Plenary, 05 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, October 5, 2000

Official Report 715KB pdf

---

Local Government

We move to the next item of business, which is the Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1239, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on proportional representation in local government, and amendments thereto.

I hope that my speech will be less controversial than my tie has been this morning.

In July 1999, we debated the report of the McIntosh commission on local government and the Scottish Parliament. The report recommended that:

"Proportional representation (PR) should be introduced for local government elections. A review should be set up immediately, to identify the most appropriate voting system for Scottish local government, with a view to legislation which should take effect in time to govern the next council elections in 2002 . . . The criteria to be used in determining the system or systems of PR to be adopted for Scottish local government should be

proportionality

the councillor-ward link

fair provision for independents

allowance for geographical diversity and

a close fit between council wards and natural communities.

. . . Of the possible electoral systems, AMS, STV and AV Top-up should be given particular consideration."

The Minister for Communities subsequently established the all-party renewing local democracy working group, chaired by Richard Kerley. The remit included

"the most appropriate system of election",

taking into account the five criteria that were established by McIntosh.

Why change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, the system is broke.

I am sure that members are aware of a certain council, not too far from here, where one party with less than half the vote holds such an overwhelming number of seats that the main opposition party can muster only two members. For donkey's years, the administration has been able to ensure complete domination of the council, knowing that it has only a rump opposition, unable to provide an effective political challenge and struggling to ensure democratic accountability and scrutiny. In that council, members of the ruling party standing for election are almost guaranteed a place on the council, simply because of their political allegiance. It cannot go on. We cannot continue with one party completely dominating on less than half the vote, as happens in SNP-run Angus Council.

In Angus, the SNP has one councillor for every 1,063 votes that are cast; Labour has only one councillor, despite the fact that the party gained 8,931 votes. Is it right that an SNP vote in Angus is worth eight times a Labour vote? I think not. If we look elsewhere in Scotland, we will see a similar pattern. New Labour, the party of government in Holyrood and Westminster, is discriminated against by an out-of-date and unfair system that has given Labour only one seat out of 36 in Argyll and Bute, one out of 34 seats in the Borders and none of the 68 seats in Aberdeenshire.

What about the voters? As Kerley stated in his report, where a seat never changes hands

"and the same party gets its candidate home repeatedly, even by a narrow margin and on a small minority of the vote. . . . those who do not support it never get the effective use of their votes, and this produces two ill effects - fatalism and disillusion on the part of voters and complacency on the part of the winning party. Both are bad for democracy. The essence of the case for proportional representation is that it produces a result which more fairly represents the spectrum of opinion within the electorate."

That is where there is a choice. However, in much of Scotland, voters have no opportunity even to cast a vote—let alone a vote for their favoured party—or to see their party of choice elected.

In last year's local government elections, 59 wards were uncontested. In Alex Salmond's constituency, the shambolic nature of the local unionist parties allowed five SNP councillors to be elected unopposed, leaving voters with no choice. Across Scotland's 1,222 wards, new Labour failed to field candidates in 262 wards. The Tories did not field candidates in 499 wards, the Liberal Democrats did not field candidates in 499 wards, including, astonishingly, all 92 Ayrshire seats, and the SNP did not field candidates in 165 wards. Tens of thousands of voters were denied any choice, let alone the option to vote for their preferred party.

We need a system that will increase voter choice, between candidates and not only between parties. We need a system that will ensure that no vote is wasted and that puts power in the hands of the electorate, rather than the selectorate. We must eliminate the anomaly that means Labour can win overall control of Aberdeen Council and City of Edinburgh Council on 32 per cent of the vote while the SNP in East Ayrshire gained 51 per cent of the vote and remain in opposition.

We need a system that does not discriminate against parties that appeal across the social and geographic spectrum, in favour of those with, traditionally, a much narrower focus and relatively concentrated vote. We need a system that will be a cornerstone of a modern and responsive local government, able to improve service delivery more effectively and efficiently. We need a system that works for urban, rural and mixed authorities and one that meets the five criteria set out by McIntosh, which form the cornerstone of Kerley's work. That system is the single transferable vote.

Let us consider choice. Under STV, we would have multi-member wards of three to five members, or two in the most sparsely populated areas, reflecting natural communities. All councillors would be elected in the same way. Under STV, voters would not have to consider tactical voting, supporting a candidate of dubious merit out of party loyalty or the fatalist view that no one else could win in that ward. Voters would not be stuck with a candidate who may have been deselected from another part of the local authority and selected unopposed in a smoke-filled room by three men, or women, and a dug. They could choose between two, three or even four individuals from the same party who are standing in the same multi-member ward, and perhaps give their second or third preference to an individual from another, or no, party. Over time, that would weed out less effective members and improve the calibre of councillors and the quality of representation.

Parties that are unable to contest every seat under the current system would be much more able to select and field candidates, leading to fewer uncontested wards or wards where voters have no opportunity to vote for their favoured party. Political parties would gain strength where they currently are under-represented, and also would gain through an improvement in the quality of councillors where they are successful already. The possibility of more hung councils would inject co-operation and more innovative ideas into local government, given that single parties are not the font of all knowledge, and would make committee or executive meetings more meaningful. Indeed, policy making would be likely to be debated and analysed more thoroughly with more councillors involved in the decision-making process, leading ultimately to better service delivery.

In councils where a party clearly has lost the confidence of two thirds or more of the electorate, one-party administration would be impossible, just as it would be impossible to gain 31 per cent of the vote, as the SNP did in Midlothian, and have no elected representatives. Such a democratic deficit is no longer acceptable following McIntosh and Kerley.

How does STV shape up against the five McIntosh criteria? As everyone in the chamber will agree, no system is perfect. We need a balance, for example, between the impact of any system on proportionality and the member-ward link. STV maximises the use of each vote to ensure that the representatives who are elected in a ward reflect voting patterns. Voters simply vote for their favoured candidates—1, 2, 3 in order of preference—by party, or whatever other criteria they consider to be important, using a single ballot paper. From the total votes cast a quota is calculated, which is the minimum number of votes that is needed for a candidate to be elected. Elected candidates have their surplus votes transferred in proportion to their next preference. The candidate coming last drops out, and his or her votes are transferred to their voters' next preference. In that way, all votes are fully utilised. The greater the number of councillors per ward, the greater the proportionality.

As for the ward-member link, each elector would have an equal link to several councillors, and a choice of whom they wished to advocate for them. Multi-member wards existed in Scotland prior to 1975, albeit the members were elected by the first-past-the-post system. In England and Wales that system still exists, and appears to present little difficulty. The Tories introduced STV in multi-member wards in Northern Ireland, and no one would argue that that has been unsuccessful. Given that parliamentary constituencies are considerably larger than any ward would be under STV, I doubt that anyone in the chamber would argue about the weakness of the constituency-voter link.

In any case, members may wish to reflect on whether it is the primary function of elections to elect individual councillors, determine who should form the administration, or both. If it is the first of those, it is clear that under the current system many voters never have a chance to express judgment on how well their councillor performs anyway, given frequent boundary changes, deselections and retirements.

Independents would be just as able to win election under STV as anyone else, and in an urban setting perhaps more so. Kerley makes it clear that geographical diversity can be served, even in areas that are represented exclusively by independents, with STV, given the flexibility that is proposed in the number of councillors. That flexibility should end the situation whereby so many councillors are elected unopposed.

As far as establishing a close fit between wards and natural communities is concerned, all parties in this chamber have expressed great concern about current boundaries, which often cut through the heart of communities. Larger wards under STV would limit the risk of dividing communities, or combining areas that have no community feeling. It is for those reasons that Kerley concluded that STV is the most appropriate electoral system for local government.

