Procedures Committee, 04 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 4, 2003

Official Report 250KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Elections

The next paper deals with the election of members of the SPCB. Everybody was frustrated the last time there was such an election because there were four nominations for four positions but we had to have four separate elections as there was no facility whereby the four people could be elected in a consolidated way to the four positions.

A range of issues is examined in the paper and most aspects of the process have been found to be fit for purpose. However, paragraph 29, which summarises the issues, suggests that we consider changing the standing orders in order to allow the option of a single vote where the number of candidates is equal to the number of vacancies, unless anyone objected to that. That would reduce some of the time that is spent on the exercise.

I am bound to say that I do not think that the next election will be as awkward as the last one was, when no one knew the rules and the meeting had to be suspended while everyone got the situation explained to them and we all had to have our hands held while we pressed the yes buttons for the appropriate people.

Of course, it might be that we will never again have a situation in which there are four candidates for four vacancies. These things cannot be predicted.

Paragraph 29 also asks whether the period of 10 sitting days within which the election of members of the SPCB should take place is sufficient, or whether, given the longer period set for the First Minister and ministers, the period should be amended. It also asks whether we think that the nomination period of up to 30 minutes before the election appears to provide sufficient flexibility or whether we want to change that rule. We are further invited to consider whether we are happy to stay with the electronic voting system and whether the current arrangement whereby the Presiding Officer can appoint members of the SPCB should remain.

For the sake of clarity, I point out that the current four members of the SPCB will remain members of the SPCB throughout the period of dissolution. Therefore, when the Parliament meets again after the election, we will have four members of the SPCB, plus the old Presiding Officer.

At least two of those people will not be members of the Parliament, which is why it is proposed that we move as quickly as possible to the election of a new corporate body.

Will the two members who were previously members of the SPCB need to seek re-election?

No. They retain their responsibility until they are replaced. The argument is that, if all members of the SPCB stood down at once, there would be no SPCB at all for a week or 10 days but somebody has to be responsible for anything that might happen in that period. However, it is clearly not desirable that non-members should hold those posts and it is essential that those positions be filled quickly.

The issue has arisen because it has been suggested that a longer period should be allowed. In particular, there has been discussion about whether the corporate body should be formed after the Government has been formed. The argument in that regard is that members might choose not to be elected to the SPCB because they had hopes of ministerial office. However, the recommendation is that we retain the status quo and fill the post with new people more or less as soon as there is a Parliament. That might happen on the same day as the Presiding Officer is elected, but it would certainly take place no more than 10 days after the election.

The point you dealt with is a strong one. We want the best possible people on the SPCB. Members who have hopes of either ministerial office of some description on the Government side, or some prominent position in the Opposition parties that might hamper them from being members of the SPCB, might be discouraged from standing. It is more sensible that the Government and the parties sort themselves out and then we elect the members of the SPCB. I am sure that some interim arrangement can be made for the intervening period, during which dramatic decisions need not be made. My preference is for a longer time in which to elect members of the SPCB. Otherwise, the voting system is fine. When we start with four candidates for four vacancies, or once we have got down to four candidates for four vacancies, a single vote seems sensible.

The difficulty with a prolonged period in which previous members of the SPCB remain in place is, of course, that a month will already have passed, from the end of March, in which the Parliament will have been dissolved, no one will have been an MSP, and all five SPCB members will have been non-MSPs. You suggest that we add another 10 days to that, in the expectation that nothing dramatic should happen. However, that period will now have stretched to six weeks, and it is likely that decisions will have to be taken—by a body which for a long time will have had no MSPs and which for a short time will have had only those members who have been re-elected as MSPs. That is a significant responsibility to give to people who are no longer members.

Although I understand your second point, I think that the reverse should hold: acceptance of an SPCB post should be seen as no debarment to anyone who has ministerial ambitions. Clearly, if someone who is appointed to the SPCB is subsequently on the receiving end of a phone call offering a ministerial post, they can resign with no aspersions cast, and an election will be held to fill that vacancy as it would for any casual vacancy. If that were understood at the outset, it would be seen as a fact of life; just as a ministerial appointment might lead to committee changes, it could also lead to SPCB changes.

It is important to note, as Donald Gorrie did, that this concerns not only the issue of potential ministerial office, but that of the entire settling-down period, across the parties and the committee system. How we marry the appointment of the SPCB with other appointment processes must be seen in that wider context.

Having noted that point, I also agree with what the convener has just said. I am no expert on the operation of the SPCB, but I sense that it has quite a bit of work to do in the early weeks of the new parliamentary session. If nothing else, housekeeping such as the allocation and organisation of accommodation and information technology support to new members will be done at that time.

We have only come this way once and that was for the first time ever, so it is difficult to know whether wider issues will surface to the level of the SPCB the second time round. There is at least the potential for that to happen. It would be preferable to have new members in place to make decisions on those early set-up issues, rather than non-members carrying over from the previous session. As the convener said, in the event that an individual so elected is subsequently offered another position somewhere in the Parliament or in the Executive, scope exists for further changes to be made.

