Local Government and Transport Committee, 12 Dec 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Official Report 272KB pdf

---

Local Government Election Rules

As it is now 3.30, I reconvene the meeting and welcome along for agenda item 3 Tom McCabe MSP, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, and two Executive officials who are here to support him: Rab Fleming, who is the head of local governance and licensing, and Russell Bain, who is from the local democracy team.

We have received a letter from Tom McCabe about the draft regulations that will contain the local government election rules, in which he seeks our views on alternative ballot paper designs for next year's local government elections, for which the single transferable vote system will be used. The minister will speak to the letter that he sent to us and to the two alternatives that are before the committee. Once it has reflected on the views that we express, the Executive will produce draft rules, which we will consider in due course.

After giving the minister the opportunity to set the scene as regards the decision that the Executive faces, I will offer members the opportunity first to ask questions and then to comment on the options. I invite Tom McCabe to make some introductory remarks.

Good afternoon. I thank the committee for the opportunity to come along to discuss an extremely important issue.

As I am sure that members know, the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 legislated for the introduction of the single transferable vote in local elections, which required a new form of election and a new form of ballot paper to service it. For some time, we have been considering the design of the ballot paper. We have looked at the experience of other countries and have commissioned research to assess the opinions of the voters who will use the new system when election day comes around.

When we examined the ballot paper designs that are used abroad, we found that there is no common approach. In other words, there is no given when it comes to the design of an STV ballot paper. Candidates are ordered alphabetically in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, but in places such as Australia, Tasmania and Malta the candidates are grouped by party. An analysis of practice in other countries reveals that no particular method is used consistently.

As an Executive, we realised that it was important to undertake research that would give us a clear idea of which layout of ballot paper the elector would find easiest to use next May, so we commissioned some independent research on the subject. Four ballot paper designs were tested, two of which were based on ordering candidates alphabetically by surname and two of which were based on grouping candidates alphabetically by party name. Importantly, the research sought the opinions of people who will be able to take part in next May's election.

The results of the research demonstrated a clear preference for alphabetical listing by party name rather than by candidate surname and for the party name to appear in an additional column to the left of candidates' names. It is clear that people felt that that option would make the ballot paper easier to negotiate and read and would allow them to express their individual preferences during the election. Seventy-one people preferred alphabetical listing by party name, whereas 23 preferred alphabetical listing by candidate name. In addition, 71 people preferred party names to be given in an additional column to the left of candidates' names, while 26 people preferred there to be no column at all to the left of candidates' names.

In addition to the research that we have carried out, we have received a series of representations, the most pertinent of which came from Age Concern Scotland, which wrote to me on behalf of the four national Scottish older people's organisations—Age Concern Scotland, Help the Aged, the Scottish Pensioners Association and the Scottish Pensioners Forum—to advise that they would prefer a ballot that was listed by party, because, in their view, that would be easier for people to negotiate and would make it easier for them to express their preference. I have also received correspondence from a variety of individuals, some of whom have expressed a preference for listing by party and some of whom have expressed a preference for straightforward alphabetical listing.

There are a variety of opinions on the matter, which is why I have taken the unusual step of presenting the committee with two options. I am absolutely convinced by the research that we have conducted and am persuaded by the representations that I have received that whatever else we do in this new form of election, we should make it as easy as possible for the elector to express their preference. It is undoubtedly the case that, in constructing a system that is more reflective, we as politicians have complicated the electoral process, therefore we should do as much as possible to make it as easy as possible for individuals to express their preference.

There is no consensus within the coalition Executive, which is why I have presented two options. I would appreciate the committee's view, which I assure members we will reflect on.

I first invite members to clarify any points of detail or ask the minister technical questions, but I ask them to restrain themselves and not express their views at this stage. I will then give them the opportunity to express their views—and the reasons behind them—on the two options before us. At the end, I will give the minister the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised before I ask the committee for a clear decision on which ballot paper we want to recommend that the Executive adopts.

I thank the minister for asking for our opinion. You said that you were convinced by the research, but when I followed the internet link to the information on the methodology I was astonished to find that the four researchers—Lisa, Africa, Tim and Amy—picked 100 people entirely at random off the street and showed them four options for ballot papers. They spoke only to the first 25 people who would speak to them in four city centres in Scotland. As far as I understand it, the findings were not adjusted for representation or in any other way. I would like further clarification of that technical point.

Sixty-one of the 100 people stopped identified themselves as party supporters and, curiously, 30 identified themselves as Labour Party supporters. You said that you were convinced by the research. Is my interpretation of the methodology accurate? The survey does not seem to have been methodical, accurate or representative.

I have one more technical point. It struck me as strange that all four of the ballot papers that were given to the 100 people put the party label first. They were not given a paper such as the one that I have here, which is normal in Northern Ireland, normal in the Republic of Ireland and normal in all our elections, on which the individual's name is first, followed by their address, their party identification and then the label. From the information that was given to us, it seems that all four of the forms that were handed to individuals in the research put the party logo first, which indicates that the party logo, rather than the individual's name, is important. Can you confirm that that is the case?

I am surprised that you have that impression. I am happy to confirm that your information is wrong—you have clearly been misinformed. The individuals were selected using the normal criteria for objective research. They were selected to achieve a balance in respect of gender and age. They were not, as you suggest, the first 100 people whom the researchers met in the street. That would not have been an appropriate approach. A balance was sought in the people who were interviewed.

I am not clear how you arrived at your point about the ballot paper. My understanding is that the party logo was always on the right-hand side of the papers that were presented to people in the survey.

That is not the case according to the information that you provided to the committee. On all four forms, the party logo—sorry, not the party logo, but the party identification—is on the left-hand side.

I ask Mr Bain to clarify that point.

Four designs were tested in the research. Two designs were based on grouping by party and two were based on alphabetical listing by candidate. The alternative option in each design had an additional column on the left-hand side that contained the party name. The examples that came with the minister's letter to the committee contained the party column on both designs, because the research reflected that that was very popular. We think that that is a helpful step, whether the names are listed alphabetically by candidate or grouped by party. The people who took part in the research saw alternative designs: an option with the party name listed on the left-hand side and an option without that.

Can you clarify the situation? I am not at all clear about it from that response. The information that you have given us indicated clearly that the party was listed on the left-hand side, but you have just said that of the four options that were given to individuals, two had that and two did not. Did the ones that did not have the party name on the left-hand side start alphabetically with the candidate's name? Was the candidate's name the first thing that they saw?