What of the other systems that McIntosh suggested should be looked at? Briefly, the additional member system, or AMS, which is the system that we have here in Parliament and which was cobbled together as a second-best compromise between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and the additional vote plus system, or AV-plus, fail the McIntosh criteria. While they meet the proportionality test, they both result in two categories of councillor—ward and list—which breaks the ward link for list councillors, who would cover the whole council. That would present considerable difficulties in the Highlands and elsewhere. In addition, voters would have no direct voice in compiling party lists, which would put power in the hands of party apparatchiks, not the public. Independents would be discriminated against when additional lists are allocated. Unless there was a substantial increase in councillor numbers there would have to be considerable redrawing of ward boundaries.

The Kerley group was hand-picked by the Executive and it has spoken, so why, months after publication of the Kerley report, is the Executive procrastinating and prevaricating on this issue? One could argue that the next council elections are too close—hardly. STV could easily be introduced for the next elections by merging existing wards. There is plenty time to do that. Local authorities are already implementing other McIntosh recommendations, and looking closely at Kerley.

I am saddened by the Executive amendment, which is simply an attempt at delay. I hope that Labour members will remember that it is the chamber that legislates on the matter and not the Jimmy Hoods or Charlie Gordons of this world. We must not yield to pressure from Westminster or council chambers on the matter.

What of the Lib Dems? I am confident that they will see the Executive amendment for the holding operation that it is. It is a fudge to delay the day of reckoning, but the issue can be kicked into the long grass no further. We all know that STV is a fundamental Lib Dem manifesto commitment, which that party is determined to implement. That is why I am confident that our Lib Dem colleagues will snub the Executive and come on board today on this issue. I welcome that support.

On 9 September, Donald Gorrie said in The Scotsman:

"If we don't get it"—

electoral reform on the statute book before the next council elections in 2002—

"I believe most of my colleagues and the party in general would decide that the coalition should stop. This is my personal guess."

On 24 March, Andy Myles, former Liberal chief executive, said in the same newspaper:

"People had better start to accept that PR is going to happen. Labour is not going to get off the hook on this. Donald [Dewar] cannot dither . . . PR is on the way for local Government."

Come on in, folks—the water is lovely. Introducing the single transferable vote is best for democracy, best for local government and best for Scotland. I ask members to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of local government and resolves to implement the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for the next local government elections.

It is national poetry day and, after hearing Kenny Gibson, it would be appropriate to quote from the great imperial poet—not normally my reading material in the evenings—Rudyard Kipling:

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting to".

I hope that those words are a helpful contribution to the debate.

Kenny Gibson made a measured contribution and a substantial exposition on the nature of the STV system. I nearly changed my suit for an anorak after his speech. I want to touch on the fundamental issues that were mentioned by Kenny. I thank him for identifying some of the issues that the ministerial group is considering.

I remind the chamber that we said that on receiving the McIntosh recommendations we would follow an immediate programme of change, which would include progress on electoral reform. Wendy Alexander and I made a commitment on the first day of the Parliament to ensure that we considered that in the round. The all-party Richard Kerley working group was set up to identify a number of key principles and to consider the way in which we address the future governance of Scottish local government. Those are complex matters. They are not simple, definitive, soundbite matters—I will try to avoid those where possible in my contribution this morning.

We should recognise that there are many complex interactions. Kenny Gibson touched on the creation of the additional member system. That happened largely because the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party engaged in genuine discussion through the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The two main Opposition parties walked away from that democratic debate. The Presiding Officer was part of a process—intellectually, at least—that recognised the convention as a substantially important development for Scotland.

AMS has been developed elsewhere in Europe, largely because of the tension in trying to create the conception of a constituency link while maintaining a regional link. Those are issues that must be deliberated thoroughly and formally, which is why the ministerial working group was set up, post-Kerley.

The important thing to all councils in Scotland is that my contributions, and those of Wendy Alexander, do not happen in isolation but are part of a wider modernisation agenda. It is unfair to single out one issue and suggest that it is the cure for whatever ills there are in local government. People should judge the Executive parties on the way in which they address the complex matters of finance, language and partnership approach and there should be a fundamental recognition that we operate differently from the way that we operated in the past.

It is not a singular agenda. People do not have to be rocket scientists to know that there are divisions and differences within parties and across parties on the nature of electoral systems. There are those who favour electoral reform but not STV. There are those who favour electoral reform in its different definitions, whether it is AV or AV-plus. There are those who will argue consistently—and importantly for local government—that it is critically important to have a ward-member link. Kenny Gibson and I, and many others in the Local Government Committee, know that that is a compelling issue throughout Scottish local government. At a local level, it is the idea that people should identify with a particular individual where possible.

On the modernisation agenda, I do not want to reheat any of the contributions that I have made in the past. However, we should consider how local government is part of the process of change. That is why there are commitments in both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat manifestos about modernisation, the concept of community initiative and community planning and the issue of considering finance within local government. While we have delivered on those issues over the past year, we still have a long way to go, but that journey is worth making.

Kenny Gibson was right to say that the renewal of local democracy working group considered a number of important questions, which included the following. How does one widen council membership? How does one address the age profile, gender profile and ethnic profile of Scottish councillors? Those are legitimate issues and all parties should genuinely participate in a discussion about them. How do we recognise the time and commitment given by people to their role as elected councillors? Along with Kenny Gibson and many others in the chamber, I have played that role, and I know that the time involved in being a councillor is punishing and that the remuneration offered is punitive. We should have a genuine, open debate on those issues.

The ministerial working group is considering the Kerley report, which made 36 wide-ranging recommendations. Twenty-one recommendations were on widening participation in and membership of councils and addressing changes to existing structures within councils. Six related to the package of remuneration paid to a councillor and to the training and development of councillors. Four recommendations dealt with electoral systems and five with the size of councils.

It is important that we consider those recommendations in the round—we cannot avoid doing so. It is quite right and proper for the ministerial working group to deliberate on how those recommendations relate to the timing of future decisions on their implementation. The timing of those decisions is critical. We must get that right for the longer-term changes to Scottish local government.

The agenda is different in two respects from that of the previous reorganisation of local government, which had no democratic mandate: there was no cross-party consent for it and it did not recognise natural boundaries. Some local government boundaries are absurd and are based on parliamentary constituency boundaries, such as those for my own constituency, Glasgow Shettleston, which is divided by the River Clyde. I would have thought that the Clyde should have been considered to be a reasonably obvious natural geographic boundary when the ward and constituency boundaries were being drawn.

It is important that we address these questions properly, which is why a ministerial working group has been set up to consider them.

We are aware that, according to statute, local government elections are due to take place in 2002. Substantial submissions have been made to the Executive and to the Local Government Committee about whether those elections should run parallel to the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003. It is important that we recognise that the timing of elections will have an impact on the nature and structure of the electoral system, should that system change.

We are committed to making progress on many of the Kerley recommendations. However, it is important that we take into account the fact that the recommendations are complex and interrelate.

As we discuss local democracy, we must also take into account the role of the elector. Should we propose a system that assists and develops the elector's role? We must address whether introducing changes to the system will impact on the electorate's response to having three or four different electoral systems in different layers of democracy. Voter fatigue is a point that has been made to all parties—individuals tell us that there are far too many elections and that elections are held too frequently. The ministerial working group should also consider those legitimate issues.

We recognise that such widespread changes should take time to implement. I pay tribute to members of the partnership parties who are prepared to engage in that extensive debate. No doubt members of the Local Government Committee will identify how they should address the Kerley recommendations.

We must consider properly the debate around electoral reform, find an appropriate time scale and work out how to deliver much more effective local government. There are different views in the chamber on those issues, but those views will stimulate and contribute to the debate, both at ministerial level and at a wider parliamentary level. We must examine the recommendations over a period of time and arrive at appropriate conclusions.

