Official Report 389KB pdf
I have changed the order of the agenda to keep together the items to be held in public.
On this day in 1863, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg address, which contained the famous phrase
The paper that we have circulated tries to present some of the issues pertaining to a rural area with regard to the STV system. We have used some local evidence to set out the needs and peculiarities of rural areas in relation to STV.
Neither the bill nor the Executive's white paper sets out a convincing argument for electoral reform. That would be a necessary first step in deciding on an electoral system that would be another major change for local government. That is predicated on the fact that the McIntosh commission and the Kerley group, which reported on the renewal of local democracy, indicated that two main factors had to be complied with before the introduction of any change to the electoral system: it should command public support and it should sustain and maintain the member-ward link. There is no evidence whatsoever that proportional representation would meet either of those criteria.
My questions are addressed primarily to the COSLA representatives. The film "Groundhog Day" was on television yesterday, and the committee is a bit like that film today, because COSLA's report is similar to that which it presented to the renewing local democracy inquiry.
It is predicted that proportionality will dilute the member-ward link. Obviously, first-past-the-post one member per ward is the strongest and most identifiable link between the electorate and elected representatives. A multimember system would dilute that.
I share Iain Smith's view about breaking down barriers and regaining respect, which is the basis of the bill. I agree with COSLA's proposals; however, it has not tackled the STV issue and the voting system, which is extremely important and goes a long way to encourage people to vote. If voters feel that they have elected the person against whose name they have put their cross, they will feel much happier and will, we hope, vote again in the next elections.
Councillor Scott says that the first five people on a list who are voted for in Hawick should be elected as representatives. However, that poses difficulties. Any political party would want to draw up a manifesto to put to the electorate, saying what it wanted to achieve during its period of office. If a coalition had not been constructed before the election process began, no manifesto could be put to the electorate. Alternatively, the manifesto would have to be rewritten as soon as the elections had taken place, as the make-up of the administration would not have been known in advance.
Let me follow up the answers to my initial question. You did not say why the link between councillors and the electorate is not as strong in a multimember ward as it is in a single-member ward. The evidence from the "Scottish Households Survey", which the committee received from John Curtice, was that only 8 per cent of the public have any contact with their local councillor and that only 43 per cent claim to know who their local councillor is. That does not suggest that there is a strong member-ward link.
No; I think that I made the argument. There is no stronger link with the community than having one elected member per ward working in the local authority for that area. As I said, the multimember system would lead to a dilution of that. Increased ward sizes would probably be required to allow that system to be accommodated. There would have to be changes to ward areas, and there would be a sense of loss within a community if ward areas were expanded and taken across different borders than exist at present.
I am unconvinced, to say the least.
So am I.
Let me follow up your comments on manifestos. Do you not think that local views on the manifesto of an administration are reflected in election results? For example, in Edinburgh in 1999, the Labour party went into the election with 40-plus per cent of the vote and came out with only 33 per cent of the vote but still had a majority. There was a similar result in Aberdeenshire, where the Labour party's support declined from more than 40 per cent to less than a third of the vote. Do you think that that shows that the electorate endorsed the manifestos of those administrations?
It is my impression that it did, because there was a manifesto there. Local government and the Scottish Parliament will hold their elections in 2003. Are we prepared to go in with coalition manifestos prior to the voting taking place? No. Candidates will have a manifesto that is presented by their party to convince the people to vote for that party. That manifesto would be torn up if a coalition was established.
My point is that, in the two circumstances that I chose to use as examples, the Labour party secured the vote of only a third of the people who voted. More than two thirds of the electorate voted against the manifesto that the Labour party went into the election with. Was it right that the Labour party could then implement that manifesto against the wishes of two thirds of the electorate?
The Labour party never had local government reform in its manifesto prior to the elections, but it has now. Any local party that is elected to the administration has had its manifesto ratified.
On coalition manifestos, in the Borders, we are used to coalitions. Most of the administrations that we have cobbled together in recent years have been coalitions, and they have worked fairly well. The Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and the Tories all had their own manifestos beforehand. The way of implementing a manifesto in a council is to be part of the administration. That is what makes coalitions work: the parties can achieve some of their manifesto commitments by being part of a coalition.
I ask David Hume for slight clarification. The Scottish Borders Council written submission says:
I prepared the submission in association with the council leader. It is not a paper from Scottish Borders Council, because we have not put it to the council and the council has not taken a view in that level of detail. The council's response to "Renewing Local Democracy" is to come out in support of proportional representation. However, given other priorities in the Borders, we have had no need to carry on and establish a full picture.