Design 1 that was given to the individuals was done alphabetically by candidate name, with no party name on the left-hand side. Design 2 was done alphabetically by candidate with the party name on the left. Design 3 was grouped by party with no party name on the left-hand side and design 4 was grouped by party with the party name on the left.

For the assistance of members, I think that that is all explained in the Scottish Parliament information centre paper by Stephen Herbert.

It is not.

It is. I have it in front of me.

I have the information that was e-mailed to us.

The SPICe briefing by Stephen Herbert contains all that information. It was circulated to you with your papers.

Okay.

Were people given an option such as the one that I have here? It is quite normal. We were all elected using such a ballot paper, with the individual listed first then the emblem on the right-hand side and the party identifier on the right.

Yes.

Can you answer the question that I asked about representation? You said that people were selected to achieve a balance in respect of gender and age. Was there any balance by socioeconomic background? Was there any balance in respect of individuals' addresses? The information that we have been given indicates that 30 out of 61 people were identified as party supporters and that 50 per cent came from the Labour Party. That does not strike me as balanced. Can you comment on that?

That is quite reflective.

My question is a technical one; we can come to the politics later.

As the minister said, the methodology used was a standard methodology to ensure a representative sample. The researchers would consider that they conducted the research using such an approach and that the sample of people to whom they spoke was representative.

Do you consider that 30 out of 61 is a representative sample?

I think that 30 out of the 61 said that they had a party—

It is 30 per cent of the entire—

Could you let witnesses respond and not interrupt them when they are mid-sentence?

I was going to say that the figure for Labour Party members was 30 people out of the 100 in the sample, and 30 out of the 61 who said that they had a party affiliation. Of course, that does not mean that the other people did not have a party affiliation—they may just not have wished to pass that on.

My question was whether you think that the poll is representative.

The researchers, who are independent, would consider that it is representative.

Do you?

Convener, I am not entirely convinced that that question is appropriate, as it puts a civil servant in a difficult situation. I am here, as the minister, to give evidence and to hear the committee's view. If Mike Rumbles wants to ask for my view on the matter, I am happy to give it, but I am not sure that it is entirely appropriate to ask the civil servant to give a view.

My question stands, then, minister. Will you answer it?

Yes. I regard that as representative.

So you think that a 50 per cent—

I want us to get technical questions out of the way.

I am asking a technical question.

You have had an answer to your question and you are moving towards a political debate. We will have an opportunity later to have such a debate, if that is what members want.

There are no politics here at all; I am asking technical questions and I would like an answer to them.

You are straying beyond technical issues. If you have a technical question, you should ask it. The question that you put has been answered.

Thank you, convener. At your invitation, I will ask the technical question.

I say to the minister that he suggested that the civil servant should respond to my question—I did not ask for that. Does the minister consider that a poll of only 100 people, 30 per cent of whom identify themselves as Labour Party supporters—which is 50 per cent of the people who identified themselves as having a party affiliation—is a fair, appropriate and accurate representation? I just want to get the answer on the record and to be clear about the issue.

It would be entirely spurious and inappropriate to suggest that independent professional researchers would take a brief that was influenced by politicians. It is entirely wrong to suggest that and to draw the conclusion that, if 30 individuals expressed a political allegiance to the Labour Party, it follows necessarily that they would hold the same view that I or other individuals in the Executive hold on the design of the ballot paper. The idea that we have that kind of communication link and that we can manage to achieve such consistency with people who have an affiliation with the party is fanciful to say the least.

I am going to move on to other committee members.

If I may say so, I find that sort of response objectionable—

It is up to me to convene the meeting and you have asked enough questions, so I will ask other members to come in.

I have a technical question about the process that has been followed. Is there any academic evidence in the commentary surrounding single transferable vote elections or in the research that we are discussing to suggest that, if we had the block method, with the candidates grouped together by their parties, that would in some way result in one party benefiting from the process?

I am not aware of any such evidence.

So we have no evidence of that, either from the civil servants or from any of the academics who have contributed material on STV, including international examples. Nobody has said that if one particular method is followed, one party will benefit.

I am not aware of any such evidence. It is inconceivable that, if someone stands for election, whether they represent a party or they are standing as an individual, they will not have an absolute conviction that the policies or points of view that they put across will have a strong resonance with the electorate. Any system that makes it easier for people to identify with that strong resonance is predicated on the interests of the electors, who have a right to express a preference, and not on the interests of the politicians who are standing for election. I say strongly that that is exactly the approach that I am taking. We have complicated the processes, but we have done that with the best of intentions and in the pursuit of a more representative system. However, we have not always taken the electors with us, so we should do our best to ensure that we make the system as easy as possible for them.

I have another technical question. As this will be the first time that STV has been used in local government elections, should the Executive be very careful about the system that is introduced? The matter may be debated after the elections, but should it ensure that the process is simple?

One driver behind the views that I have expressed is the aim to arrest the clear decline in participation in the democratic process. We need to convince people that it is as easy as it possibly can be for them to take part in that process and to express the views that they want to express.

Have the issues that Age Concern Scotland raised with you been followed through with it? Did that organisation give its members an opportunity to contribute to the debate and then respond to you as the minister with responsibility for such matters?

Age Concern Scotland told me that there were broad discussions within the four organisations that I mentioned. Its written representation reflected the outcome of those discussions.

The Executive must take its own decisions, but when it has received representations from organisations such as Age Concern Scotland, has it, in your experience, been proactive in ensuring that its final decisions have been influenced by those representations?

From day one of the Parliament, Age Concern Scotland's representatives and business representatives, for example, have thought that they can put forward views much more directly than they could have done in the past. That is one of the positive outcomes of the establishment of the Parliament. Empirical evidence is beginning to suggest that people think that they have a greater opportunity to influence public policy in Scotland than they had under the previous constitutional arrangements.

I want to clarify points that arise from answers that were given to Mr Rumbles. I have been given the description that appears on the Scottish Executive's website of the research procedure that was adopted, which is helpful. Paragraph 2.1 of the paper that I have is entitled "Methodology". The third bullet point in that paragraph states:

"respondents were recruited spontaneously on the street and interviewed immediately".

Is that correct?

No. The information that I have received is that it is not.