I move motion S1M-1239.2, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"notes that the Partnership Agreement contains a commitment, following the publication of the final report of the McIntosh Commission, to an immediate programme of change including progress on electoral reform; notes too that the Executive established the Renewing Local Democracy Working Group chaired by Richard Kerley, and welcomes the decision by the Executive to establish a Ministerial Group to consider its recommendations and the Executive's commitment to continue to make progress on electoral reform and other issues relating to the modernisation of local government."

We believe that this debate is premature and should have awaited the outcome of the deliberations of the Scottish Executive's ministerial working group. It is obvious that the Scottish National Party is using this opportunity as a vain attempt to embarrass the Labour-Liberal coalition.

Scottish Conservatives have consistently opposed any moves towards proportional representation in local government elections. We support the present first-past-the-post system. I will elaborate on the reasons for that in a few moments. To some, it may seem strange that we oppose systems that have benefited us in the Scottish and European Parliaments. However, it is not about party games but about what we believe is best for the electorate. We support the first-past-the-post system because it provides strong governance with clear accountability to a party that wins an outright majority. It ensures that the electors, and not politicians, choose the ruling administration. Most important, it provides a direct link between the elected member and the people who elected him or her.

Will Mr Harding give way?

I would like to get started on my speech. We oppose proportional representation because it would remove the advantages of the current system and mean that administrations would be made up through deals among politicians in smoke-filled rooms after the election is over, as has happened in this Parliament.

A major reason why the Labour party has a firm and unfair grip on local government is the way in which local government boundaries are drawn. Although they are independently agreed, it is the councils themselves that initially draw them up. A draft is then agreed by the council on the votes of the ruling group and passed to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. We believe that that system is unfair and has allowed councils to manipulate boundary commission findings as they put together the first draft on which all proposals are based.

If the boundaries were more independently drawn up, it would negate some of the need for PR, as the electorate would be able to have more effect on the elected member that they would get and therefore on the council administration. At present, boundaries often stack up opposition votes in a small number of wards and spread the remainder thinly across the council.

Will Mr Harding give way?

No, I will not.

An example that has already been quoted is that of City of Edinburgh Council, where, despite gaining more votes than Labour in 1992, the Conservatives got fewer seats. Even a relatively large increase in votes for Conservatives may not change the administration. Meanwhile, Labour can maintain control and a similar percentage of seats, even with far fewer votes, because the distribution of votes and wards is weighted unfairly.

A new, fairer and more independent system for drawing up boundaries must be devised.

Will Mr Harding accept an intervention?

No thank you.

We believe that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland should start from scratch, rather than using the existing boundaries as a basis for change.

Will Mr Harding accept an intervention?

No thank you.

The commission should determine the first proposals for consultation and party groups on each council should then be asked for their comments, along with members of the public and other interested bodies. Redrawing boundaries will be essential if the Kerley proposals to reduce the number of councillors and to increase remuneration are implemented. Incidentally, we support those proposals, provided that they are self-financing.

We believe, in spite of what Kenny Gibson keeps saying, that the Kerley remit was flawed, as the working group was not allowed to consider PR alongside first past the post. Even within the Kerley committee there were differences of opinion, and we await with great interest the outcome of the deliberations of the ministerial task group.

The Scottish Conservative position on PR remains clear. We believe that the current first-past-the-post electoral system should remain for local government elections. To alter the system creates confusion, as Labour has now forced three different electoral systems on us at four levels of government.

Keith Harding was a member of Stirling Council for a number of years. Would he accept what Stirling Council's chief executive said in a report on community councils, which are now being elected by STV? It says that the introduction of STV has brought in

"an unprecedented degree of representative legitimacy".

He says that the representativeness increased because there was a postal vote, but I do not agree with his comments.

Proportional representation for local elections would mean yet another different system and even more confusion, and would lead to the danger of a change to the system for general elections. Any such change would be out of keeping with the British political system. For general elections, first past the post provides a clear result and leads to strong government. PR would most likely lead to permanent coalition government, with politicians controlling the agenda through secret deals such as we have seen in this Parliament.

Will Mr Harding give way?

Coalition government takes power from the electorate and concentrates it in the hands of politicians. It has led to the Liberals selling out on tuition fees for political power. The outcome of PR is that it becomes much harder to remove an unpopular Government, and clear victories, such as Labour's decisive win in 1997, would not be possible.

In local elections it is vital to retain the link between a councillor and the ward that he or she represents. It is only through that link that councillors remain responsive to the needs of their local communities and can provide the effective representation of local needs that the electorate value. That is best done by direct election of all councillors on a first-past-the-post basis at ward level. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, a principle that most people subscribe to and understand. However, if it becomes inevitable that some form of PR will be introduced in the Scottish local government elections, it is vital that it should retain the link between councillors and the communities that they represent. The alternative member system comes closest to meeting the criteria with which Kerley was presented for choosing a system, although it still has inherent flaws.

Will Mr Harding give way?

No, I will not give way. I do not have time.

The system has a high level of proportionality, at least partially retains the member-ward link and gives a fairer provision for independents. The system is already in place for this Parliament and so is understood by the electorate.

We would like this to be implemented in conjunction with directly elected provosts, where there is a demand, to retain strong governance and give the electorate the chance to change the administration quickly at the next election.

In conclusion, any form of PR will increase the number of councillors who are elected from parties that are proportionally under-represented, as the Conservatives have been in recent elections. We would be likely to increase our number of seats throughout Scotland under PR, but we argue against it on principle—actually against our party's own interests.

I move amendment S1M-1239.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"resolves that no alteration to the voting system for local authority elections should be considered until after the publication of the report of the Ministerial Task Group being chaired by the First Minister; agrees that this report, together with the McIntosh and Kerley recommendations, should be debated as a whole, and, in view of the limited time scale, resolves that the next local authority elections should take place on the basis of the existing first-past-the-post electoral system which delivers accountability, a clear link between elected member and voter and puts the power to create administrations in the hands of voters rather than politicians."

Kenny Gibson made a good speech, and I agree entirely with everything that he said. However, I speak in favour of the Executive amendment. That amendment, like most amendments, is not ideal but it twice contains the word "commitment" and it refers to

"the Executive's commitment to continue to make progress on electoral reform".

We feel that that is a very important commitment. All Liberal Democrat members strongly want a reform of local government voting. A considerable number of Labour members also want a reform of local government voting, but a considerable number of Labour members are strongly opposed—at the moment, anyway—to local government electoral reform. We must recognise that fact and work through it.

We faced a similar proposition before, in the Scottish Constitutional Convention that worked towards setting up our Parliament. Liberal Democrats, a considerable number of Labour people, the trades unions, the Churches and a lot of the other bodies wanted proportional representation, but a considerable number of Labour people did not. The system was negotiated, worked through and discussed, and we ended up with a Parliament that was elected under a PR system—not the Liberal Democrats' chosen proportional system, but at least a satisfactory one. We achieved something, and we want to work in the same way to achieve local government reform. The SNP pranced about outwith that convention, said it would never work and achieved nothing at all. With due respect, Kenny Gibson is doing the same today.

The Liberal Democrats and Labour combined in the convention to force a decision whereby all parties who were represented on that convention would have to support one policy regarding the future Scottish constitution. How could Scotland's party of independence possibly have participated in a convention that was rigged against a campaign for independence?

The SNP made a tactical decision that I think was wrong.

Will Donald Gorrie give way?

No. I really must progress.

As for the Tories, although Mr Harding made the point, it is an interesting spectacle to see people who have enjoyed eating turkey at Christmas voting to abolish Christmas—that turns the situation on its head.

