pretty clear is that you want people to be clear Boundary Commission should be acting much more about the basis on which they are voting and if you together. If this were possible, then in acting much bring too many uncertainties together you are more together we would actually avoid some of the asking for some element of confusion. We cite the dislocations which you say will creep into the system evidence of the multiple elections which took place if they are not brought together. We strongly in London not that long ago when the proportion of advocate that. spoiled votes was really very high when multiple systems were placed before the public without too Q21 Danny Alexander: How do you then make sure much preparation. To answer your point about that that one boundary commission is taking what can be done in 14 months, you will note that a communities as the building blocks and not the significant part of our report is to do with voter arithmetical approach which excludes a lot of education. If we are going to have these two elections communities from feeling they are really part of at the same time, there is a really, really urgent need the process? to get that underway now. By doing that we might Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Various actually prevent some of the confusion which we recommendations, if they are going to be put into have suggested might take place. eVect, are going to be put into eVect by diVerent bodies. Colleagues in the Scotland OYce would be absolutely central in relation to these particular Q25 David Mundell: Turning to your proposal to recommendations if they were followed through merge the Scottish Parliamentary Boundary because they have to be further explored. There are Commission with the Local Government Boundary some elements here which would be directed towards Commission for Scotland, what would be its role in an electoral commission and to other bodies as well, drawing these Scottish boundaries for the UK not least to Parliament and indeed MSPs. Parliament? Dr McEwen: Our impression from speaking to the Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I am not sure that is Boundary Commission was that they were a question for me or for the Commission. What we constrained by the set of rules under which they are arguing there in principle is that if we are going to operate and it may be the case that you then have to see something done about the drag, something done revisit those rules. Our sense is that it has become about the issue of timing, about the decisions of less important for communities over the years than diVerent boundary commissions, then a certain parity and we are suggesting a rebalancing. degree of concerted action is necessary and what we are suggesting is one way to do that. It then requires Q22 David Mundell: May I first of all ask you about the appropriate authority, and that would start with your recommendation in relation to the splitting of the Scotland OYce, to address that issue and the the local government elections. I am sorry I missed detail of it. the initial part but I understand that you said that Dr McEwen: In the Summary of Recommendations formally there had been no response to the report under Boundaries, the last paragraph does not make from the First Minister or the Secretary of State. a specific recommendation for the Westminster Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: To me. constituencies, but it says “Consideration should also be given to integrating” that as well. It seems to Q23 David Mundell: Yes. There seems to have been make sense. However, our recommendations are a number of indications that the recommendation in specifically targeted towards the drawing up of relation to the split of elections had been— Scottish Parliament constituencies. 3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 6 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen
Q26 David Mundell: In that context, what weight do all be ruled by the Duke of Buccleuch. I wonder you think should be placed on the parity between about the extent to which it is fair to take that into constituencies in terms of the size of the electorate? account. In the model you have produced for us on It appears to me and I think Danny was referring page 25, which you presumably regard as partly to that, that in the past large geographic acceptable, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles constituencies have tended to have a smaller put together have less in them than the average of the electorate, other than one or two exceptions, Glasgow constituencies. Would you accept that is whereas what has emerged is that you have very grossly unfair if you are seeking to have equal votes large geographic constituencies which also have the of equal value? What you are saying there is that parity electorate. That balance has been lost. somebody in Orkney, Shetland or the Western Isles Dr McEwen: Exceptions are always going to have to is three times as valuable in voting terms in the be made for particular communities, the island Scottish Parliament as somebody in Glasgow, communities and so on and the particular rural because that is the eVect. I notice that you also needs or pattern of the geography of Scotland. We suggest East Lothian at 71,000, where the eVect are not saying that parity is not important, but in would be even worse. Have you not gone overboard some senses with a mixed member system you can in accepting this rurality argument and that this is balance a loss of parity at the constituency level with just another example of anti-urban bias? the additional members’ element, with taking the list Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I do not accept that election and trying to make up some of it there. We we approached this in a biased manner. I tried to do think it is important but it is just that the give a background to why we came to the community should also be taken into consideration conclusion, both in speaking to people and in talking as well, much more so than has been the case. about community structures, why we think Looking back at the records, further deviations of topography actually is important and why parity used to be permitted. It is a relatively recent remoteness and rurality and