Mr Rumbles has just given me a piece of paper on which the relevant page has been downloaded. The page is entitled "Scottish Executive Publications"; underneath that is the heading "Single Transferable Vote Ballot Paper for Scottish Local Elections May 2007: Qualitative Research to Inform Design". The words underneath that are: "Chapter Two Research Procedure". The third bullet point under the heading "2.1 Methodology" states:

"respondents were recruited spontaneously on the street and interviewed immediately".

That is what the Scottish Executive's website says.

It may well do so. I will certainly ensure that it is checked very soon. I was asked for my views on the procedures that were applied and I gave a categoric answer. I understand that the information on the piece of paper from which you are quoting is wrong and that the individuals who took part in that work were selected on a scientific basis.

I accept that that is your understanding, minister, but it is odd that the Scottish Executive's website describes a completely contrary and wholly unscientific procedure as the methodology that was used. Who invented what is on the website?

I will try to be helpful. It is important to clarify matters, which one of the minister's officials may be able to do. If the Executive's website contains inaccurate information, it would be useful to the committee to know exactly what the position is.

We were all sent the e-mail, convener.

I simply want matters to be clarified so that we know whether the information on the Executive's website is accurate. I am not disputing where you got the information; all that I am saying is that we need to clarify whether it is accurate.

That is fair.

Someone can be contacted spontaneously and asked to participate, but the researchers would have tried to ensure that the people to whom they were talking met certain profiles so that they would have a reflective sample. I can give the committee more information on that in due course.

That implies that more than 100 people were stopped. It implies that the four researchers were standing with their clipboards in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dundee and Glasgow, compiling a profile of a number of people whom they met before they decided which 25 to have a spontaneous interview with. At the end of the day, 100 people would have been taken as representing some kind of scientific sample.

To ensure that they got a spread of people across age groups and the various socioeconomic groups, as researchers do, they would have needed to ask some questions. As I have said, I will get some more information for you.

Are you suggesting that more people were stopped and that, when the researchers had got their quota of what they had previously determined to be the appropriate profile of interviewees, they filled up the quota there and then?

I will need to check that and get back to you, but I think that that is correct.

I imagine that that would be the case.

I just wanted to establish that. Do you accept that simply pulling the first 25 people whom the researchers met off the street and asking their views would be a wholly unscientific and unreliable basis on which to assess the matter? Would it be fair to say that?

It would.

Can you clarify how many names were on the ballot paper that was shown to the people who were quizzed?

Fourteen.

The sample relating to the two options that you have given, which is attached to the draft statutory instrument, has 10 names on it.

Yes.

I put it to you that, in my view—which is based on the evidence that is accruing around wards in Scotland—in three and four-member wards it is likely that the number of candidates appearing on the ballot form will be five, six or seven rather than 10 or 14. Parties will tend to limit the number of candidates who appear on ballot papers to the number that they think will be elected, and in three-member wards that is more likely to be one from each of three parties, or whatever. Therefore, a more representative—or likely—number of candidates for a ballot paper will be five, six, seven or, possibly, eight rather than 10 or 14. A list of 14 candidates is unrealistic, given the way in which STV will work and the way in which the parties will shape their campaigns to reflect the voting system.

That is an observation about the position that parties may adopt. Of course, independent candidates may choose to stand in great numbers. The researchers put the paper together in that way in order to test people's reactions to seeing ballot papers with more than one candidate from the same party on them and different numbers of candidates from different parties. It was important for them to get a reaction from the various party groups that could be represented.

I understand that. However, the analysis of the merits and demerits of ballot paper design talks about alphabetical listing by candidates' names, and the second-last bullet point states that the number of candidates appearing on the ballot paper has a bearing on people's perceptions as to which of the ballot papers is more appropriate. I suggest that, if you presented people with options and there were 14 names on the ballot forms rather than six or seven names—which, I would argue, is more likely to be what the typical ballot paper will look like next year—it is unsurprising that more people favoured the clustering of candidates' names by party group than favoured an alphabetical list of individuals' names.

Is that a fair comment? Would it not have been better for the 100 people to have been shown one ballot paper or set of ballot paper designs with a multiplicity of names—say, 14—and another one with, say, seven names, which I would regard as a more realistic number? It could then be seen whether there was a difference in approach.

To be fair, it is a supposition on Mr McLetchie's part that the average number will be six or seven.

We will see what is borne out by the evidence on 3 May.

If only we could judge everything based on evidence. We introduced the single transferable vote for a reason. We have launched a public information campaign. We have spent quite a bit of time explaining to people the benefits of standing for office. We have actually attracted some criticism for that public information not being predicated on people being members of parties and for the fact that individuals can consider playing a part in public life. Any straightforward assumption that the average number of candidates is likely to be around six or seven is, of course, not yet backed up by empirical evidence. Given the public information campaign and what people were trying to achieve when we set out to introduce STV, I think that the indications are that the average number will be higher than that.

We shall see which of us is right. I shall follow the nomination process in Lanarkshire with considerable interest.

That will make two of us.

Elections are taking place right across Scotland, in case David McLetchie had not noticed.

We know where the important ones are.

I seek clarity on the research methodology. I am trying to remember back to my days at university when I did this sort of thing for my sociology degree.

In assessing or profiling a group to be questioned, the researchers could be told in advance that they have to have a certain number of men and women, including a certain number of men of a particular age group and so on. For example, the researchers could be told that they must get 25 people who fall into a number of given categories. Clearly, such methodology would create a profile reflecting wider society. It would then be for the researchers to go out on to the streets, spontaneously select people who fitted each of the various categories and interview them on the spot as they identified them. That would mean that both statements that have been made would be correct: the group that has been identified reflects the profile of society, yet, as Mike Rumbles said, the individuals have been identified spontaneously. The two positions that have been made today do not contradict each other. Is that correct?

We could cut to the chase here. If I thought for a second that commissioning a fresh piece of research using a greater number of people with agreed scientific principles behind the methodology would convince people that, whatever the outcome, that is the one that we should adopt, I would commission it tomorrow. If the committee is telling me that, given members' views, it is not sure whether enough people were used or whether the methodology was completely robust, and is suggesting that we should agree on a number of people and a methodology and carry out the exercise again, I am happy to give the committee an assurance on behalf of the Executive that I will commission that work immediately.

I am interested in one of the points that you made about the make-up of the ballot paper. If I noted down your words correctly, you said that you were concerned to make it as easy as possible for people to express the view that they want to express. Is that the principle? Has any consideration been given to having an additional box on the ballot paper marked "none of the above"?