How are we to achieve PR for local government? We are to do it by persuasion, not by soundbites or by premature debates. The Liberal Democrats support the use of the STV system in all elections, but feel that is especially suited to local government elections. It is much better than list systems.

I am listening to Donald Gorrie with interest, as, over the years, he and I have shared many platforms on the issue of proportional representation.

I have read carefully the Executive amendment. In the context of the commitment that is being given in the name of Frank McAveety, surely the Liberal Democrats feel that there should be a clear commitment to a time scale? Does Donald Gorrie want PR to be introduced before the next round of local government elections, or is he prepared to wait another six or seven years?

We will not wait for six or seven years, but it is often foolish to give time commitments. It is better to get the right answer than to get a quick answer. We are prepared for negotiation to go on. However, we have said that we would seek to see legislation being passed during this session. That is a reasonable time scale.

STV is much better than the list system used in the European Parliament elections, which was proportional but failed to retain the ability of a voter to choose an individual. STV retains the ward link, contrary to what a lot of propaganda says. A ward has several members, but there is still a ward. I was elected—and other members in this chamber may have been as well—to a council in a three-member ward. It worked perfectly satisfactorily. Half the councillors in local councils in England are elected on the basis that there are three members per ward. It works well.

The idea that one member representing one ward is a holy grail is a load of rubbish. Competition is good in most spheres. I thought that the Tories favoured competition. What is the merit in one member having a monopoly to represent one area? If there are several members, the voter can go to someone that they have voted for. If they have a useless member, they can go to someone else. Not all councillors are marvellous and conscientious; not all MPs and MSPs are marvellous and conscientious. It is good to give the voter a choice. It will reward good ones.

The merit of STV is that the councillor would be rewarded for good service. He or she would represent an area. It would encourage co-operation within the council. It would produce competition between councillors to give a better-quality service to their voters. It would avoid the landslides that have occurred—more often in England, but also in Scotland—when, because of a political feeling, a lot of very good councillors have been swept away as well as the bad ones. It would give more scope for those of us with a somewhat rebellious disposition to be a bit free of the party's choice. It would no longer be the case that the party would determine the single representative for an area, so if someone has strong local support they could stand up for themselves. The system works well in Northern Ireland; it could surely work well here.

I endorse many of Kenny Gibson's arguments. It is important that we make progress, but the way forward is through discussion. People are genuinely of a different opinion from myself and others. We must argue, discuss and explain because sometimes people are not fully conversant with the merits of the system.

I am happy to support the Executive amendment. It is a step forward and we will continue an adult dialogue on the subject. I hope that we will end up with the right answer.

When Neil McIntosh recommended a move to proportional representation, he described it as

"an essential step towards the goal of enhancing local democracy."

McIntosh did not concentrate on electoral reform: he reported on all sorts of measures to overhaul local government. The debate is on electoral reform, but we must keep it in mind that that is part of a wider scheme of reform, which will work only in conjunction with a general move towards democratic accountability.

The present electoral system of first past the post is becoming redundant. We did not use it in our parliamentary election, Wales did not use it in its Assembly election and Westminster is considering reform. No other country in Europe uses first past the post; most use PR.

The SNP advocates a move to the single transferable vote system. We do not recommend that system because it complies with the criteria laid down by Neil McIntosh, neither do we recommend it because it is the system that the Kerley report recommended. We recommend STV for local government elections because it delivers a highly proportional result and it is closest to an optimal system for elections—in other words, it makes almost every vote count.

Why does the SNP favour STV? It is used in only one country in Europe—Ireland. Why is it so wonderful?

After examining all the systems, we, like many other people in Scotland, have plumped for STV, for reasons of fairness and equality.

What is the point of turning out to vote when the chances are that that vote will make no difference? In Dundee last year, the SNP won more votes than did Labour, but Labour took more seats. In Scotland as a whole, it took more than twice as many votes to elect an SNP councillor as it did to elect a Labour councillor.

Glasgow City Council provides the most extreme example. In Glasgow, the Labour party ended up with 94 per cent of the councillors on just 49 per cent of the votes, while the SNP took 29 per cent of the votes but gained only 2.5 per cent of the seats. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives both lost out: they each gained 1.2 per cent of the seats on, respectively, 7 per cent and 6 per cent of the votes.

Although the Labour party mainly benefits from the current system, it can lose out as well. As Kenny Gibson mentioned, despite taking 18 per cent of the votes last year in Angus, Labour gained only 3 per cent of the seats—I suppose first past the post is not all bad, Kenny.

If voting patterns remain the same at the next election, electoral reform will hurt the Labour party most—it will be the biggest loser. However, one would have to live on another planet to think that the electoral performance of the parties will remain the same. Opinion polls—not just the most recent one—suggest that there will be change in Scottish politics. If that is so, everybody will benefit from a move to an equitable electoral system.

Democracy is about people rather than parties. That fact should outweigh any consideration of political advantage. Do we not always claim that, rather than political advantage, we seek democracy for the people?

The first-past-the-post system encourages people to stay at home. It reduces the influence of any vote and it produces disproportionate results. No electoral system is perfect, but STV would achieve a closer correlation between the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of seats won. STV would maximise the influence of votes and ensure that fewer votes were wasted. It complies with all the criteria that were set out by McIntosh, including—this is most important—the high degree of proportionality and the maintenance of the councillor-ward link. It is the system that Kerley recommended as the form of PR that is most suited to Scotland and most beneficial for Scottish voters. If it is good for the Scottish people, it should be good enough for us.

In choosing the best electoral system for local government elections in Scotland, we must consider carefully what we hope that change will achieve. It is beyond doubt that the current system is flawed, but it is also clear that there are limitations in any system that we might introduce in place of first past the post. We must be clear about what those limitations are.

The Local Government Committee has read many pages of reports and heard hours of evidence and debate. I will be honest and admit that I am still undecided. That is not a sign of weakness, failure to understand the issues, or lack of courage to make a decision. Rather, I am undecided because I want an electoral system that delivers more than only a fair division of seats among the political parties. I want a system that holds out the hope of an improved quality of representation.

There is no doubt that the link between the councillor and the ward is significant and should be preserved. However, one question then arises: would five councillors facilitate a better link by offering constituents a choice of personalities and political parties? A representative who does not hold surgeries, does not answer correspondence and merely drops leaflets through doors just before the election is a bad representative, regardless of the system by which he or she was elected. I remain to be convinced that today's motion would go any way towards addressing accountability, about which I am concerned.

We all have experience of the challenges thrown up by the electoral system that was chosen for the Parliament. Our system does not meet the objectives of making votes count and giving the electorate access to MSPs from different parties. For example, constituents of the leader or deputy leader of the SNP have no access to a Labour MSP. I remind members of my opening remarks—we need to be clear about our objectives before making a decision.

Those who were sceptical about our electoral system were wrong in their understanding of the Scottish electorate. They did not struggle with the task on 6 May 1999. They clearly used their second votes to ensure that parties that had been unsuccessful under the Westminster system were represented in this Parliament. Some may think that that is good; some may think it not so good.

The process of reaching a position on Kerley is still incomplete. We must ensure that the electoral system makes councillors accountable for their decisions and connects them to the communities that they represent.

Politics has made me cynical, and it has certainly made me wary. I do not believe that the motivation behind the motion is the health of local democracy; rather, it is the health of a party that is struggling to break through and make its mark in local government in Scotland. Further debate is needed. There is honest disagreement among the parties in the chamber that must be addressed, and political parties must also be given the opportunity to address that issue. As other members have said, the voters must consider it too.

I will not be supporting Kenny Gibson's motion. It is an unnecessary, untimely and unhelpful addition to the real debate about finding an electoral system for local government that is in the best interests of the Scottish people.