sparsity actually do thing that we find fewer and fewer deviations from present diVerent challenges. I know this very parity are being permitted. We are suggesting that it particularly from my work in relation to the has maybe gone a little too far in that direction. provision of health services in Scotland. They Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Just to make a produce quite diVerent challenges from other parts general point about your question, if you take a of the country. That is simply trying to take a helicopter journey across Scotland, the outstanding helicopter ride and very briefly add to the point you feature you notice is the geopolitical map of have been making. We are not the Boundary Scotland. You cannot look at Scotland as a whole Commission, we are not the Electoral Commission, without taking that into account. It is not simply a we have said that very up front in the first page of the flat land mass, this is a very diverse map and it is a report, therefore I am not trying to do that work for very diverse map in relation to population densities them. What we are actually doing is to say that if you and to communities. That is one of the things which accept a particular line of argument, then it produces is behind us. If you move south of the border—and this kind of model and we are not saying that is the I have had to do this in relation to the allocation of only kind of model. I do think that you have to take health service resources—you find less case for very seriously the fact that Orkney and Shetland and sparsity. If you define sparsity, it is actually quite the Western Isles do have very diVerent social and diYcult south of the border to maintain a case for structural features about them which require a that. Scotland is diVerent in that regard, it is even considerable element of attention to these. The fact diVerent from Ireland, because the Irish county that they are smaller in population is something we systems are not set in the same geographical, have to accept. I should say that we are not geopolitical distribution of land mass and people as devaluing the votes of the rest of Scotland in the way Scotland is. That is something which interests me, that you have suggested. but in relation to what Nicola has said, it introduces a good case for an element of tolerance, which is what has been raised by one of your Committee Q29 Mr Davidson: Would you not accept that it is members in relation to this debate between the hard possible to have the perspective that sparsity does issue of parity and locality. pose problems without that then necessarily translating into this diVerential in representation? I can certainly accept that colleagues representing Q27 David Mundell: What about in urban Scotland? rural areas have much greater travel times than I do Is that more straightforward then simply to and therefore I can see the very strong argument in operate parity? favour of them being given additional assistance in Dr McEwen: Urban Scotland has communities too. terms of staV and so on and so forth. I do not quite Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I am not saying understand this leap of faith which then translates communities do not exist in urban Scotland. I was into the idea that they should be grossly over- really pointing to the extremes of this. I think the Y represented politically when it comes to voting in the issue of parity will be less di cult in urban Scotland. centre. I was struck, looking at the figures for the General Election before last, that the person who Q28 Mr Davidson: May I follow up on your point won Orkney and Shetland, had they stood with that about looking at the diVerences in Scottish number of votes in East Kilbride would not have topography? Land, as it were, does not vote. Acres won it. They would not have been second, they do not have votes otherwise presumably we should would not have been third, they would not have been 3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen fourth, in fact they would have been fifth. It seems Glasgow, but that is only because the Labour Party to me to be absurd that somebody can be elected to does disproportionately well out of the first-past- Parliament with a number of votes where they would the-post element, that its share of first-past-the-post actually only have come fifth had they stood seats is significantly greater than its share of the vote. somewhere else and that you have perhaps failed to A vote for Labour in the regional vote is a vote face up to that diYculty. None of the themes running denied to another party, so surely in that sense, from through there, it seems to me, entitles you to move your point of view it is not— so grossly away from the concept of equal votes of equal value as you have done. Q31 Mr Davidson: In that case they would be as well Dr McEwen: We are not moving away in making not bothering. If the principle is that a vote for concessions for the Western Isles, Orkney and Labour in the second ballot is a vote denied to Shetland, because those concessions are made another party, you would do as well not bothering. already anyway within the existing system. That is Dr McEwen: The principle is that the regional vote, not a departure, that is just in keeping with the the party vote if you like, in any mixed member patterns which are there. There are debates about system around the world, is the vote which this, but there seems to be an acceptance that special determines the proportional distribution of seats for arrangements be made for the island communities the parliament. The Labour Party is advantaged in order that they can access their elected within the system at the moment, but it works for representatives apart from anything else. Accessing the others. your elected representative is surely very important too. Q32 Mr Davidson: I understand that but what you are saying to me is that you chose not to address this. Q30 Mr Davidson: These constituencies, like my It is a fair response. You chose not to address the fact own, have the electric telephone and all sorts of that a Labour vote is a wasted vote in the second modern devices to access their representative. May I ballot in Glasgow, East Strathclyde, West also ask in relation to this about the