No, I do not think that there has been. If that view comes forward from the committee, we will certainly consider it. As someone who has been involved in elections for a long time, I, like other members, have seen how effectively people express that view, sometimes in quite colourful ways. It may be that there should be the possibility to indicate that view on the ballot paper.

We are all concerned at the disengagement by the electorate, judging from the number of people turning out to vote at both national and, in particular, local government elections. We are often told by opinion polls that people do not feel that anybody represents them. Rather than people not turning up at the voting booths, it would be great if we could give them an option to do exactly what you have described—to express their view that none of the above represents them. Would you be willing to consider including a "none of the above" box?

If it is a suggestion that comes from the committee, yes. If the committee tells me that the ballot paper should be made as clear as possible and that blocking by party does that but that it is important that we give a range of options to individuals who have taken the time to turn up at the polling station, I will take that suggestion on board.

I know that some jurisdictions in the United States of America have that option, but I suspect that to introduce such a change in the ballot paper would require primary legislation. At the moment, the names that appear on the ballot paper are the names of those who are nominated as candidates to the returning officer, and I do not think that there is currently a means by which people could request that such an option be on the ballot paper.

I am not entirely sure about that. We can certainly check the legal position, but the principle behind the suggestion is not one that I would automatically recoil from. I do not have the full text of the legislation in front of me, but I am willing to ask my officials to check that.

I return to the question of Scottish Executive research. There are different ways of conducting research and we have heard about one particular way of doing so. Do you have any doubts about the people who conducted the research? Was their research similar to the sort of research that would be conducted by a unit at the University of Edinburgh or the University of Stirling? Do you think that there are any problems with the quality of the research—albeit that it is a particular type of research—and are you quite confident about it?

The research was conducted by a well-respected professional organisation that regularly carries out work of that nature. The research was commissioned by Government, but it is completely independent. I do not think for one second that the organisation would allow itself to be influenced by a political preference.

I would like to ask more about Robson rotation, which sounds intriguing, to say the least. Why would you not favour that? Is it simply because of the cost of the different types of ballot papers that would be needed, or are there other reasons?

There is a range of other reasons. I do not think that the Electoral Commission is keen on Robson rotation, as it feels that that would complicate the whole administrative process behind the production of the ballot paper. It is particularly concerned that, at a time when we are introducing a variety of new aspects to the electoral process, things are difficult enough for returning officers and their staff.

Rotation in that manner also makes it harder for political parties to manage their vote, because there is so much difference between the papers. The Electoral Reform Society also points out that the number of candidates of the same party in any ward is unlikely to be more than two, so that any effect from ordering a ballot paper in that way would be negligible.

That is exactly the point that I just—

I do not think that that was exactly Mr McLetchie's point. My point was that we have introduced a new system and encouraged far more people to get involved in the electoral process. Mr McLetchie is failing to think outwith the straightforward party structures that we are all overly familiar with.

It strikes me that members cannot interrupt ministers, but ministers can interrupt members.

Mr Rumbles, will you please keep order? I have asked you before to keep order and to ask questions through the convener. You had plenty of opportunity to ask questions earlier. I want to give other members the same opportunity.

Minister, you mentioned that you had received letters from some organisations representing the more elderly members of our society. Did you write to those organisations asking for their views, or did they write spontaneously?

No, I had no contact with those groups before I received correspondence from them.

Why do you think that you received representations from Help the Aged and similar organisations? During the passage of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, many representations were made by organisations such as Capability Scotland, which represents another group of people in our society who might have difficulty with new ballot papers, but their views are not represented in the proposals on ballot design.

I do not understand the point that you make about their views not being represented. I would appreciate it if you were a bit more specific about what they wanted and what you think is not going to appear. I stress that I am here to discuss the design of a new ballot paper with the committee and will listen to the suggestions that members make, whether they be on accommodating clarity for the electorate or accommodating the needs of specific groups.

The elderly seem to have expressed a view on the ballot paper design, but I suspect that if you had consulted other groups that are concerned about more vulnerable people in our society and given them the chance to influence the ballot paper design, you might not have got the same response. Capability Scotland, for example, was involved on accessibility to polling stations throughout the passage of the bill. Given that it took such a great interest in the passage of the bill, one would have thought that you would have given it the opportunity to respond to questions on the design of the ballot paper.

First, I restate the point that I did not seek the representations from Age Concern and the other groups that I mentioned. Secondly, I have been involved in public life for a good number of years. Before I was elected to the Parliament, I was a council leader and was heavily involved in ensuring greatly improved access to polling stations for a range of groups that previously had difficulty accessing them—in fact, I think that I am right in saying that my council won an award for that. A range of representations has been received over the years and attempts have been made to ensure equal accessibility to the democratic process regardless of the challenges that an individual faces in life. There is good empirical evidence to back that up.

Correct me if I am wrong, minister, but you seem to suggest that the straightforward alphabetical listing of candidates is complicated and that it might lead to reduced turnout. Is that your contention?

I am saying that, under STV, the alphabetical listing of candidates produces a more complex ballot paper, that we politicians have complicated the system and that we should put ourselves in the place of the electors, not those who seek election, and do whatever we need to do. That might be not solely to block candidates by party but to strip out as much information as we can from the ballot paper to make it as understandable as possible. Anyone who produces a newsletter, for instance, will know the benefit of having the maximum amount of white space and not cramming too much information into a limited area. We are trying to ensure that we construct a ballot paper that is as modern and user friendly as it can be.

My specific question was whether it was your contention that employing a straightforward alphabetical listing would reduce voter turnout.

If the impression is given beforehand that expressing one's view at a polling station will be a complicated process, it could impact on turnout. We will only know whether that is the case as a result of the empirical evidence that is built up after we use STV for the first time.

One would hope that nobody would say that it would be a complicated process. The reason why I ask is that it is not so many years since the party emblems did not appear on ballot papers and turnout was higher then. In fact, when there were no party affiliations on the ballot papers, general election figures were regularly in excess of 80 per cent, so there does not seem to be a direct correlation. Perhaps at some later point you could go back to the question of what information you are thinking of stripping out of the ballot paper. That could be of some interest.

On the matter of complicating the process, is the big complication not the fact that there are three different elections using three different systems on the one day? If you wished to uncomplicate the process, particularly for local government, you could have done so by decoupling the elections.

I do not think that that is the case. In much the same way that we sometimes hear about people getting consultation fatigue, there is a danger that people's propensity to take part in the democratic process has been affected by the many societal changes that have taken place. The law of averages tells us that the more often we ask people to come out and express their view, the less inclination they will have to take part on such a regular basis, given the other calls on their time and the busier lives they lead today.