I wrote this speech in pedagogic mode. I thought that I might ditch the first two paragraphs, but after hearing Keith Harding's speech I have decided to keep them.

The current system is firmly rooted in the distant past. It was ideal for a two-party electoral system, when there was a docile, undereducated and underinformed population that was accustomed to subservience to bosses, officers and the clergy, was worked to the point of exhaustion, had little leisure, was racially homogeneous and socially conventional, and was content to play an occasional part in politics when elections came along to change councils or Governments.

Now we have a population that is egalitarian and better educated, is informed on world and domestic issues several times a day, has ample leisure time and is multicultural, and in which individuals mould their own mores. It is a population used to opinion polls and interactive telephone and teletext surveys.

How does the member explain the fact that historically our elderly population has been far more likely than our younger people to participate in elections and to be active citizens? We are now faced with problems of turnout and of involving people as citizens. If in the past people were so passive, why did they develop structures such as trade unions and parties to fight for them? Nowadays there is less sign of that.

If the member wants the distillation of my 28 years in education and history, she can have it. I do not deny for a minute that when they had the opportunity, people urgently went out and voted. I am suggesting that they did not have sufficient opportunities. The sad circumstance now is that an insufficient number of young people vote. That is the result partly of the first-past-the-post system.

Our society is confident and sophisticated enough to understand the anomalies of the first-past-the-post system and to be disillusioned by it. Instead of having two parties competing for votes in Scotland, we now have four. Defenders of the status quo support it because it suits their political purposes. We must recognise that in a number of the political parties represented in this Parliament there are elements that defend the status quo.

Last week, four Azeris who had been guests at the UK Liberal Democrat and SNP conferences visited the Parliament. Some weeks previously, their ambassador in London made it clear to me that he saw our democratic process as some kind of endgame, which means a destination to be arrived at or a permanent condition. I disagreed with him, and there is a danger that supporters of the first-past-the-post system will fall into the same trap as the ambassador. However, most of those supporters are in some of Labour's urban fiefdoms and in the Tory backwoods, which appear to be larger and whose inhabitants are more willing to articulate their position than I at first thought.

As the Local Government Committee wrestles with the McIntosh and Kerley reports, quizzes the leadership advisory panel and tries to drive towards more transparent and fairer local government, it is clear that democracy, like devolution, is a process, not a destination. Although all MSPs know that, we might have to take the message elsewhere.

PR expresses the diversity of opinion within Scottish society. In 1999, PR gave a higher percentage of voters a stake in the daily processes of the Scottish Parliament. If democracy is about involving people and encouraging them to take an interest in what councils do, we must move further and faster to create a system of elected members and councils that proportionately represents the will of the people.

That takes us to consensus politics. I do not believe that anyone here seriously thinks that consensus politics is a bad thing. Of course, there are exceptions.

Will the member give way? [Laughter.] I would not wish to disappoint Mr Campbell. If the system he generously advocates is so popular, why do political parties such as mine—which would stand to gain from the system if it were introduced in local government—reject it for local government? Furthermore, why are political parties in nation states such as Italy looking to move towards the first-past-the-post system?

I cannot under any circumstances account for anything that the Scottish and British Tories do, or for any decision that they ever make. However, the Italian example is trotted out fairly regularly and is in fact a classically bad example of the worst of PR. The systems in some of the more western European countries—either towards the Atlantic seaboard or possibly bordering the North sea—work reasonably well. Of course, the Irish system, which has already been referred to, works well.

PR will allow greater participation from the electorate—which the Local Government Committee and others want—and will also eradicate the very dangerous scepticism that turns to apathy, where people leave politicians to get on with the politics.

As Gil Paterson said, the debate is about the high goal of a fairer and more balanced system of local democracy. I urge colleagues today to accept the urgency of the need for that and to support Kenneth Gibson's motion.

I whole-heartedly support the modernisation of local government. Furthermore, having served as a local councillor in senior posts, I can suggest many ways in which to value the role of councillors and to give them more support, so that, with dignity and integrity, they can achieve positive outcomes for the electorate.

However, the debate is not about the winner-takes-all system's great advantage of simplicity, nor is it about how many people in Scotland understood the d'Hondt system used in the Scottish Parliament elections. The debate is about whether we support elected bodies that are consultative or elected bodies that govern with strength and determination according to manifesto promises.

The winner-takes-all system enables voters to choose a concrete set of policies and a team to execute them. What is the point of guaranteeing that each party's number of representatives will be exactly proportional to the number of its voters if it remains free to ally itself with whomever it chooses—for whatever purpose—and to change partners at any moment?

PR generally weakens democracy and majority systems strengthen it. In the final analysis, that makes the latter more moral and just.

Will the member give way?

Sorry, I cannot—I do not have much time.

The first duty in developing morality and justice in political relationships is to reinforce democracy and weaken dictatorship. Voters should not choose their doubles; instead, they should choose Governments with the capacity to make decisions. By dispersing the votes among numerous independent parties, PR prevents citizens from expressing a clear voice for a governmental team.

Government by majority is government by persuasion. Are we committed to the vision of strong, clear leadership? As politicians, are we about setting out our manifesto with integrity and providing the electors with clear options at the ballot box, or are we about deals behind closed doors after elections? Are we cynically saying, "We gave people the chance, but now the election is over we are going to form a coalition with one of the other parties"?

In the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrats are in coalition with Labour, but on Dunbartonshire Council, they are in coalition with the Tories. If we go with PR, are we saying, "By the way, Mrs McMurdo, this is how it will be in this year's elections and next year's elections, but you never know who we might form a coalition with next year"? Do we really want to sign up to that sort of politics?

There are also evaluative considerations, such as whether stability of government is more desirable than an attempt faithfully to represent public opinion. In my opinion, the debate is as much about proportionality of power as about proportionality of representation.

When the pro-PR lobby claimed that the Jenkins system would produce a fairer result in terms of the number of seats that each party had, detailed analysis showed that it would produce a much less fair result if one compared the length of time that each party would have been in power with their share of the vote. In the past 50 years, the Liberals would have enjoyed 64 per cent of the time in power with an average share of the vote of just 13 per cent. Under PR, minor parties are able to exercise power disproportionately to the level of support they have.

I have heard speculation that one of the events that caused the Prime Minister to think again about proportional representation at Westminster was the crisis in Kosovo. He saw at first hand the difficulty that his European allies had taking tough decisions while keeping their coalition partners on board. The Green party in Germany, which received less than 7 per cent of the vote, threatened to pull out of the coalition with Gerhard Schröder's SPD.

In the Scottish Parliament elections, it took 25,000 votes to elect an SNP or Tory list member compared with 250,000 votes to elect a Labour member.

Then there is the debate about the power of the Government—whether the power of the Cabinet or of the Executive. PR is about democratic centralism. Thus, crucial questions in all political systems in which elections are held are how parties select their candidates and what the opportunities are for the electors to influence that choice. Under PR, the political party's centre or headquarters is more likely to have control of who the candidates will be than the activists in the constituencies.

The report written for the Labour party by Professor Plant acknowledged centralised power as one of the issues that Westminster would need to address under devolution to Assemblies or Parliaments. He said that the Westminster Parliament would need to form a view on whether it wanted consultative bodies or strong governing bodies.

The debate is the same, but we are talking about Scottish local government against the background of a Westminster white paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", in which the Government does not propose to change the voting system for electing councillors in England and Wales. Are we seeing ghosts of the poll tax emerging from the closet?

If to govern is to serve, it is surely right to serve in accordance with a party's principles, not with principles that have been merged with the principles and policies of one or two other parties through a coalition. That may be the ethic of conviction, but it is also the ethic of responsibility to the electorate.