question of the Strathclyde, Edinburgh and the Lothians and second ballot, the sort of assisted places scheme? In Central Scotland and Fife. In five out of the eight terms of Glasgow, every Labour vote in the second areas, the fact that a second ballot Labour vote is ballot last time around was wasted because it did not wasted did not seem to you to be something you elect anybody. It is foreseeable that the same thing ought to express a view on. will happen again next time. You have not addressed Dr McEwen: No, that is not the case at all. For us the that in any way. Can you explain to me why? only alternative was a single transferable vote Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We were attracted to system, for the reasons we have explained to you. the situation in New Zealand and you will see that That would have removed that particular problem we thought that some of the issues to do with the you are addressing, but we felt on balance, for all the mistaken and misleading terminology about first other reasons— and second votes could be considerably rectified if we used a similar ballot paper design to that of New Q33 Mr Davidson: Because of your remit. You were Zealand. It is actually the case that in a multi- captured by your remit and therefore you could not member system the proportion of votes which will be propose that. amassed and then decide the number of regional Dr McEwen: Yes. In terms of fulfilling the criteria set MSPs for diVerent parties actually depends first and out those were the two potential systems. We felt on foremost on the voting intentions of people voting balance that a mixed member system was the better for their parties. At the present time there is a heavy system. Yes, the issue that you are highlighting is a preponderance, as you said, in Glasgow which gives feature of a mixed member system. the dynamics which we see. We are setting out Danny Alexander: I just wanted to say that the single recommendations—and I shall say it again—not transferable vote is Ian’s obvious preference for simply in the context of today and tomorrow but in elections. a much longer-term context and in a context of evolution. I do not know, and I suspect that you do Q34 Chairman: I represent Glasgow Central. I have not know either, what the future voting pattern is 11 MSPs interfering in my constituency. I thought, going to be, but if that future voting pattern is going before this report was published, that you would to be based on maintaining the degree of probably address this issue of coterminous proportionality we have at the moment and that that boundaries. There are seven people under the list degree of proportionality is reflected in a mixed system in the Parliament at one time under member representation system, then the distribution proportionality and now, after seeing this mess, I am of these seats is going to reflect the votes for the party beginning to change my mind. You have not and that becomes a very important determinant. It addressed this issue. Why not? may well be that in future these votes for a particular Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Let me take you party in Glasgow will become extremely important through this. We have dealt with some aspects of this in determining the make-up of the Scottish in the discussion which we have already had this Parliament at some stage. afternoon. The number of MPs elected from Dr McEwen: I understand the point you are making Scotland to the Westminster Parliament is set at 59. that the Labour Party does not gain any additional The number of MSPs for the Scottish Parliament is members from the regional vote in an area like set at 129. What is being suggested in this, and I 3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 8 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen should take a much more positive view of the have to occupy more than half the land mass of outcome if it should be implemented in this way than Scotland and elect seven MSPs. It would also you do yourself, what we are going to end up with, include the part of Scotland to which Ian referred is a tier of government which is made up of local earlier as being sparse. At the end of that election we authority representatives elected by single should have seven people. How do these seven transferable vote for the first time and we can go on people decide how to govern half of the land mass of to discuss that if you want. We are going to finish up Scotland? Is it clear to the people of Orkney, to the with the new number of MPs elected to the people of Shetland, to the people of the Western Westminster Parliament, which is going to be 59, Isles, to the people of the Highlands exactly how although in future is it always going to be 59? I just they can use these seven people not only to represent leave that question hanging. We are hopefully going them but actually to do the business of government to be making a good deal better and clearer use of the within the Scottish Parliament which needs to be mixed member system which Scotland has for its done? At this point, that seemed to the Commission Parliament if our recommendations are accepted, so to be a very considerable diYculty. that within Scottish parliamentary constituencies Dr McEwen: We recognised that the single there is a clear remit for the constituency MSP and transferable vote would have some advantages over that these regional MSPs, as indicated here and the existing system: all members would be elected in argued for in this report, also have a great deal of the same way, it would enhance local choice and interesting work to do. I am not in any way power over the election of their members. However, diminishing or trying to undermine the role of any of these elected representatives, it would have been we felt that there were several disadvantages. One of absolutely irresponsible for us to do that and we are the things we underlined was that it is important to not doing that. I recognise that the role of the ensure that the electoral system is the best system for Westminster MP remains the role of the the institution in which the members elected will representation for Scotland in the Parliament where serve. So it may be appropriate for local most of the money is decided, where