Public Document Pack Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid Corporate Services Director: Nigel Stewart Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604444 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD e.mail –[email protected] 4 May 2004 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP ON THE DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNANCE BILL will be held in the ROOM 4, LOCHGILPHEAD COMMUNITY CENTRE, MANSE BRAE, LOCHGILPHEAD on MONDAY, 10 MAY 2004 at 10:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Nigel Stewart Director of Corporate Services BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. LOCAL GOVERNANCE BILL: ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS Report by Director of Corporate Services (Pages 1 - 36) 4. CONSIDER SUBSEQUENT PARTS OF THE BILL To:- Councillor Robin Currie Councillor George Freeman Councillor Duncan MacIntyre Councillor Len Scoullar Councillor Dick Walsh Susan Mair James McLellan Charles Reppke Nigel Stewart Bruce West Contact: Melissa Jones Tel. No. 01546 604406 This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 3 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 Page 2 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 Page 3 - 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 Page 4 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.