I should like to reflect some of the views that were expressed at the bureau and that were subsequently developed. There was a consensus that we should acknowledge that the corporate body is a distinctive body that represents the Parliament, rather than the Executive or the party system. It is questionable whether one would necessarily want somebody on the corporate body who is waiting for a Government or Executive position. We must remember that the legal responsibilities for the entire Parliament lie with the corporate body. We will have an unusual situation in which the Conservative member of the SPCB will retain legal responsibilities for the Holyrood project until the new corporate body is established. That member might be happy to ensure that he is replaced as soon as possible, because the corporate body's legal responsibilities are critical.

I strongly believe that we should respect the Parliament's independence, and the Executive should work round the Parliament, rather than vice versa. As the convener said, it is sensible not to have legal responsibilities lying for a long time with former MSPs who are not re-elected and who, by dint of the Scotland Act 1998, would retain power. The proposals would ensure that elections to the corporate body take place as soon as possible, in order to reflect and retain the power of the Parliament rather than leave the corporate body at the mercy of party-political preferences.

I agree although, to be honest, I do not like the idea of the gifted failing so that they can get another post. I am not sure whether I understood correctly: I see the point of having a carry-over period, but I am unclear as to whether there is a subsequent election for those whom another group of MSPs has elected.

I do not understand your question.

If there were two non-MSPs on the corporate body, they would automatically leave after an election. However, would those who remain automatically be on the new corporate body?

No. They would be members of the same corporate body, which would continue beyond the election. All the positions—including those of members who hope to be re-elected to a fresh period of office—come up for re-election within 10 days of the establishment of the new corporate body. That is similar to the Presiding Officer's position: if a Presiding Officer wanted the post again, they would have to stand for re-election. All those positions are renewable.

I would like to concur with the general points that have been made, but I would like to know about the options for reforming the voting system. We all remember that the initial vote was a rather clumsy affair, to put it mildly. We talk about transparency, but that vote was not transparent—it was ridiculous and cumbersome.

I quite agree with introducing the option of a single vote, which is described in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the paper. If there were four candidates for four positions, and if no one objected, we should be able to have a single vote. Paragraph 21 contains a different option for four separate votes on the four candidates, using yes and no votes. I do not think that, under the existing system, members can vote against somebody—we can vote for someone only. If a member were to put himself or herself forward for the SPCB, there would be a vote. If there were five candidates, the bottom one would drop off and there would be a vote on the other candidates. However, I do not believe that members can vote against somebody. Am I mistaken?

I think that the context of the arrangement was that the four political parties agreed to nominate one person each, despite the fact that the appointments were parliamentary rather than party based. That meant that there was no reason why anyone would have to vote against someone. However, the option to object to a candidate exists to cover the situation in which four people were nominated but only three or fewer commanded the confidence of the Parliament. You would not automatically elect somebody just because there were four positions and only four candidates. If one of them were unacceptable to the majority of members, members would be able to object, demand a separate vote and not elect that person. That would result in a vacancy. I am not sure, but the Presiding Officer might have the power to fill that vacancy, or it might be filled by a sort of by-election. I do not think that members would be compelled to elect a candidate if there were four vacancies and four candidates. A no vote is possible, but the last time members simply did not use that option.

Catherine Scott is here to give us legal advice and I suspect that she has been champing at the bit while we have been stumbling round the issues in our state of quasi-informed ignorance.

The proposed new rule 11.10A would create a two-stage voting process. There would still be a first stage in which members would choose between candidates. They would have the opportunity to eliminate candidates if there were more candidates than vacancies. In some circumstances, members might move directly to the second stage, with yes, no and abstain voting, without going through the first stage. Of course, there is the opportunity before the first stage to vote all four candidates on to the SPCB en masse.

Am I right about the ability to vote no?

Yes. In the second stage of the process, members would be able to vote no in relation to one candidate or in relation to all four candidates en masse.

I will abandon my argument about the timing, as I do not seem to have carried the committee with me.

I have no interest in standing for the SPCB and—[Laughter.]

You are guaranteed a nomination now.

I have a point that is philosophically quite serious. As I understand it, the posts are parliamentary, but the parties conduct the process. The Liberal Democrats could say, "We want Donald Gorrie to be our person on the SPCB." If enough people in other parties thought that I was a complete waste of space and would make such a mess of running the Parliament's affairs that I should not be so elected, would they have the moral or legal right to say no and force the Liberal Democrats to nominate someone else?

You have taken the argument much further than it would go. The understanding that the Liberal Democrats should have a representative was reached among the parties. I do not think that any party has a right to anything in this situation. It is conceivable that the largest party could carry all the positions, if they wanted to give up four people to do that work. It was a gesture of the camaraderie of the new politics that led the parties to think that it would be sensible if each of the largest political groupings had a representative on the SPCB. I assume that that desire will continue in the future, but it is not part of the rules.

If any particular political party—we should not specify the Liberal Democrats, because they are all so personable—put forward a candidate whom other people could not stand and were not prepared to have, the consequence might be that members would vote no. You can now go away and compose a little list.

So a gentleperson's agreement exists at the moment.

Yes.

Do you think that such an agreement should be in the rules?