most of the government, but we did not think on balance that it international business is decided and where most of was the best system for electing the Scottish the reserved items of business are of incredible Parliament, a national parliament, a policy-making importance to the people of Scotland. So you and legislative body. One of the concerns we had was your colleagues have an immensely important task. that an STV system can encourage a localism, a sort Our task as a commission is to try to create a of “clientalist” politics and that is not necessarily the certainty in the minds of the public that they know sort of system you want if you want your legislative where to go to get guidance, without in any way body to be able to make diYcult decisions on behalf restricting to whom they can go for that guidance, of the country as a whole. We were also concerned because they can go to you as MPs, they can go to that under an STV system you would be less able to MSPs, they can go to local authority representatives have positive action policies. The Scottish or indeed they can go to Members of the European Parliament has made major strides there in gender Parliament. There is no restriction there: there is equality, has yet to make any strides in ethnic responsibility and a need for much more clarity minority representation, but under the STV system about the role of all these players in this complex it would be much more diYcult to achieve that. system and that should all operate in the interests There are several other things, specifically the of the citizen. That is what is behind my problem of the representation of the Highlands and recommendations; if you find that a mess, I am Islands which would be present in relation to the sorry. Scottish Parliament, but is not present, for example, for European elections where the whole of Scotland Q35 Chairman: The Scottish Parliament thinks that is one constituency anyway. We felt that when you STV is good for local government. In your report are electing a government and a legislative body it you recommended STV as being good for the was probably not as good a system as a mixed European Parliament. So why is STV not good for member system. the Scottish Parliament elections? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: This, together with coterminosity and one or two other issues was Q36 Mr Davidson: Could you just clarify that for absolutely the most hotly debated issue of the me? I do not quite understand, apart from the Commission, as you can imagine. On balance—and rurality, element how seven people could not divide the reasons will be given in a moment—the up half of Scotland’s land mass in terms of the range Commission decided that at the present time, not of tasks and responsibilities and so on, yet they are necessarily for all time but at the present time, we did able to do that, say, for Glasgow where the range of not think that it was correct for us to recommend tasks and responsibilities and issues and individual that we should move to a single transferable vote problems is every bit as great, in fact, given the system. One of the key aspects, not necessarily a deprivation in Glasgow is overwhelmingly larger weakness but one of the key consequences of the than that of the rural areas of Scotland, it could be single transferable representative system as it would argued that the problems were worse. Implicit in work in Scotland is that we should have to create, in your answer was that you turned this down because order to fulfil our principles of proportionality and it could fit every other area but not the Highlands diversity, at least one constituency which would and Islands. 3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen
Dr McEwen: That was not the only reason; that was they got the right answer or the wrong answer, a one of the reasons. It is practically more diYcult to large percentage of these people failed the cover a large land mass area than it is a city. That examination. There is a lot of confusion out there. does not mean that the tasks you do when you are We have made reference to that very clearly, covering it are any more or less diYcult. Not at all. particularly in the section dealing with It is just the practical diYculties that imposes. representation, and lot more work needs to be done and pretty quickly on educating the electorate, the Q37 Mr Davidson: It is just the travel question. people of Scotland, in relation to how their voting Dr McEwen: It is in a sense a travel question, yes. system and their democracy actually works. We Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: You are correct that have made recommendations that school leavers the practicalities of STV in Glasgow are much less should not actually leave school without such an diYcult to solve. understanding: that is part of their civic education. We are making suggestions that every household before an election should get a very clear indication Q38 Chairman: What is the diYculty if two of how this system works. We are making the Westminster constituencies can have four Members recommendation that after the election people of the Scottish Parliament under STV and probably should be told who has been elected, how to contact in rural areas, where I have a slight diVerence of them and, moreover, that in the future, we hope, opinion with my colleagues, you can have five under with good use of the digital system and indeed STV. What is the diYculty there? You will have perhaps a helpline which would be national, if you coterminous boundaries and people will have links have any queries about that you can get some with their constituencies. Where is the problem? In guidance. You can get some guidance about your addition you will have at least three institutions areas, about your MEP or whatever and it therefore elected with the same voting system. becomes much easier for people to understand the Dr McEwen: Under our recommendations of course value of the people who have been elected to serve you would at least reduce one of the voting systems. them and how these people can be used. That is a It is not the driving factor, but there are advantages very important first element in this. We have only all the same. That specific recommendation