Is it really your contention that a ballot paper on which the names are listed alphabetically, which people understand and which has been the system in this country for many years, is more complicated than trying to master three elections using three different systems at the one time?

I am not saying that those things are mutually exclusive. I believe that, as people are asked to express a preference in local government elections, blocking candidates by party will ease their ability to make their choice, whatever it is.

Is that predicated on your belief that people will vote only along party lines? What research have you carried out that would indicate that?

It is predicated on a belief that people go into polling stations having already formed a view. I would hope that people will have formed their views because of the policies that political parties put forward and the way in which they put them forward, as well as because of the individuals that the parties put up to enact those policies. Judging from my experience of public life, when voters get to the polling station, the vast majority of them have already made a decision. The point that I am making is that we should make it as easy as possible for people to express their decision.

Your view seems to be predicated on people voting simply along party lines—and I concede that some will. However, given that some parties are unlikely to offer the full quota of candidates for some wards, there could be some transfer over in some cases. If, for example, Mr McLetchie's party is only standing one person in a three-member ward, a Conservative voter, if they are to exercise their second, third and fourth preferences, will have to look outwith that party's list. What research have you carried out that suggests that people intend to vote along party lines, which would back up what you are saying?

I do not think that that does back up what I am saying—I am not necessarily saying that someone will go into a polling booth and maintain the same allegiance consistently throughout their voting preferences. Some people might go in and vote Labour twice; they might think that there are some bits of Tommy Sheridan that they quite like, so they vote for him next.

So, what you are suggesting helps only those who want to vote along one party line, and nothing else.

No—although I do not think that there is anything wrong with individuals coming to a conclusion before they enter the polling booth. It is an optimistic notion that, between the front gate of a polling station and the booth, people have some sort of conversion on the road to Damascus. I do not think that that happens in reality.

I do not believe that it happens either. I am interested that you believe that, in order to suit that group of voters, whose size you have not been able to quantify, the order on the ballot paper should be changed, and the ballot paper should be structured in a way that has not been the case before.

Not necessarily. If someone wished to vote Labour twice, for instance, blocking the candidates by party would allow that individual to find those candidates on the paper. If they then wanted to transfer their vote to some other party, that design would make it far easier for them to find the other party, make that transfer and leave. Overall, that would be a far more satisfying procedure for the elector to express their view.

I intend to give all members the opportunity to express their view, so I ask them to keep their remarks concise and to express clearly which ballot paper they prefer. I will hold a vote afterwards to allow members formally to express their opinions. I ask members to say which ballot paper they prefer and to give the key reasons for their preference, but please do not go on too long. There is no need for us to go on extensively or to filibuster to some degree. We can give our views and the reasons for our views and reach a decision. I presume that everyone wishes to express a view, so I will take people in order.

Alphabetically.

Or in groups.

Will we have a consultation first?

It will have to be representative.

In calling members, I will alternate between the party groups.

I support option A, which involves listing by party in alphabetical order. I welcome the minister's assurance to me in the debate that whatever system is adopted, no party will have political advantage. The clear point that has emerged is that no academic research—that I have seen—on the single transferable vote or evidence from whatever research has been conducted shows that any party will obtain a political advantage from either option.

The issue is how we present the ballot paper to the electorate on 3 May. We live in an age in which information is constantly presented in an easier-to-use form, whether on websites, in newspapers or wherever. We now present images to achieve ease of use for people. If we are serious about tackling the challenges that face us in our democracy, such as spoiled ballot papers, participation is an issue.

I do not support Tommy Sheridan's suggestion that people should be able to vote to opt out of choosing a candidate, because the way to opt out is not to complete a ballot paper. People have been pretty good at spoiling their ballot papers. I have seen some ballot papers on which people have been explicit about their views on the candidates, and that will be the case whatever ballot paper design is adopted.

I support option A, which presents no advantage to anyone except the electorate in participating in the process. That is what the debate is about—the option that allows the electorate to participate in the first election by the single transferable vote system in living memory and the option that allows people to participate with ease and to make their choice clear.

I was a regional councillor in Grampian, where we were in coalition in the mid-1990s. I suspect that STV will not make much difference in the north-east, where the split has been fairly even among parties, but people will be careful when they vote at the next council elections.

I was a member of the McIntosh commission and of the Kerley committee, which looked into STV and produced the system that was in the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. One reason for going for proportional representation was to put democracy back in the hands of the voter, because it was felt that parties had too much choice of who was on the ballot paper and that democracy was kept internal to parties.

Initially, there was a fear among independents that the new system would not help them at all, but that has disappeared because it has become apparent to people that they will have a great choice in a multimember ward.

The most recent Scottish Parliament election showed that when we put choice in the hands of the voter, they are perfectly capable of exercising it. That has been evident from the way in which they have made use of the party vote, which has allowed many more parties to be represented in the Parliament. The fact that people have seen that their vote counts will help to encourage more people to go to the poll. The idea that proportional representation is complicated has been floated, but given that the system is used in most social democratic countries—including Sweden, where the turnout is 89 to 90 per cent of the electorate—it is patently absurd to say that the electorate will not be able to get a handle on the new voting system.

Throughout the passage of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, we were given assurances by ministers that there would a great deal of publicity to explain to the electorate how the new system would work. That will not be left to the Scottish Executive alone, but I hope that it keeps its promise that it would do that. The Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society and the parties have an obligation and a duty to help people to understand the new system. For all those reasons and because candidates are listed in alphabetical order in most social democratic countries that use the STV system, the suggestion that the new system might be gerrymandered at this late stage by candidates being listed in party blocks is anathema and does the Parliament no good and I hope that it is thrown out.

I am very much in favour of option B, which is the listing of candidates alphabetically. Most members probably made up their minds before we debated the issue, but I find it a wee bit concerning that there has been a sudden interest in the views of academics, of groups such as Age Concern and of professional organisations on the ground, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, all of which argued vehemently for the decoupling of local elections and Scottish Parliament elections so that turnout could be maximised, attention could be focused on the elections and voters would not be faced with three voting systems in one day. Given that none of those views on the decoupling of the elections was important to members of the Labour Party, I find it surprising that the views of academics and others are now considered to be important.