I am glad that you mentioned Stirling. We always think that we are ahead of the game.
That is because it has such good councillors.
You seem to be saying that, in the areas in which STV operates, councillors in a ward area work together in a better, more consensual way. Is that correct? If so, could you provide the committee with the evidence that you have been working on?
I made some reference in my submission to STV in Northern Ireland. I have also looked at research that was produced by the Commission on Local Government Electoral Arrangements in Wales, which examined similar questions in relation to STV. The one luxury that we have in the Borders is that we can look at the electoral system as part of an examination of our broad range of operations. One of the issues that we are considering in the Borders is integrated area management that is based on our local area committees. The council may well decide to go down that road.
With no disrespect to John Ross Scott or David Hume, I understand why it would be very difficult to get that paper through the council coalition in the Borders. The council has other issues to concern itself with. It is clear that electoral reform is not high on its agenda.
In its submission to the committee, Scottish Borders Council said that it was in favour of STV multimember wards. If Dr Jackson is keen to look at the development of cross-party liaison, she should look at a multimember ward in Newcastle, where she will find some really good multimember areas. Admittedly, the system is based on first-past-the-post elections with cross-party liaison working in an area, but it is very good.
I want to make a quick point to the representatives of Scottish Borders Council. The bill does not follow directly the Kerley recommendation of having between three and five members in each ward. It provides that there could be up to eight members, which means that rural areas would have the option of having fewer members in each ward. Would that satisfy your concerns on rurality?
Yes. I made that point earlier. In order to make the system work, we would need that flexibility, but we realise that it is a trade-off. It is conceivable that we could have five-member wards in the main towns of the Borders and identifiable geographical units with two or three members outside those areas. That is our caveat—we need such flexibility to make it work.
I want to direct some questions at COSLA. We had multimember wards in Scotland before 1975, not under a proportional representation system, but under a first-past-the-post system. Councillors were elected on a rotating basis, with a third being elected each time. Therefore, there is recent evidence of multimember wards in Scotland. Are you arguing that they did not work and that they are a bad thing? Do you not think that they achieved the councillor-ward link that you are talking about?
Before the 1974 changes, 12 elected members represented the area that I represent now. That was a dramatic reduction in the number of representatives. I still contend that the single-member ward creates the strongest link possible between the electorate and an elected representative.
Have the COSLA representatives always been opposed to electoral reform?
I have always operated—
I am asking whether COSLA has always opposed electoral reform.
COSLA has been asked to give evidence on electoral reform. The consultation was undertaken, and COSLA's position is that it is for the status quo.
When the McIntosh commission consulted, COSLA's position was clear: it favoured electoral reform, provided that the strong link between councillor and constituent was maintained. What has changed?
I can only represent the current membership of COSLA and the vote that was taken in August. I must reflect the membership's opinions and decisions. COSLA's decision was in favour of the status quo. There is no evidence to suggest that electoral reform is required.
I want to pick up on the weaknesses of the status quo. Sylvia Jackson rightly asked for evidence of how STV works in the countries and areas that use it. We may not have that evidence at the moment, but we have evidence from the Scottish Executive, which commissioned research in 1999 on perceptions of local government under the first-past-the-post system. The research found:
That idea has obviously been presented to you. There is ample evidence of a link between using services and having a positive perception of local government, while those who do not use the services have a negative stereotype of local government.
That is not my point. There is evidence that, with the first-past-the-post system, the identity of councillors within a ward is not too important, in the view of constituents. Some of the reasons that are given in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper for not voting under the first-past-the-post system are that:
I suggest that your points are more to do with the status of local government. You said that people do not vote because nothing changes as a result of voting. That might be the result of central control and direction from Parliament as to what local government can and cannot do or the ring fencing and direction of finances that are at the disposal of local government. It is obvious that, when we are allocated funds, it is in the best interests of the people whom we represent that we address their needs and requirements, but that clearly does not happen in the current system. The other factors that I mentioned to enhance the status of local government would do far more to increase participation and raise the status of local government with the electorate.
I have a simple question for both witnesses, then a follow-up question. Would the introduction of STV have any impact on the public's engagement with local authorities and local elections? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Earlier, I said that the main impact would be that people would understand that if they voted for a candidate, they would have a better chance of getting that person elected, which would encourage them to vote. Given the rest of the package in the bill, I think that the introduction of that system would have an impact.