was not been scratching the surface of teaching people and one which we sat down and considered. The one educating them. I know that remarks have been which had been brought forward to us was to have made that this is unnecessarily complex and that it two Scottish Parliament Members per Westminster would all be much simpler by some other means, but constituency, so that was the one we analysed in nevertheless devolution does throw a complexity detail as to whether or not that would be feasible. I into the situation and it does so in many other should have to sit down and work out the arithmetic countries as well. We have to face up to that and we of that to see whether it would be feasible or not. have to begin to plan and educate people for it. Dr McEwen: One of the things which was a great Q39 Mr MacNeil: Your report highlights the cause for concern for us was that the survey evidence problem of voter confusion and it has been suggested that people understood the system less the mentioned today that a vote for Labour is very often second time around than they did in 1999. There is a a wasted vote in many parts of Scotland. As you say real need for continuing education there. In fact that in the report, STV gives maximum power to probably reflects the emphasis that the Electoral individual voters. There is a deal of confusion Commission put in public information on the among the voters over the various systems and I importance of voter turnout. That is obviously a should like you to address that. Also, when you were laudable objective, but we think that needs to go in writing this report were you governed by being most conjunction with continued education on how the democratic or being most proportional? Were you system works. What was the second part of your tempted at any time to suggest, given that the question? Westminster seats had fallen to 59, that there should be a decrease in the Scottish Parliament or the first- past-the-post seats and an increase in the list seats to Q40 Mr MacNeil: When you were looking at the make the Parliament more democratic and various systems, given that the Westminster proportional? There are two parts to that: the voter numbers had fallen to 59 and I note on page 36 the confusion and looking at making Parliament more percentage of seats against the percentage of votes proportional. and I know it is going to be hard to get some sort of Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: It is quite clear from exact parity particularly with constituency votes and quite a bit of the evidence that there is a good deal regional votes being diVerent, did you think in any of confusion, not just about the voting system, but way of decreasing the first-past-the-post seats and about the roles of the two diVerent types of MSP. increasing the lists for some parity in the Parliament, That came out particularly in relation to the some proportionality? responses of the members of the focus groups when Dr McEwen: We considered it as an option when we we actually tried to get down to the diYcult to reach were considering the ways in which you could people. It also came out with the Scottish attitudes achieve coterminosity. This relates back to your survey. If you actually look at the Scottish attitudes previous question about whether we should be survey which set some of the questions which looking to make the system more proportional. I highlighted the features of the Scottish have to say that although the system is not directly parliamentary electoral system and gauged whether proportional—there is still an element of 3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 10 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen disproportionality in it—this did not really come up Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I think that is a very as an issue in the consultation responses or the important practical matter. public meetings, so it was not really something we were looking necessarily to increase. We were merely Q43 David Mundell: Do you not think though that trying to ensure that any recommendations did not politicians have a role to play in this process? have a detrimental impact the other way. We did Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Of course. consider that specific proposal of having 60 first- past-the-post constituency members and 69 regional Q44 David Mundell: Do you not think that it is members and we rejected it for a number of reasons, unhelpful to have certain politicians going round not least because there is still an element of saying that losers get elected to the Scottish uncertainty about the role of regional members and Parliament when actually fundamentally, under a until that is clearly defined, we did not think it would system of proportional representation, there are no be wise or acceptable to have regional members in winners and losers in the traditional first-past-the- the majority. post way? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Bearing in mind, on Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I should hate to a lighter note, your Chairman’s concern about the intercede in a debate which has probably occupied number of regional MSPs he already has to deal you privately. I do think that politicians do try hard. with, we did not wish to multiply this. They are much involved with organising educational visits, actually visiting schools. You do that all the Q41 Mr MacNeil: Staying on a lighter note, within time. They do have a part to play but the three big the voter confusion you suggested that nobody drivers now are the educational system, the media should leave school until they understood, at the risk and the internet and we must make use of these in of keeping some people at school for ever. What relation to preparing people’s understanding of the other approaches do you think should be out there democratic systems we have. and who should take the lead? Should it be the Government, should it be television advertising or Q45 David Mundell: It cannot be helpful if people what? I should hate to think of 45-year-olds still are saying that somebody you rejected has been behind a desk trying to work it out. elected to represent you. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Speaking as a retired Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I know the point you Scottish Principal of a university I should hope that are making. I am not going to go there. some of them would eventually reach university. Chairman: I am sure you would agree on this one This is actually a serious issue and there are that the people who are really winners under this list problems with the school curriculum. Many people system are the Conservatives. They had one and think that if we just tell them a bit more about food now, under this system, they have 18. If Labour is safety and just tell them a bit more about sexual the loser in this system, everybody else is a winner. education, blah, blah, blah, blah, there is a possibility that everybody would be much better. Q46 Ms Clark: Continuing with the issue of a system Therefore there may well be a reaction by the school which creates voter confusion, if your report was authorities to us saying that we are just another lot implemented that would mean there were three asking them to do something extra. I do think that diVerent types of voting system for the four types of preparation for civic society, if we are actually going election in Scotland. Is that really less confusing to tackle the extent to which young people are than what we currently have? disengaged, actively disengaged from politics, has to Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: It is a step towards start early. We cannot just allow people to drift into that and I have indicated that we have positively this later on in life, because it is just not going to sought that the extent to which our proposals are happen. Somehow that has to be tackled. It could be successful if implemented should actually be tackled such that it would be consistent with the reviewed. We have explained why as a commission existing elements of the school curriculum and we we elected not to go down the route of the single have actually mentioned some of these in the report. transferable vote for the Scottish Parliament at this The Scottish Parliament itself does work, time. I believe that if you take the discussion we have Westminster does work, the Electoral Reform just had about voter education and make that very Society does work. It is actually part of the remit of clear and if you take the recommendations in the the Electoral Commission. It is something which is report about the advice to individual voters, to quite common in this country that umpteen diVerent households and indeed the provision of advice, we bodies are responsible for doing the same thing. We go a long way to encouraging people to understand could actually rationalise that and get a much more how we are using the voting system and how we are coherent use of good media, good internet and good applying it in Scotland. That would help. I do education and we would start people oV on the recognise the point you have made and it is a point right foot. that the Commission wrestled with considerably actually in relation to our final recommendations. Dr McEwen: We should agree that if we were Q42 Mr MacNeil: Just as an aside, would it help if starting from scratch with a blank piece of paper, we the voting age were reduced to 16 so that things probably would not come up with four diVerent become directly relevant to people who are still at systems or even three diVerent systems, but that is school? not where we are starting from. We looked at 3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 11
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen international evidence, we looked at practice within the polling station there should be a very simple Scotland and elsewhere in the UK as well and we did process for them to understand how to cast that not find any strong evidence to suggest that having vote. diVerent electoral systems operating with the same Dr McEwen: Absolutely; I think you are right. What society was in itself enough of a problem to drive I think you are getting at is that the first-past-the change in the Scottish Parliament electoral system. post system is the most easily understood system and There are issues and we have concerns about putting it is. That came forward from our focus groups. these systems together on the same day, for coupling What was interesting about the focus groups and elections, but voter education can in some senses about some of the survey evidence was that while address some of the diYculties. first-past-the-post is seen as the easiest to understand, it is not seen as the most fair. So we were Q47 Ms Clark: Would you not accept that making balancing these diVerent criteria as well. There is these changes is likely to make the situation more always going to be a role to play for voter education confusing? At least at the moment voters know that in any system, even in Westminster elections, to every election they go to has a diVerent system. ensure that people understand the process in the Surely what you should be aiming for is a simple election of a government. One of the advantages I system which voters understand and where voters have always thought was associated with a mixed feel that every vote they make counts. member system was that you have the choice of Dr McEwen: Absolutely. You just named two of the electing a candidate and a party. You do not have principles we set out in trying to come up with that choice in a first-past-the-post system. You do recommendations, one is that it be as clear as not have that choice in an STV system, but you do possible and there were issues which we tried to have the choice in a mixed member system. address and we worked to try to make the existing Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: What we are actually system clearer and more easily understood and also also advocating is that if you clarify the role of the to ensure that there is a relationship and an easily elected representatives in that system, you have an understood relationship between the casting of a MP, you have a constituency MSP, you have an vote and the election not just of a local candidate but MEP and you also have regional MSPs and we are of a government. We tried to address that. arguing that in the future that might well help with the issues which are currently