I congratulate Helen Eadie on being the first honest speaker. Come and join us, Helen; we will be delighted to accept you.

Sit down, Kenny. I had enough of listening to him on Glasgow City Council.

While I am on the subject of Kenny Gibson, may I say that he made the most restrained, diplomatic speech that I have ever known him to give. Members should have seen him in Glasgow City Council. Mike Tyson would have been afraid of him there.

Then we had Frank McAveety, who disappeared for a good chunk of the debate. Frank is back. Then we had Trish Godman. I had the dubious pleasure of serving with both those nice people on Glasgow City Council, but what do we find them doing now? Trish Godman and Frank McAveety do not lack ability, but my, they waffled today and the Liberals' faces were delighted—beaming all over. The Liberals were not beaming when Helen Eadie spoke. They were out for the aspirin tablets more often than not, because that was the true voice of the Labour party which, along with the Scottish Conservatives, appreciates the system as it is.

Why did Kenny Gibson decide to debate the issue? Because he thinks that PR will get the SNP more seats. At present, on Glasgow City Council, the SNP has John Mason and Mrs Gibson—Kenny's mother. The Herald indicated that bringing in PR would increase the number of SNP seats from two to five. That is not a great influx.

It was interesting that two newspaper articles that appeared before the Scottish parliamentary election said that the use of PR in the election was historic as it would be the first time that it had been used in this country. That is wrong, however, as PR was used in Scottish education boards prior to 1929 when its use was abolished. PR was also used in university parliamentary seats up to 1950, when, again, its use was abolished.

If the Tories are so opposed to STV in local government, why did they bring it in for local government in Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland is a completely different system. Because of the mix of the electorate, the people desired STV for local government. Scotland is not Northern Ireland. Is Kenny Gibson suggesting that it is?

The fact is that the Scottish education boards were abolished, not PR. Mr Young's argument is false.

With all due respect, it is not false. Donald Gorrie mentioned that he was a councillor in Edinburgh when there were three councillors for each ward. I had that experience in Glasgow, when I was elected in 1964 to the Glasgow Corporation. There were tensions and problems—poor little Mrs McGinty was often confused about whom she should contact about a leaking roof or a hole in the road. The system that is being suggested could well mean having five, six or seven councillors representing a vast constituency. That is not desirable and will mean that local government will no longer be local.

If multi-member wards are so bad, why did the Tories not abolish the system in England and Wales?

We leave England and Wales to control their situation. Kenny would agree with that as he does not want England and Wales controlling us.

My good friend and colleague, Brian Monteith, mentioned Italy. The Italian Prime Minister, who took office last year, indicated that he wanted a complete review of the PR system in Italy because the country lacked stability. The woman Prime Minister in New Zealand said that, after five years of the PR system there, she felt that it should be reviewed because instability had been introduced to New Zealand politics. That is the sort of thing that we find happening again and again.

Kenny Gibson also said—remarkably—that we should not accept dictation from council chambers. Members should have heard Kenny in his bygone political life. "Why should we accept dictation from Westminster?" he would ask. "Let us make our decisions here." Take it from me, we have seen the greatest conversion since St Paul on the road to Damascus.

It is true that councillors, particularly in the larger local authorities, have problems. Many cannot get time off work, many lose pay when they get time off work and the amount of money that is paid to them is derisory—councillors will be unanimous on that.

Keith Harding referred to the redrawing of boundaries in local government. Everything that he said was absolutely correct. I do not need to tell Frank McAveety—who has disappeared again—or Trish Godman about how some of the boundaries were drawn in Glasgow.

Fifteen countries in Europe use the PR system for local government. As Keith Harding mentioned, only in Ireland is the STV system used. Apart from Ireland, the closest to STV is Norway, which uses what it calls the STV group system.

Labour members—apart from Helen Eadie, and all credit to her—are waffling to keep their Liberal Democrat allies on board because, if the PR system is not put in place, the Liberal Democrats are out of the coalition. Ask Donald Gorrie; he will say that that is the situation. It is amazing that there are only half a dozen Liberal Democrats here for this crucial debate.

I will say no more. I hope that my words have not fallen on deaf ears.

This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I pay tribute to Kenny Gibson for having lodged his motion. It has been a high-quality debate, in which a sense of the real feeling of the whole chamber has come through: there is a desire among most members to move towards a modern, pluralistic, reasonable relationship between central and local government. One or two members, without giving their names, have given us the last roar of the dinosaurs. Members will recognise the people to whom I am referring.

Behind the debate lies a spectrum of opinion, across both the Parliament and the partnership parties. I want to introduce slightly more perspective than we have heard in one or two recent speeches.

For 20 years or more, the power and standing of local government was deliberately reduced by the Conservative party when in government. Authorities have been capped, surcharged, regulated and underfunded. It is no wonder that there is demoralisation in local government; that council building stock is clapped out; that local services are struggling.

The Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration in this fairly elected Parliament is changing that, and is recognising the separate mandate of councils. It will introduce the power of general competence. That will deal with the increase in the strategic powers that councils will have over housing, and will progress the McIntosh-Kerley reforms that lie behind the debate.

I pay tribute, if I may, to the Labour party. In bringing about the Parliament and its electoral system, it has acted against self-interest. It did so because it was right to do so, just as it will be right to bring about a reform in the voting system of local government.

I take seriously some of the points that some of my Labour colleagues made about their concerns and reservations about certain systems of proportional representation. As Donald Gorrie said, that is a matter on which there must be further discussion and debate and whole-hearted consent to the changes.

Mr McAveety's amendment, which I assume Robert Brown is supporting, mentions

"an immediate programme of change including progress on electoral reform".

Would Robert Brown care to tell us what, in his view, progress is? Is it merely talking about it, or is it actually delivering it?

Members will be aware that it is the long-standing desire, demand and fervent hope of the Liberal Democrats that proportional representation be implemented for local government.

I want to develop the point that I was making, as it goes to the heart of something that Helen Eadie was saying. She made two points that I thought significant. The first was on her support of the idea that the winner takes all. The whole point is that the winner does not take all; the person who gets less than 50 per cent of the vote frequently takes all, which is a different concept entirely. With respect to Helen, that is far from being the democratic concept that she was going on about.

Helen Eadie's second point was also important, but rather more subtle. Coalition governments, whether here or in other countries in Europe, do not give the minor parties—the junior partners in coalitions—some sort of absolute mandate on power.

Will Robert Brown give way?

No, I am sorry—I will finish my point.

It seems very odd that the Liberal Democrats have been criticised here for the efforts that we have made to bring about, for example, the tuition fees deal and—

Will Robert Brown give way?

I will not, as I want to finish this point.

You are now over your four minutes, so please begin to close.

Junior partners exercise power in proportion to the voting mandate that they get from the electorate, in the same way that the senior partner does. However, that is entirely different from saying that one party—as in Glasgow or in Angus, with one party getting less than 50 per cent of the vote—should have a monopoly on power.

If it is of any comfort to my Labour colleagues, if there was a proportional system under the single transferable vote, Labour would still be in power in Glasgow. The SNP, however, would not be in power in Angus—that is a reasonable point.

Let us get down to business on PR; let us use this Parliament; let us offer a new hand of fairness and partnership to councils that recognises their independent mandate—a more democratic mandate that is based on the will of the people. That is the essential quid pro quo for the reforms that we want. It is the path on which the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration is set.

As this is an SNP debate, I will allow Linda Fabiani to speak, but for no more than two minutes.

I am surprised by what Helen Eadie said. In the light of recent opinion polls I would have thought that Labour members would have been trying to rush PR in so that they can represent the people who vote for them at the next election.