I think that the introduction of that system would have a negative impact. It was evident that some negativity was displayed in the Scottish parliamentary elections because of the change in the electoral system to one that certainly cannot purport to be a democratic electoral system. A member who stands under the first-past-the-post system could be elected under the list system if defeated, but he might not receive a single vote from those whom he wishes to represent. I think that there would be a negative impact and the change to a d'Hondt system would not rest easily with the electorate. An election under the STV system for local government on the same day as Scottish parliamentary elections would have a serious impact on participation.
I asked that question because we are losing sight of why many people think there should be change. The matter is not about somebody being elected; it is about people being represented and being able to take part in the democratic process. It is obvious that not only members of the committee but people in the country think that the electorate is not coming out to vote for the reasons that Iain Smith and Tricia Marwick have given. If two thirds of the electorate vote for a party, but only a third of that party's members is elected, people think that voting is not worth while. We are starting to lose sight of that, which is why I take issue with Councillor Purcell when he says that there is absolutely no evidence in favour of electoral reform.
There are 24 local authorities in Scotland that are in favour of the COSLA position, which is the status quo. That leaves eight authorities that favour some type of electoral reform, but there is no agreement among those eight authorities on the type of electoral reform that they would like to be put in place.
So they are not actually against electoral reform per se.
You mentioned that the important issue is voter participation. Electoral reform will not increase voter participation. I mentioned people's perception that there is no need for them to vote. Other dimensions inform how effective local government can be in meeting the aspirations of the electorate. I have also mentioned the constraints that are currently faced. The unconstitutional position of local government does nothing to enhance that perception.
As far as I am concerned, it is a question of putting people before politics, but perhaps that is a Borders thing. Last week I was in Dumfries, where there has been gerrymandering by the Tories to try to get the boundaries right so that they can win a seat there. There is evidence to suggest that a little of that goes on in the party-political arena in Scotland—I will not name any names. The people rather than the parties should be our priority.
You have just mentioned names, and you have managed to upset Keith Harding.
I wish that you had not said that.
I refer back to the point that I made earlier. It does not help the argument if we consider the voting system exclusively, in isolation from anything else that local authorities do. Scottish Borders Council's view is that we should provide services in a joined-up way and be accountable at local level. To put it simply, in the Borders, it is likely that we will move to a system of area management where, for the bulk of services, the buck stops with the communities.
In my view, proportional representation would strengthen councils, because it has been proven that more women, young people and—with the whole package in place—business people would be elected. That would take away from the fairly octogenarian type of activities that take place at the moment in council circles. It is bound to invigorate councils and what they do.
Does Councillor Purcell wish to add to that?
The question was about whether proportional representation would lead to stronger local government. I do not think that it would; I think that it would weaken local government. As the committee will be aware, a number of local authorities have changed their political management structures and operate cabinet systems. I do not think that coalitions lend themselves to the cabinet system, in respect of giving direct steers to officers when policy decisions have to be made. As Professor Curtice indicated at the COSLA convention in Crieff earlier this year, there would be little change to the political control of local authorities in Scotland under a system of proportional representation.
Multimember wards have been mentioned quite a lot. In the Borders in particular, have you considered the additional administrative burden that they create? I know as a list member of the Scottish Parliament that each constituency has eight MSPs, and that each MSP trails the same problems. I get constant complaints from the three chief executives with whom I deal about duplication and the amount of paperwork that all those people create. The same would happen in multimember wards. All the members would be chasing the same problems, because in most cases they would be from different political parties and they would not co-operate, as we have found here—it does not happen. I co-operate, but some members do not, and that creates conflict.
I accept what you say, but that is politics. There will be people who want to get involved in other people's business, in particular when they are from different political parties. I do not think that multimember wards would be as difficult as the list system has proved to be with regard to cherry picking by some list members—I do not mean Keith Harding, I hasten to say, although I do not know. I joke. Cherry picking would probably carry on between list members and first-past-the-post members in wards, because that is the way of politics, but it would happen regardless of whether STV was brought in, because it happens with first past the post.
I do not think that it happens to the same extent. If five members represent Hawick and they are of three or four political persuasions—they would not all be of different persuasions—three or four different views will be illustrated to council officers, who will be at a loss as to how to resolve the situation.
I have one final question. Do you believe that the Kerley working group report was flawed, as it was not asked to consider first past the post as one of the options?
I can answer on behalf of COSLA. I believe that it was flawed, because that option was not available; it was Hobson's choice.
I may be wrong, but I think that Kerley was asked specifically to go in that direction because first past the post was proven, tried and tested and in place, so everyone was fairly well aware of it. The new aspect was whether something else would be of benefit.