being discussed in Scotland about the eYciency of public service and Q48 Ms Clark: You have also conceded that in large regional services. I go back to an earlier point that parts of Scotland the second vote does not count what we are doing is actually creating an because you have accepted, for example in Glasgow, opportunity for elected representatives like that if you vote Labour in the first vote then people yourselves to have the maximum impact for the ask what the point is of the second vote. They want good of the citizen. to vote Labour, but it is not going to count, so what should they do? Surely you should be looking at all of the issues in the round for every voter in Scotland. Q50 Danny Alexander: I want to return, if I may, to Dr McEwen: I think we have done that, to be fair. this question of the dual candidacy, if I might put it There are advantages within the existing system for in a non-pejorative way, as opposed to the way the Labour Party in particular and the problem you David put it, people standing on both the list and the are presenting as a problem is actually because constituency for the Scottish parliamentary Labour is advantaged by that system. I should have elections. The UK Government, as its opinions are thought it was a benefit for you rather than a expressed through the Government of Wales Bill, problem. Yes, there are downsides and upsides to all clearly thinks that dual candidacy is not a sensible systems; there is no perfect electoral system. We just way forward. Why does the Commission think that felt on balance that the system we have, with such a situation should be allowed to continue at revisions, is the best system for Scotland’s Holyrood? I should also point out that the Secretary Parliament. of State for Wales has said that if the Commission Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Just to come back to has considered what he called the systematic abuses the point you make about the so-called wasted vote carried out by list members in Wales, he would have for Labour at the present time, as Nicola has reached the same conclusion that we have, namely explained, that is a feature of the present that a ban on dual candidacy is the only eVective circumstances. I should just recommend that you solution. Do you agree with his line of thinking? Is look back at political history. Circumstances do the Welsh situation one you have studied in coming change. to this conclusion? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Of course we read the Q49 Ms Clark: In the past of course we had a voting material on Wales. The points the Commission took system which people found very easy to understand. into account on this important issue are as follows: What you seem to be suggesting today is that people first of all we actually found no evidence that there are going to need a great deal of continuing was a problem for voters in having dual candidacy, education just to understand the system. Surely it nor incidentally did the Electoral Commission, who should be the case, irrespective of everybody’s age, have done their own study of this. The idea that a whether they are a young person or a very elderly loser is then elected by another aspect or another person, that if they know who they want to vote for, branch of the proportional representation system is whether it is a candidate or a party, when they get to actually a hangover from the first-past-the-post 3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Ev 12 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen thinking: those coming second are only losers, in a the other hand, you have a system where it is every majoritarian system. The logic of PR is that you man or woman for himself, Labour, for example, actually use the best people as voted for by the have two seats in the European Parliament just now electorate, and under a proportional system that will and aspire to have three, you would then have three not only be the first-past-the-post candidate. As you Labour Party people promoting themselves. You are aware, I am pretty concerned that we do this on would presumably have an equivalent number for behalf of citizens. Banning dual candidacy would, if the other parties. You are then talking about a dozen you think about it, actually restrict voter choice and people trying to promote themselves and it is potentially diminish the quality of constituency diYcult to see how in those circumstances the contests. If this were to be forced with a lack of electorate are in a position to make genuine choices consensus, I think there would be quite a serious risk because people will not be able to promote of alienating voters and, finally, we debated long and themselves equally across the whole of Scotland in hard about the question of open lists and we firmly the same that a simple list of four would. Would you believe that the use of open lists is actually a better accept that? way to address this issue. These things, taken as a Dr McEwen: I would accept some of that. This clutch of things, as you have to do with all of the particular paragraph is referring specifically to evidence in this, point us in the direction that simply Members of the European Parliament. I think that banning dual candidacy is not as straightforward as there is a lack of recognition of all elected members it seems. but there is a particular lack of recognition amongst Members of the European Parliament, perhaps in Q51 Mr Davidson: May I ask how many degrees you part because their work is largely in Brussels and so have between the two of you? on. I guess we were talking here about one of the Dr McEwen: Quite a few. consequences of a STV system for a European Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Chairman, I should Parliament election in that the members once elected have to ask, I honestly— would be more visible and more known potentially, would be better able to engage with the voters. Q52 Mr Davidson: Sorry, sorry; we are members of the Committee and we ask the questions. I am asking Q55 Mr Davidson: Why would that be the case? how many degrees you both have. Winnie Ewing was quite highly visible across Dr McEwen: A fair few. Scotland, but that was not because she was elected from a single person constituency, in fact I do not Q53 Mr Davidson: Can you give us a figure or have think she was ever elected under the PR system, you forgotten? was she? Dr McEwen: I have three. Dr McEwen: I do not think so. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: You have asked and I shall tell you. I have a Batchelor of Science, I have Q56 Mr Davidson: So the question of how you are a PhD, I have a Doctorate of Science, I have been elected does not necessarily determine how you got elected to the fellowship of several academic there. The people who are elected, irrespective of institutions and I have several honorary degrees. how they are elected, whether or not it has been by That adds up probably to about 12 or 13. STV or by a list, will then get known as a result of their actions, will they not? Those who work hard Q54 Mr Davidson: May I turn to the question of the and pursue particular things will have a higher European Parliament, in particular may I refer to profile. The particular point I want to come back to paragraph 4.96? I want to explore some of the things relates to the point you make in paragraph 4.100 you have in there. The third sentence says “By where you are referring to MEPs and saying “They requiring voters to select a party rather than an do not usually have a substantial role in constituency individual the existing system makes it diYcult for matters and we do not think that electing them using candidates to develop a profile among the the single transferable vote would encourage them to electorate”. The doubts I have about some of your acquire one”. Surely that is totally wrong. If I am recommendations come back in a sense to this. I standing and Katy is standing and Mohammad is suspect that if I stood in my constituency for any standing for Labour under a single transferable vote other party I would not be elected. I am elected system I am not only competing with people from because I am a Labour candidate rather than other parties, I am also competing with my because I am attractive looking and have a nice line colleagues from the same party and therefore I do in humour and so on and so forth. I suspect, with all have an incentive in those circumstances to be respect to my colleagues here, that the same would assiduous in constituency matters to the neglect of apply. What I do not quite understand is if you are my wider responsibilities in order that I can raise my aware of that how you managed to put forward that profile and leapfrog my colleagues. You do not seem “. . . the existing system makes it diYcult for to have taken this point on board at all during this. candidates to develop a profile among the Dr McEwen: The points you raise are some of the electorate” as though that mattered. It seems to me downsides of STV which made us reject it as the best that if you have lists running then there will be electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. identification with the top person on each list and in However, you are talking about a situation where Scotland that is realistically four or five people. You you have seven Members of the European then have clear identification with those five. If, on Parliament covering the whole of Scotland and their 3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1
Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 13
14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen role is not principally a constituency based one Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: That is precisely the dealing with the sorts of issues you deal with and view that the Commission took, remembering that that MSPs deal with. We felt that if they had to at the present time the European elections are on the enhance their profile in this way then it potentially basis of a closed list, accepting that there are cases to had benefits for people’s understanding of the be made for that, as we have just heard. If you are European Parliament, which is very low, even lower encouraging voter choice, then you have to look at than their understanding of all the other elected ways of doing that and what you said is exactly the institutions. This section is addressing the reasoning we followed in the report. disadvantages that we recognise STV has as an electoral system for, say, a national parliament and Q58 Mr MacNeil: The one minor downside there suggesting that they are not there, and are certainly is—and this has come up in party discussions—if not as prominent, in an election for the European there is somebody who is young and talented but Parliament and in this case we felt that the does not have a big public profile. The SNP is littered advantages of STV in enhancing voter choice and so with such people. on outweighed the disadvantages; just in that Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Much of the particular election. discussion this afternoon reflects, and we say it in the report, that there is actually no ideal system for Q57 Mr MacNeil: Is not the STV for the European electoral arrangements. Parliament following the same philosophy as the open list for the Scottish Parliament where it puts the choice—and we might like that in political parties— Q59 Chairman: May I thank the witnesses for their in the hands of voters? One thing I get throughout attendance this afternoon? I am sure their evidence your report is that you are indeed putting the citizens will be very useful. Before I declare the meeting first and the choice remains with the citizen. It might closed, do you want to say anything which has not be disadvantageous to us in political parties who been covered during our questioning? might want to present voters with a fait accompli. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We have covered the However the voters can come back and upset your report in refreshing detail and in some cases forensic apple carts the way we see them. I would say that it detail, we welcome these comments and we are glad is perhaps one of the strengths that STV has been that we have stimulated this debate. seen to hand the power to the voters in the same way Chairman: And thank you very much for telling us as you have done with open lists. about your degrees. Thank you.
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 5/2006 331738 19585