No. I was exploring the issue.

It is an interesting point. I asked the question because whether there should be a recommendation from a party for the election of the Presiding Officer—or whether there should be party politicking during that election—is a sensitive issue. The same goes for the election of the SPCB.

I am still intrigued about voting no. I am looking at annexe B and trying to work out where members could vote no in the initial round, if it were conducted under the system that we used last time. Paragraph 7 of the proposed new rule says:

"after each name is read out, those members who wish to vote for that candidate shall cast their vote … when the votes for the last candidate have been cast, members shall be given an opportunity to abstain."

We are talking about affirmative voting or abstentions, and it is not clear whether members have an opportunity to vote no. I would like to be absolutely clear about that. I am pretty sure that members cannot vote no and can only vote yes or abstain—at least, that is how I remember the system. I think that it was more than just a gentleman's agreement. The choice was yes or abstain.

Let us suppose that we had a rough agreement whereby the four parties put forward their nominees. The other parties could prevent one party's nominee from succeeding; they could influence that. I am not saying that that is what would happen—I do not think that it would, but we should still be fair. Under the new system that we are introducing, we are being asked to choose between allowing all the votes to go forward en bloc or having them one after the other. We are also introducing the idea of a no vote.

Let us seek a legal interpretation.

The system that is proposed is as follows. If there were four vacancies at the start of the next session and, say, six candidates for those four vacancies, members would move to the first type of voting, which is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the proposed new rule and thereafter. That method of voting—without a no vote—is used as a way of narrowing down the field of candidates until, say, four remain. It is possible that, at that first stage, members could end up electing someone, because that first round of voting allows for the election or elimination of candidates.

When members reach the stage at which the number of candidates and vacancies is the same, they would move to the second type of voting, which is outlined from paragraph 13 of the proposed new rule onwards. The first choice that members would be given is whether they wished simply to elect all the remaining candidates to all the remaining vacancies. The yes-no-abstain method of voting would be used as a way of speeding up the process. Members may recall that one of the reasons why the voting became rather prolonged the last time was that there was no simple yes-no-abstain voting. Voting was conducted in a series of rounds in which members could vote yes for a candidate or abstain from the whole voting process in each round.

If we had used the proposed new rule in 1999, there might well have been just one vote, given that the membership of the corporate body had basically been agreed beforehand. The proposed new rule is flexible enough to allow a single vote for all four candidates to be elected. If some dispute or competition for places were to arise, the new rule would allow a method of selecting and eliminating various candidates.

You have described a process by which the Parliament could choose the four most acceptable people out of six. Let us imagine a circumstance in which the Parliament likes only three of the six people. It eliminates two of them during the earlier stage, and gets to the stage at which the Presiding Officer puts the question that the Parliament proposes the election of the remaining four people. However, members object to that and an election for individuals has to take place. In that election, would it be possible that one of the four people for the four positions might not be elected because members wanted to vote no? Would it be possible to vote no?

It would be possible to vote no for a particular candidate at that stage. In that case, not all the places would be filled, so it would be back to the beginning again with the nominations.

So there is an escape route for you, Ken. Even if you are nominated against your wishes, you can persuade all your friends to vote against you.

I was thinking of everyone ganging up on me.

An extra element is being introduced, and I am not 100 per cent sure that we want it, but if everybody else is happy—

We had the option last time round, and the yes or abstain vote was just a simple way to get us through a situation where there were four people for four places. I suggest that we are not moving away from the system that we had; we just did not use the no option last time. We wanted to simplify the system and prevent too many rounds, and we just agreed not to use the option of voting no.

We shall now deal with the specific points in the paper and come to a decision. Paragraph 10 asks us to consider whether the time period for the corporate body election should be amended. I think that the majority of us felt that it should not be amended. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The nomination period closes 30 minutes before the start of the elections. It is suggested that that be left unchanged. We have not really discussed that, so I guess it is not of great significance. Are we agreed on that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that the bold text in paragraph 12 is there simply to draw our attention to the point, so the next decision lies in paragraph 20. We are asked to consider whether the option of a single vote should be proposed. Are we agreed that there should be the option of a single vote?

Members indicated agreement.

In paragraph 23, we are asked to consider the possibility of there being more than four candidates. If that situation arose, we would go through the elimination stage until we got to four candidates and, at that point, we would allow the election en bloc of the remaining four candidates. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In paragraph 24, we are invited to agree to something about there being less than four vacancies—

We are invited to use a similar method when filling less than four vacancies.

That should be, "fewer than four vacancies" of course, but do we agree to that change to the standing orders?

Members indicated agreement.

Paragraph 25—which is entitled "Minimum numbers of Members voting"—suggests that there should be no change to the figure of one quarter that is set out at the moment. Are we agreed on that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

The voting method is spelt out in paragraph 26. We are invited to continue to use electronic voting. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

In paragraph 27, we are invited not to change the arrangements for the filling of vacancies. Do we agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Is that sufficient clarity to allow us to proceed?

I have a question about paragraph 25, which concerns the minimum number of members voting. If someone abstains, does that constitute a vote?

Yes.