When it comes to the new system, all of us in the political process will have to suck it and see. I do not think that there will be a huge list of candidates in the overwhelming majority of seats, although there may be in some seats. The evidence shows that there is a greater tendency for independent candidates to stand in some of the more rural constituencies. I hope that there will be independent candidates all over the place, but I do not think that that will happen this time round. I do not foresee that there will be a huge problem with people not being able to understand the system and having to wade through a number of candidates.

My final point is that I hope that we have agreed at least to seek information from the minister on the "none of the above" option. I disagree vehemently with the point that Paul Martin made. I think that it would be much more positive for democracy if people could go into a polling booth and have the choice of opting for "none of the above" as an alternative to spoiling their ballot paper or doing to it some of the things that we all know about. People have a democratic right to exercise that choice. If they had that option, more people might vote. I do not know about other members, but people constantly tell me that we are all the same and that they will not bother to vote because none of us are any good.

Can I ask Tommy a question?

I do not want us to get into a two-way debate.

We should encourage the Executive to make available the "none of the above" option. If it does not work, it does not work. It is more positive for democracy to have a load of people voting "none of the above" than it is not to have them turning out at all. At least they would be registering their opinion positively instead of negatively by not turning up. I thought that we agreed to find that out; I hope that we do not rule out at least considering that suggestion if the response is that we can do it. If the convener is right and we cannot do it, that is fine and let us drop it. However, if we can do it, we should consider it.

I have two quick comments. Tommy Sheridan almost decried academic research and the seeking of academic views. How on earth can he do that—why would we not want research that would help us to make the ballot paper as simple as possible for people to ensure that their vote will count in the way that it should? I am astounded by that comment.

Maureen Watt spoke about there being no party groupings, but the SPICe briefing showed that nearly all the Australian elections were structured according to party groupings. Is she saying that that is gerrymandering? I do not know—those are just initial comments.

I support option A and I will use some of the key points in the SPICe briefing to demonstrate why. The Farrell and McAllister research from 2003 says:

"The more the voter is taxed by the system, the greater the likelihood that she will make use of shortcuts, in effect voting for candidates on the basis of list-order rather than out of sheer preference."

Option A, which proposes a ballot paper structured by party groupings, would make the ballot paper simpler so that electors can see what is in front of them. That is a big reason for my preference. It is important to remember that STV was introduced for the coming elections to ensure that votes count. We do not want ballot papers to be spoiled, and option A would help guard against that.

The SPICe briefing refers to the Electoral Commission's use of research by Rallings et al, which states:

"a smaller proportion of ballots were cast for candidates found in the middle or at the bottom of the alphabetical order. The analysis does show that when voters do not cast all available votes for one party's candidates there is a marked bias towards those listed higher in the alphabetical order".

Grouping the candidates by party would move us away from that tendency. That is pretty strong support for option A.

I turn to the Scottish Executive research that tested four ballot paper designs. I was keen to know about the quality of the research, but from what I can see, the designs look like recognisable ballot papers and the minister told us that we would have had a similar result from any academic or research unit in a university, which would use similar methodology for the ballot paper design. I am pretty much swayed by the some of the points in table 2 on page 7 of the SPICe briefing. It says of the option A paper:

"• this was clearly the preferred format, primarily because it came across as easier to negotiate and read

• because parties were grouped together, people felt they could find the candidates they wanted to vote for easily and quickly

• even those who did not vote along party lines believed they could identify candidates quickly because they would look for the individual's party first".

On all those counts, I go for option A.

I am disappointed that Tom McCabe has put the party first in both option A and option B. That was the point that I tried to get across in my question about the technical approach. We do not have a choice. Whichever ballot paper is chosen, the Scottish people will be faced with a list that is blocked in parties and which identifies the party first. I do not like that. It is a departure from what we have done before.

I agree with Maureen Watt. The point of STV is to give more power to the voter and not the political party. Therefore, it helps voters to have the candidates listed alphabetically, especially when the individuals who are standing for election are more important to them than the parties. Everyone, including the minister, seems to be saying that the party is more important, and he has put the party first in both options. The names are listed in party order in one option and alphabetically by candidate in the other. Both are wrong, although one is less wrong than another.

We have a precedent in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, so what is the dispute over? STV already operates in one part of the UK, and we are putting the system into operation in another part. Why are we trying to depart from the precedent that has been set? It is a good precedent that works well.

Paul Martin said that there is no party advantage. Well, by the facts, let us know them. I would listen to the argument more if I were convinced that any other party but one was coming forward with the proposal. All the other parties that are represented in the committee seem to back an alphabetical list because it would help voters. Only one political party wants candidates to be blocked by party, obviously because it feels that there is an advantage to it in doing that.

The minister said that he was convinced by the research, and he has attempted to convince us that people prefer candidates to be blocked by party. We put technical questions on the research earlier, and I return to my point that I do not consider that recruiting 25 people spontaneously on the street in Dundee, Inverness, Edinburgh and Glasgow city centres and interviewing them immediately has produced a representative sample of the people of Scotland. The facts speak for themselves—the research is not worth the paper that it is written on. I do not put any standing by it whatsoever.

The precedent is Northern Ireland. We have STV there, so why are we changing the system? Only one party seems to want to change it. The fundamental point for me is that STV gives power to the voter away from the political party, which is what we should be encouraging.

The minister referred several times to members' responsibility for complicating the voting system. I want to put it on record that I am the only member of the committee who bears absolutely no responsibility for complicating the voting system. Had the Scottish Executive followed my sage advice, we would not have been having this discussion.

I value academic research as a guide to decision making; I think that Tommy Sheridan, who was talking about it, values it too. In fairness, his point was about selective recourse being made to academic research when it suits certain people's purposes, rather than an objection to the principle of commissioning academic research. There are question marks about the methodology that has been used in the research. Mike Rumbles referred to that in his speech, so I will not repeat it.

I return to my point that the number of candidates that is shown in the sample ballot paper is not representative. The minister referred to the Electoral Reform Society's perception of the likely number of candidates on a ballot paper, and its analysis is correct—it accords with what, in my experience, political parties are gearing up to do. I do not think there will be a single ward in Edinburgh or Lanarkshire that will have anything like 14 candidates. The reality is that there is likely to be a decline in the number of independent candidates who will stand in the forthcoming election. If one looks at the areas of the country in which independent councillors were elected, one can see that a number of them are opting to stand under a party and not an independent label. That is because of the much larger geographical area that they are being asked to represent.