It would have been helpful to have a comparison.
Yes.
I have a comment that the witnesses may wish to say something about, which follows on from Sandra White's point. If I remember correctly, Keir Bloomer from Clackmannanshire Council gave evidence to us and said that although we are talking about PR, there are wider concerns, as outlined by George Purcell, about engaging the public more in the local democracy programme. We have discussed that today. Do you agree that PR on its own will not solve all the problems?
The system that we are talking about is not the same as the system for the Scottish Parliament.
Just keep to the issue of multimember wards.
One strength of a multimember ward is that members of the local population have a choice about whom to go to. That choice might be based on a political preference, the issue of the moment or an elected member's position in the decision-making structures of the council. Multimember wards also allow people who have difficulties dealing with one elected member to take their concern to another member. Multimember wards open up choices for the electorate.
I disagree. The multimember ward system would lead to confusion. On the point about members' political persuasion, the citizen who goes to a councillor is not concerned about politics; they want a leaking pipe sorted or their bin emptied properly. The single-member ward system would allow the single member to take on responsibilities. Under a multimember system, if an answer from one elected member did not suit the citizen, they would go to the next elected member and the next one and so on. All those elected members would approach council officers for an opinion on the issue, which would lead to confusion and the perception that local government is too cumbersome and bureaucratic.
Councillor Scott said that Newcastle City Council has a multimember ward system and that useful information is available. I would be happy to see any evidence that explains how such a system can work reasonably. As yet, nobody has produced such evidence.
I reiterate that Newcastle uses a first-past-the-post system, so it is perhaps not a great example, although it has multimember wards. In each ward, three or four members work together and come to an agreement on which areas they will represent. I think that, in the system for the Scottish Parliament, most of the Conservative and SNP list members have designated areas. That is certainly true for the south of Scotland. Murray Tosh deals with the Borders and David Mundell has the central area of the south of Scotland. The members' areas do not overlap.
The present system is supported through a range of protocols and ways of working. Elected members observe protocols in going about their business and dealing with members in other wards. From an officer's point of view, it is conceivable that multimember wards would work effectively if members held to given protocols about how they should operate and deal with queries and questions. If the existing protocols work, there is no reason why we could not devise a similar set of protocols to support the multimember ward system.
We could probably argue this topic all night and not convince anyone to change position. I want to raise a couple of points that the committee has responsibility for considering in its stage 1 report: first, the adequacy of the consultation on the bill; and secondly, the adequacy of the accompanying documents.
The financial memorandum, as I read it, is not accurate. Costs for local government elections fall to local councils. Our paper stated that there would be other costs, especially in the early stages, for voter education, IT software, training and so on. Those costs would have to be met.
Frankly, the documentation is probably not enough. Currently, there is huge frustration within local government. In my view, the Scottish Executive has failed people and missed a golden opportunity to shine by not moving forward with the McIntosh and Kerley recommendations sooner. My predecessor and others have shouted long and hard at the Executive to get its act together and to move on this subject. Everything should have been in place for next May. It would have had a huge impact on local government. As it is, the voting system will more than likely be delayed until the next elections.
I agree with John Ross Scott about the work that is required when promoting a bill that could make a fundamental change to local government in Scotland. We should have learned the lessons from local government reorganisation. That was proceeded with in haste and we are still living with the consequences.
The witnesses from COSLA will be aware that the policy memorandum is entirely my responsibility. However, responsibility for the financial resolution rests with the Executive, and the Executive will no doubt identify all the potential costs in the stage 1 debate.
That was Professor Curtice's opinion.
He said that only a small number of councils would change political control, but surely the issue is political representation, not political control. Do you think that it is a fair system that gives Labour 94 per cent of the seats in Midlothian Council on 46 per cent of the vote when the SNP has 31 per cent of the vote and no seats? Is it fair in Angus Council where the SNP has 72 per cent of the council seats on a vote of only 47 per cent, while Labour polled 18 per cent of the vote and has only three seats, or in East Dunbartonshire where the Liberal Democrats have won 42 per cent of the seats on 27 per cent of the vote, or in Stirling where the Conservatives have achieved 41 per cent of the seats on 27 per cent of the vote? Do you believe that the system is fair in Midlothian, Angus, East Dunbartonshire or Stirling Councils? Is the issue not about political representation for voters rather than political control for a small band of people who would like to keep it?