We have PR in the elections to this Parliament; it is a fair system and people are well represented by the list members. The next logical step is to introduce PR in local government—the government that is closest to people. Studies have shown that people are in favour of it—people in Scotland are inherently fair and it is obviously fair that the political balance of councils should reflect the votes cast. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can disagree with that.

In South Lanarkshire Council, Labour, with 50 per cent of the vote at the most recent local government election, has 81 per cent of the seats. That cannot be fair. Perhaps if there was a better political balance, councillors would not be selling off all the green space in East Kilbride. In North Lanarkshire Council, with 55 per cent of the vote, Labour has 64 per cent of the seats. Perhaps there would not be the same problems with privatisation of the direct labour organisation there if there was a better political balance.

I am frustrated by the Liberal Democrats. Their 1999 manifesto came out for STV in multi-member wards. They allowed that commitment to be watered down by their coalition partners and are now talking about a commitment to make progress on PR in local government. Come on—we have had the McIntosh and Kerley reports; how many reports and consultations do that lot need before they do something?

It is time that the Lib Dems stood up for themselves on the issue.

Ian Jenkins is standing up.

Well, sit down. They did not stand up for themselves on tuition fees or, last week, on the Sutherland report. They should put their money where their mouth is—and stand up for themselves today by voting for the SNP motion.

John Young seems to damn with faint praise by saying that the only honest speaker this morning was my colleague Helen Eadie, when his colleague Keith Harding spoke before she did. That perhaps says something—

He must know something we do not.

Indeed, he must.

I come to the debate from a perhaps slightly different perspective from that of many of my colleagues in the Labour party. When I was elected to Dunfermline District Council in 1988, the result—which I still remember; perhaps I am a bit of an anorak—was Labour 387, Tory 330, Liberal 327 and SNP 159, on a 30.7 per cent turnout. A 28 per cent share of the vote got me elected to the council; 9 per cent of the electorate voted for me. That win under first past the post started me thinking about whether we need to look at different electoral systems.

Electoral systems will always give rise to passions on both sides of the debate. The Tories want to support first past the post although—fortunately, I suppose—that system has turned against them recently. First past the post has also turned spectacularly against the Labour party in other parts of the UK. Political parties should think about the issue not in terms of their own political advantage but in terms of what best serves the electors. There is no doubt that if only two candidates are standing and there are only two main political parties, first past the post is by far the best system. It has served Britain well and has shaped our politics. However, as soon as a third candidate is introduced, there is an element of distortion.

It is not fair to say that STV is a panacea. It has several drawbacks. In urban areas, it is easier to understand how it might work, but in Scottish local government we have a rich tradition, particularly in rural areas, of a large number of independent councillors being elected to serve their area. Amalgamating those small rural areas into much larger areas might make it more difficult—although I am not saying that it definitely will—for a person who truly represents that one community to be elected under STV.

I thank the member for letting me intervene. One thing that I mentioned in my speech, but which no one seems to have picked up, is that 59 councillors were elected unopposed. In the Western Isles, 12 councillors out of 31 were elected unopposed. Of the 19 who had contests, 17 were new councillors—which shows how unhappy people were with their existing councillors. Surely if wards are merged—even if it is only two or three together—that will still give better choice. For example, it is better to pick three councillors from a selection of four than to have only two wards, in one of which a councillor is elected unopposed, and in the other of which the electorate has a choice between only two people.

A point made well by Frank McAveety was that the work of the renewing local democracy working group was not only about electoral systems, but about widening access, about remuneration of members and about the number of councillors. We have to consider that whole package to answer the question that Kenny Gibson raises. In large parts of the country, people are debarred from standing for local councils. As John Young mentioned, we do not have proper remuneration for the elected members of our councils—people who do a valuable job. Those are blocks to be overcome. It does not help that the Tory party fielded not a single candidate at local government level in Dunfermline West at the most recent council elections. Such opting out by political parties in certain areas does not help the political process.

Linda Fabiani criticised the Liberal Democrats in the partnership for not standing up for themselves. It is slightly ironic, given that her party advocates a PR system that envisages very little majority control, that she does not understand the reality of coalition politics, in which people have to compromise and to accept that other people have different ideas. Because compromise is an inevitable consequence of it, Helen Eadie criticised the system that the SNP advocates. Linda Fabiani cannot choose an electoral system and then disagree with the outcome that that electoral system produces.

Let us be clear about one thing: we on the Conservative benches recognise the democratic deficit in the way that we run and elect our councils. We are not convinced that the answer to that lies in Kenny Gibson's motion. We understand his sense of grievance. I think that he might forgive me if I say that the example that he cited, although appropriate, was probably not the one that he was really thinking about. The result of the elections to Glasgow City Council last year was a travesty of electoral justice.

One reason for that travesty was the way that the boundaries had been arranged or—dare I say it—fixed over the years. Once the boundaries commission had been convinced or persuaded that the way that boundaries should be drawn was on the basis of electoral parity, the democratic system of local government was lost. Let us take one example. The Hughenden district in the west end of Glasgow was in a Labour marginal constituency. Surprise, surprise—it then found itself transferred to the Jordanhill area, which meant that its electors, few of whom voted Labour, had a 40-minute trip to and from the polling station. How can that possibly be right?

Let us consider other aspects of the SNP's motion. STV poses far more questions than it answers. If PR is to be introduced, AMS is a much more realistic option. There are general disadvantages with the PR system, and Trish Godman was right to articulate them. The main one is the loss of the constituency link.

Five former Glasgow councillors have contributed to the debate. Of those councillors, four—Robert Brown, Kenneth Gibson, John Young and I—held on over many years against the electoral odds. With a touch of uncharacteristic modesty, I should perhaps exclude myself from this, but all four of us were elected because we were very good constituency members. I acknowledge that, and it should be generally acknowledged. The fact of the matter is that if someone is a good councillor, they will be re-elected. Under these systems, good councillors could well be at a premium.

There is a lack of cohesive administration, which inevitably arises when there are coalitions. One need look no further than the set-up in the Scottish Parliament. Would members like to see our councils run in the way in which our Parliament has been run during the past year?

There is also the difficulty of the relationships between members of different parties representing the super-council wards. Consider the difficulties that are experienced between constituency and list members in the Parliament. We would be transferring those difficulties to the local government system.

Frank McAveety's amendment simply kicks the ball out of the park. It is more about throwing a few scraps to the Liberal Democrats than about making any reasoned or reasonable contribution to the debate. It has the merit of referring to the fact that the recommendations of Kerley and McIntosh have not yet been fully resolved and require further consideration. It will be interesting to see what happens. I suggest that very little is likely to happen because the Executive will not be able to deliver. The pressure from the backwoodsmen in the Labour councils and constituency parties will ensure that nothing will happen. That is the nub of the matter.

Proportional representation is one of the Liberal Democrat flagship policies. We have had to endure many sanctimonious lectures in that respect. Can they doubt but that the status quo will remain firmly in place? We have been told that there is to be no local government bill—they have swallowed that news. Last week, with gritted teeth, the majority of Liberal Democrats voted against the Sutherland proposals. Who can doubt but that, at the end of the day, in typical supine manner, they will follow the Labour party lead and vote for the anodyne Executive amendment? We must ask whether the Liberal Democrats have any pride at all. For a sniff of the varnish on the Cabinet room table, the Liberal Democrats have compromised practically every principle that they have held deeply. I urge the Parliament to support Mr Harding's amendment.

I am pleased to wind up on behalf of the Executive.

That sums it up.

Thank you.

I would like to make it clear what the debate is about. This morning, Kenny Gibson gave an excellent academic discourse on the case for PR made by both McIntosh and Kerley. On 2 July 1999, when we debated McIntosh, Kenny Gibson said that

"the SNP is prepared to work with the Executive to get the best possible deal from this situation".—[Official Report, 2 July 1999; Vol 1, c 888.]