I stand by what I said earlier. In a three-member ward, we will be lucky to see five or six candidates—that will be the typical number; in a four-member ward, the likelihood is that there will be six or seven candidates. I will wager with anyone at the committee that that is the likely outcome, when we see the nomination process. That being the case, the research is flawed. Never mind whether the people were spontaneously dragged off the street, the research proceeded on the wholly erroneous assumption that there would be 10 or 14 candidates. The ballot paper that people were presented with and asked to decide on was not a typical ballot paper.

One of my great mottoes as a Conservative is, "It is not necessary to change any more than it is necessary not to change." As members have said, people are familiar with the established order of our ballot papers. On the basis of the research, the case for change has not been made. If the case for change is not made, we should stick to what we have.

In my consideration of all aspects of the matter, including during the passage of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill that brought about the change, I have always taken the view that every party in Scotland is a minority party. I have always believed that it is wrong that people should have power invested in them when they do not have the support of a majority of the people. That is a principle to which I have always adhered.

As a member of the Labour Party, I have always made it clear that I consider myself to be a minority in my own group, because I believe in that principle. I have always supported electoral reform and take a keen interest in it. That is why I took a lot of interest in the subject when we made our visit to Ireland. I spoke to a number of Irish politicians about the system that operates in Ireland, because of its similarity to the system that we are introducing in Scotland.

In evidence that we heard from people, particularly those in Northern Ireland, I discovered that they thought that Northern Ireland was not a good comparator to use in considering the situation in Scotland. The social and religious divisions in that part of the world make the STV elections in Northern Ireland entirely different from those that are held in any other part of the world. That is a sad fact, but it is a fact. Using Northern Ireland as an example of how things operate was therefore not a good idea.

Members of different political parties in the Republic of Ireland, whom I met when on business with the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, told me that the only thing that people who take part in elections in the republic believe could make their system better would be for the parties to be grouped together. That was the only suggestion that people made in relation to simplifying the system. The suggestion would make little difference to the outcome, but would make it simpler for people to make their choice at the ballot box. I have taken those comments very much on board.

That viewpoint seems to be reflected in the evidence that the researchers obtained. Mike Rumbles's argument is a weak one. Mike Rumbles is a member of an Executive party. In disparaging the research that the minister presented, he disparages the Executive in commissioning the research and those who conducted it. That is not a strong position to take in making an argument.

When I hear talk of voter confusion, as I often do, my argument is that the electorate should be given much more credit than it is given. The electorate is a much more sophisticated body of people than the perspective of those who take part in the electoral system from the elected representative side would lead us to believe.

It was unfortunate that the phrase "donkey voting" was used in the paper. We should worry about donkey parties putting forward arguments that do not merit the time of day. We want to take forward a system that will benefit the electorate and the governance of this country. For that reason I will support option A, because it does all the things that we want. It simplifies the system but allows the electorate to choose by whom it wants to be governed, bearing in mind that no party in this country has a majority.

It is unfortunate that Michael McMahon referred, in his summing up, to the expression "donkey voting". That expression is to be found in the Farrell and McAllister report of 2003, on which Sylvia Jackson relied so much in her observations. The member shakes her head, but I refer her to page 3 of the SPICe briefing.

The fact of the matter is that the minister has been unable today to validate the research that was carried out. The research is suspect for that reason. We do not know whether it was weighted. All research depends on the questions that are asked. As David McLetchie indicated, if we present people with a sample voting paper that resembles a ballot form in an Indian general election, we should not be surprised when they say that it looks terribly confusing, whereas the reality is somewhat different.

Michael McMahon made a point about social and religious divisions in Northern Ireland. I understand that there are such divisions, but I do not see how their existence makes people more able to identify the party for which folk are standing. People in Northern Ireland read the ballot paper, which is what folk here would do.

The minister contends that his suggestion would make the system less complicated. However, he ignores totally the fact that decoupling the Scottish Parliament elections from the local government elections would have done that. People are used to the current system, which is to list candidates alphabetically. The minister proposes to change that by listing candidates alphabetically within party blocks that are listed alphabetically. That change could be somewhat confusing.

The examples that were used to support the blocking system are extremely poor. Reference was made to Malta, which has extremely polarised voting trends—for other reasons—and to Australia, where there is compulsory voting. In Australia, the political parties now determine the prioritisation of candidates on the list; in some states, when people vote for a party, that party orders the list on their behalf. The regional list system for the Scottish Parliament elections, which involves much the same thing, is discredited in many people's opinion. The SNP and I do not believe that the system should continue in its current form, because it gives the parties too much control. The system that the minister proposes is the first step down that road. It goes against the ethos of STV, which is to put power back into the hands of the people, delivers it into the hands of the parties and makes it far easier for the parties to regiment and order the process so that they can achieve the outcome that they seek.

Such an approach is alien to our system. The two instances in which it has been adopted—the second vote for the Scottish Parliament elections and the requirements for the ordering of lists in European Parliament elections—are not a great advert for it and suggest that we should not go down that road for local elections. At the end of the day, people elect individuals, not parties. That is a fundamental part of the process. In local government, in particular, we should not start to nibble away at it.

I am intrigued by some of the comments that were made about Australia. Are members trying to suggest that in some way Australia is not a proper democracy? I thought that we would all regard Australia as a fully functioning democracy; it is certainly not a country that would take kindly to the suggestion that its electoral system is gerrymandered. That is the implication of Maureen Watt's comments about gerrymandering.

Tommy Sheridan made points about research and academics, and suggested that the Executive chooses the academic research with which it agrees. However, all members of the Parliament tend to quote research that supports their position. The Executive is no different from any political party that is represented in the Parliament. People tend to draw attention to the research that bolsters their own position.

I find it surprising that people disparage the submissions that have been made by the likes of Age Concern. After all, that group has a lot of experience in working with older people. The view has been expressed that older people in particular may find the new ballot papers confusing, which would suggest that the first option that the minister put forward, option A, would be the better one.

I would not want the committee to make a recommendation at this stage in response to Tommy Sheridan's suggestion of a "none of the above" option, because we have not discussed that possibility in any detail or taken any evidence on it. To add such an option would strike me as making policy on the hoof. I do not see that it would necessarily add to the democratic process. I think that that is a debate for another day—Tommy Sheridan is perfectly entitled to advance it and others are entitled to argue for or against it. However, I would not advocate that the committee make such a recommendation today.