On the remark at Crieff—that was Professor Curtice's impression from the analysis that he had undertaken. I referred to it to show that even a tumultuous change like that would not have much of a direct impact on the composition of local authorities, but it would have a big impact on the electorate in respect of the confusion that would surround the change.
We have exhausted all the questions. I thank the witnesses for coming along and giving us your time. I am sorry that we have had to keep you waiting.
Thank you, convener. We are grateful for the chance to come back to the committee and give evidence this afternoon.
Thank you. I was going to ask you about consultation, because the committee has to address it when we move to the general principles of the bill. However, you have answered my question by saying that you think that there has been enough consultation. As you said, the bill is an enabling bill. Do you think that there is an argument for having more detail of the proposed system in the bill?
That is not strictly necessary. The bill proposes something similar to what happened in Northern Ireland. The author of the bill is here, so perhaps she could confirm whether she read the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. It looks pretty similar. There is not a lot of detail in the bill. The Parliament could enact it and establish the principle. The detail and the "when" could be left entirely to the Parliament. The bill is not prescriptive and I do not see any contradiction in having an open-ended establishment of STV in a bill and having the detail worked out later, given that it has already happened in part of the British state—Northern Ireland, 30 years ago.
Good evening. At the outset I have to say that I did not raise the question of consultation—it was Iain Smith.
I believe that what can be done in Northern Ireland can be done in Scotland. I really do not think that the issues are insurmountable and that we cannot introduce STV in 12 weeks. Northern Ireland faced exactly the same problems that we would face if we were to try to implement STV prior to 2003. It is possible to introduce STV in 12 weeks. Previous witnesses have made the point that we do not need a wholesale redrawing of the local government ward boundaries to implement the single transferable vote system in principle. It can be done through broad amalgamation of existing wards. It would make sense to take the opportunity of a review such as this to re-examine some of the boundaries, but there is no absolute need to redraw boundaries; we just need an amalgamation of existing boundaries. That is not a difficult technical matter.
Tricia Marwick's memorandum says that the boundary commission would have to make recommendations on new electoral wards if STV were introduced. At the moment, the commission is tied up with creating new constituencies for Westminster. Where will it find the time to examine local government ward boundaries in the next 12 weeks?
I take your point, because I just gave evidence to the commission on the Westminster seats—across the road in the city chambers. I know that it is busy at the moment. But I do not think that it is impossible to implement STV prior to 2003. If it can be done in Northern Ireland in three months, I do not see why it could not be done in Scotland in three months.
How can we get it through the legislative programme in time, bearing in mind the commitments that have already been made?
That is more a matter for you than for me—it is a matter of political priority.
It is a matter for the Administration, not for the Conservative party.
I, too, know Willie Sullivan. Whenever I listen to Andrew Burns, I find that he is always most persuasive. No one around the table would disagree with the view that PR is a real incentive to vote. There is no doubt about that.
I will begin by discussing the councillor-ward link within multimember wards. The system works in England and in Ireland. The Electoral Reform Society has done studies on that. As you have asked about evidence a few times, we could obtain those studies and pass them on to the committee. There have also been a few academic studies and various pieces of research by the McIntosh commission.
I want to go into more detail. Although STV might work, we want the best system. You say:
The term "member-ward link" is used frequently. We need to unpack it, because it can be difficult to understand. We are talking about a psychological link between the member and the citizen, which is about much more than just being in a geographical area. That psychological link is reinforced by action. The democratic action of voting reinforces that link more than just living in an area does.
Does the evidence show that members of the electorate would go to the councillor for whom they voted, rather than to the other four or five councillors? Is that how the system works? Is that how duplication is avoided?
That is probably true, but it is difficult for us to think outside a system that we are all used to working within. STV is about giving the electorate a choice, and that can only be better for democracy.
I am asking what happens in practice. In STV systems, will electors usually stick to one councillor whom they contact or will there be the kind of duplication that exists at the moment in the Scottish Parliament?
The Scottish Parliament is different because it has two types of member, whereas in an STV system the members would have the same democratic legitimacy because they would have been elected under the same system. The element of choice is perhaps a problem for the politicians, but you must ask yourselves whether it is a problem for the citizens. What happens in Ireland is probably the best example of an STV system. We will get you some information on that. I ask Amy Rodger to say a bit about the research.
When you talk about duplication, you are approaching the situation from the politicians' point of view. The voting system should not exist to make life easier for the politicians; it should exist to make life easier for the voters. The problem of duplication arises when a voter does not get the service that they think that they should be getting from the politician or councillor whom they have approached first. If they do not get that service, they should be able to approach another councillor to try to get a better service. That may be inconvenient for the politicians, but the system should be about the voter getting the best out of their representatives.