Mike Rumbles spoke about more power being given to the voter. In fact, that does not apply to every voter. More power is given to the voter only when there is a choice between different candidates from the one party. However, many parties will stand just one candidate in each ward so the voter will still have no choice—they either vote for that party's candidate or they do not. That is no different from the first-past-the-post system. Voters will have more choice when more candidates are put forward, but that will not happen in all cases.

On the question of party advantage, I do not think that there will be a great difference to the outcome of the election when it comes to how many candidates of each party are elected, whichever ballot paper is used. It is more likely that a small number of electors will, by accident, not cast their vote in the manner that they intended. However, I do not think that that will work to the advantage of one party or another. All that it will mean is that the voting intentions of a number of people—a small number, I believe—will not be properly reflected in the ballot.

For most of the people who are complaining about the research that was conducted, I suspect that it would not have mattered if the sample size had been a million. If it was simply a matter of the research being faulty, it would have been encouraging if some members had said to the minister that they would like the matter to be researched further, using a sample size of 10,000, 50,000 or whatever, and that they would take cognisance of what that research indicated about what the voters want.

Bruce McFee spoke about decoupling the local elections from the Scottish parliamentary elections and so on. The debate about decoupling has been had. Others have mentioned COSLA's view, which changed during the passage of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill—it was not consistent throughout.

Responding to Bruce McFee's point about the regional lists being largely discredited, I suggest that that is more to do with voters seeing people whom they have rejected at the ballot box emerging in the Parliament. We could perhaps reform the system in that area.

The key issues that we should be taking on board should not include the spurious arguments that have been made by a number of members. They should be about what the voters want. The whole point of a democratic system should be to reflect the views of the voters at the ballot box. It is clear from the research that has been done that the voters who were surveyed want a system that would allow the candidates to be grouped by party. If people had concerns about whether the survey was robust enough or whether a big enough sample was used, they should have made those point earlier, and we could have listened to the voters' views on the issue. My preferred option is to group candidates by party, which is option A as set out by the minister.

The minister may now respond to the debate before I ask members to make their decision.

First, I will respond to Maureen Watt's point about the public information campaign. Within the next few days members will receive a pack that will explain everything that has been done, from the compilation of boundaries straight through to the content and timeline of the public information campaign. It will also give more information about the order that will be placed and some of the election rules that will be required under the system. I hope that members will be reassured by our intention to do that.

In response to Mr Sheridan, it is important for me to say that I am not taking a sudden interest in Age Concern. During my previous public life and my time as Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, I did my best to work with such organisations, to take on board their views and to examine ways in which we could further their causes. My views on that particular topic are certainly not the result of taking a sudden interest.

If members' objections are based on the idea that the research that has been conducted is not sound or wide enough and they are not sufficiently reassured about the methodology that was used, I will be more than happy to go away and commission a far wider survey of the more usual number of just over 1,000 people. I will even be happy to agree the terms of reference with the committee if it believes that a further survey would be of benefit before it makes its decision.

I hear Mr McLetchie's plea that he is not responsible for the new STV system, but it sounds to me as if he is going to try and get some responsibility for a system that is more complicated than it needs to be. Mention was made of selective recourse to research. That is disappointing, because it seems to me that that merely tries to undermine the research that has already been conducted rather than proposing other methods of gathering information.

I did not use Malta and Australia as part of my case; I merely pointed out that although there were some areas—in Ireland, for example—that use that particular system, other areas of the world use the system that I prefer.

If the list system that is used for the Scottish Parliament elections is discredited, I would expect anyone who is a first-past-the-post candidate not to add to that discredit by allowing themselves to be a list candidate at the same time.

I am sure that you will tell Mr Peacock that.

Would you like to make that trade?

I am going anyway, so I do not mind.

I will let Tommy Sheridan in, but I do not want to reopen the debate.

You said that I would have another opportunity to make my point about the ballot paper and I do not see another opportunity coming. I am quite happy to take a drubbing in the committee, but I would like to suggest formally that my suggestion be investigated.

The issue was not on the agenda and it is not being consulted on in any way. If the committee were to vote on an issue that we had not debated or taken evidence on, that would be poor practice. I do not intend to create such a precedent.

I am asking only for the possibility to be investigated. The minister said that he would be willing to consider it. Are you ruling that out, convener?

I cannot rule out the minister considering your suggestion; that is a matter for the minister. I do not want to put the committee in a position whereby it is making policy on the hoof and deciding on something that a member has just thrown into a debate but which the committee has not examined in any way. That would be bad practice. What the minister does about the question that has been raised is entirely up to him; you can pursue that with the minister independently.

So the letter from the minister is to me and not to the committee—

I do not want to go any further with this debate. We should move to consideration. The minister has offered to do further research before the committee makes a decision. That is an option for the committee; do we want to do that?

I thought you said that we were going to have a vote after this hour and a half of debate.

The minister made an offer. I thought that I would put it to the committee.

It sounds to me as if you are not sticking to what we decided to do, which was to have a vote.

If the answer is no to the question about further research, that is fine.

An awful lot of what we have heard so far concerns the difficulty that some members have had with the research. The logical conclusion would therefore be to ask for further research to be done.

You just do not want to lose the vote; that is the point.

I seek clarification with regard to the fourth paragraph of the minister's letter. Minister, are you quite happy for there to be further research, and for all those dates to be sacrificed?

I have indicated to the committee that we will do all we can to facilitate further research if the committee feels that that will be of benefit. We will do that as speedily as possible.

The issue will come back to the committee on 16 and 23 January.

Yes, it will.

Will we have to vote again on 16 or 23 January?

We will have to vote if any member opposes the statutory instrument.

If the minister wants to come to the committee on 16 and 23 January and give the committee the benefit of the further research that has been conducted by the Scottish Executive, he can do that whether or not we agree today. Is that correct?

I think that that is correct.

We can therefore get on with our business, hold the vote, and the minister can publish his draft order. Then, on 16 and 23 January, and for the benefit of the Parliament on 25 January, if the minister has further research to lay before members, he can do so.

Yes. That is a possibility. I do not know how difficult it will be to get that research done over Christmas and new year, but the issue will come back to the committee.

It is clear that members want to convey their views at this stage. Will those members who believe that the Executive should adopt option A in the minister's letter—the grouping of candidates by party—please raise their hands? There are four. Will those members who favour option B—the alphabetical listing by candidate's name—please raise their hands? There are five.

The committee will send the minister, for his consideration, a letter that reflects the debate and our recommendation. I thank Tom McCabe and his officials for their presence at and participation in the committee's business this afternoon.

Meeting closed at 17:02.