I could come back on that issue, but I will not.
No, you will not.
Having PR and STV wards would increase choice if a woman wanted to speak to a woman representative, if an elderly person wanted to speak to an older representative or if a young person wanted to speak to a younger representative. Those choices could exist in a multimember ward but would not exist in a single-member ward—unless some very odd councillors were elected.
The evidence is overwhelming. Going back four or five years, the McIntosh commission took an unbelievable amount of evidence from thousands of individuals, community groups, businesses and other organisations. The evidence showed that PR was wanted in the local government democratic process. Later, Richard Kerley clearly found that, of the PR systems that he considered, the STV system was the choice of most groups and individuals. The evidence that you gathered over the summer was—almost unbelievably—94 per cent in favour of an STV system for local government elections. Back in 2000, System 3 conducted an opinion poll based on the question, "Would it be fairer to have elections under a PR system?" Again, right across the political spectrum and including those of no party, three quarters of the people surveyed supported the idea of having PR in local government elections. The evidence for PR—and for the STV system in particular—is overwhelming.
I inform Stewart Maxwell that the evidence that was taken over the summer was taken by the Scottish Executive, not by the committee.
I declare an interest. Although I do not know Willie Sullivan, I know Stewart Maxwell.
No. I draw your attention to the evidence that was given to the committee by the electoral returning officers. They made it clear that, as long as there is adequate voter education, there should be no confusion. It is patronising to think that punters—ordinary voters—cannot cope with electoral systems. Although this might sound like a pun, the whole thing is as easy as one, two, three; it is not difficult or complicated. Compared with previous first-past-the-post elections, there were very few spoiled ballot papers in 1999 when, because of simultaneous local government and parliamentary elections, we had both additional member system and first-past-the-post elections on the same day. I am absolutely confident that voters would cope perfectly well if we had STV and AMS elections on the same day. The bigger question is whether local councils—I will not mention which ones—can count up the votes.
The evidence suggests the contrary to what you implied in your question. For example, people in Northern Ireland cope admirably with a list system for elections to the European Parliament and a first-past-the-post system for UK parliamentary elections on the same day. Research that was carried out in 1999 among voters who took part in the first Scottish Parliament elections showed that they experienced little or no confusion.
Would the introduction of PR or an STV system mean greater democracy for the people of Scotland?
Yes.
Yes.
Perhaps I should repeat what we said when we last gave evidence to the committee. We are not claiming for a second that we could magically add 10 or 15 per cent to the turnout. However, there is evidence to suggest that turnout would increase by 2, 3 or 4 per cent, which is still a significant rise. For all the reasons that Willie Sullivan, Amy Rodger, Stewart Maxwell and others have mentioned, such a system would improve democracy no end.
Do you accept that this whole discussion is about STV, not PR itself? The fact that some members might have had a bad experience with the voting system for the Scottish Parliament elections is not entirely helpful. We are dealing with STV. The system that was chosen for the Scottish Parliament elections had all the hallmarks of a political fix. Do you accept that an STV system is much more akin to what people, rather than politicians, actually want?
We at Fairshare would say yes. Rather worryingly for politicians—of which I am one—the STV system takes power away from political parties and puts it into voters' hands. Frankly, that scares the hell out of politicians. However, as a democrat, I am all in favour of such a system, as it would break down party control and give individual voters greater political control. I do not doubt that, after several years of STV in local government elections, the Scottish Parliament will be keen to change its voting system.
I should point out that that is not Fairshare's view—that is Andrew Burns's personal view.
Well, I share that view.
I am in danger of repeating myself. There is no practical reason why that could not happen before 2003. However, it is up to you and your colleagues in the Scottish Executive—not us—to address any questions of political will and realpolitik in that respect. Our clear campaign objective is to see STV on the statute book as quickly as possible. We still think that that could be done in 2003. There is nothing to prevent the bill's enactment at least to establish the principle, as happened in 1972. The Scottish Executive's bill—which the minister confirmed is on its way and will include STV—could come along later and expand on all the detail that Sylvia Jackson was asking for. There is no reason why those two pieces of legislation cannot happen sequentially. As I said, the question whether that happens—like the question of realpolitik—is a matter for you and your MSP colleagues in the Executive.
I thank the witnesses for attending this afternoon. You have been here before and I am sure that you will be here again. I am sorry that we kept you so late.
Meeting suspended until 17:37 and thereafter continued in private until 18:09.