Has this morning's debate been about getting the best possible deal for Scotland and for local government? In The Scotsman this morning, Kenny Gibson gave the game away, as did Linda Fabiani during her speech in the debate. The SNP is not interested in getting the best deal for local government in Scotland. Even Keith Harding managed to spot the fact that this debate is yet another failed attempt to embarrass the coalition Administration.

Not the Administration, but the Liberal Democrats.

The same tired old record. Yet again, the SNP is trying to claim that the Liberal Democrats have sold out their manifesto. [Members: "Yes."] I am delighted that the SNP was so convinced by our manifesto for the Scottish Parliament that it wants to see it implemented in full. I invite SNP members to come and join us.

Unlike the SNP, the Liberal Democrats are taking part in the Scottish Parliament to get things done. We are not here for soundbites or for cheap point scoring.

Will the minister give way?

Not at the moment.

We can contrast our record on getting PR for elections in Scotland with that of the SNP. We have a proven track record. It was the Liberal Democrats who got the Westminster Labour Government to bring in PR for the European elections in 1999—many said that we would not succeed. It was the Scottish Liberal Democrats who worked in the Scottish Constitutional Convention to ensure that we got proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament, whereas the SNP refused to participate. I put it to Kenny Gibson that if it were not for the Liberal Democrats, he would not be here.

If it wisnae for the voters, you widnae be here.

The Scottish Parliament would be elected using a first-past-the-post system and although I would still be here, many constituency losers, such as Kenny Gibson, would be watching the debate from the public gallery.

Please sit down; the member is not giving way.

Relax, Kenny. PR has been brought in for European and Scottish Parliament elections, and has enjoyed wide support. I am confident that the benefits of PR for local government will also enjoy wide support.

Will the minister give way?

Will the minister give way?

I give way to Richard Lochhead.

Will the minister clarify whether his party attaches any time scale to the delivery of proportional representation for local government, and whether the continuance of the coalition depends on it?

We will get PR for local government in Scotland right, and the time scale will follow from that. The SNP cannot tell me anything about time scales, because I thought that we were meant to be "free by '93".

Let us consider some of the contributions to the debate. Keith Harding clarified something for me. I have always wondered where the word Tory came from. It is obvious now. It comes from contradictory, because at one point he said that first past the post lets the electorate choose the administration, but later in his speech he criticised first past the post because it failed to allow the electorate to choose the administration. He cannot have it both ways; it is incredible. Keith Harding and other Tories once again accused the Liberal Democrats of selling out on tuition fees. Try telling that to Scottish students at Scottish universities who are paying no tuition fees this year.

Until they are working.

No. No Scottish student at a Scottish university will pay any tuition fees. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Smith has the floor. Keep going, and do not listen to interruptions.

I realise that time is moving on, so I will move on quickly and talk about what we are doing to deliver PR. Brian Adam asked whether we want to deliver PR. We do.

Will the minister give way?

I do not have time.

The partnership agreement stated clearly:

"The Liberal Democrats have a long standing commitment to proportional representation for elections to local government. We will ensure that the publication of the final McIntosh recommendations is followed by an immediate programme of change including progress on electoral reform."

Immediately after McIntosh reported and recommended a system of PR, the Scottish Executive set up the Kerley committee to take that matter forward. McIntosh recommended that the criteria for an electoral system should be

"proportionality, the councillor-ward link, fair provision for independents, allowance for geographical diversity and . . . natural communities".

Kerley examined the options against the McIntosh criteria, and it was no surprise to Liberal Democrats that he recommended STV as best meeting those criteria.

Will the minister give way?

No, he is in injury time.

Kerley recognises the tension between proportionality and the councillor-ward link. In his view, STV is the best system to meet all McIntosh's criteria. Three members of the Kerley working group did not agree with that view, but that underlines the difficulties of the issue. It is because the issue is complex and important that the Executive decided to establish a ministerial working group.

The recommendations of the Kerley group merit thorough consideration. The issues are fundamental, and changes must be enduring. We must get them right. The ministerial working group is chaired by the First Minister, and it is considering Kerley's recommendations. It will report to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet's conclusions will be announced in due course. We will not sacrifice proper consideration for speed. We will invest the time that is necessary to get the issues right and deliver the right solutions for Scotland.

The Administration values local government, and we have shown that. In the spending statement, we announced an increase in local government spending of 10.5 per cent in real terms over the next three years. We are proposing to trust our local government with a power of community initiative, and to take the lead in community planning. We trust our local government to give best value, and to abolish compulsory competitive tendering. We trust local government. We should be trusted to deliver proportional representation.

That is right; we should trust the Executive—and the band played, "Believe it if you like." We had Dr Jekyll from me earlier; I am afraid that I may have to give members a wee bit of Mr Hyde, but let us hope not.

First, let us consider that declining voice of yesteryear that is slowly fading away and which is banished to a few leafy enclaves. Of course, I am talking about the Tories. The contributions from Tories were shambolic. I was shocked that John Young seemed to indicate that Helen Eadie was the only honest person who had spoken, which implicated his colleague Keith Harding. John was inaccurate, as he has been often over the years, in much of what he said. If we had PR in Glasgow, we would not have two councillors; we would have 25.

As for the Tories saying that STV would benefit them—well, I am sorry, but it wouldnae. In the 1995 local council elections, I gained more votes in my ward than John Young—who was elected by a ba hair of 38 votes—Bill Aitken and Catherine Lyon combined. The Tories got three seats on 6 per cent of the vote, whereas we got one seat on 23 per cent. Clearly, the current electoral system favours the Tories—it is no wonder that they support it.

If we consider new Labour, Helen Eadie, who would not take any interventions, does not seem to realise that even under the current system, 13 of Scotland's 32 local authorities are hung. There is a rainbow coalition of independent, Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat in Perth and Kinross. Trish Godman talked about the SNP struggling to make a breakthrough in local government. I am surprised that she said that. With 207 councillors, not only do we have our greatest number of councillors ever, but we have five in her constituency, which is the same as her party has. We have made a breakthrough, at least in her constituency. That will go a long way to unseating her at the next election.

STV requires political will—a will that is sadly lacking, as the Labour party buckles to the voice of Cro-Magnon Labour, calling for no change from Westminster to council chambers to the back benches of the Parliament. It is the voice of the vested interests of people who have no real concern for local democracy but who wish to save their political skins, of councillors who lack the confidence to put themselves up against political opponents, without the odds being heavily stacked in their favour, and of MSPs who rely on the nomenklatura of councillors, their relatives and acolytes for selection to the chamber.

We must have a system that does not lead to one party receiving such an overwhelming number of seats that its administration implodes into factionalism, as happened in Glasgow in 1997, leading to the suspension of the lord provost, deputy lord provost and the leader and deputy leader of the council. That may have been good for the career of the Deputy Minister for Local Government, but it did nothing to enhance local government.

The deputy minister talks about a ministerial working group. Four months on, we are still unaware of how often it has met and what conclusions it has come to. We still do not have a timetable for action. The Executive talks about making progress in all areas of Kerley, but it is a bit like chicken and egg: how can we have democratic and accountable scrutiny and so on if we do not have opposition councillors?

It is important that not all councillors act, as Labour does, in naked self-interest. I am pleased that there are no such vested interests in the SNP. In Alex Salmond's constituency, the SNP holds 22 of 24 seats. In Angus, Perth and Kinross, Clackmannanshire and elsewhere, we have many councillors. They know that Kerley and the introduction of STV could bring about their demise, but not a single one opposed the introduction of STV at local government elections.

As far as the Liberals are concerned, they have done it again. I should congratulate the minister on his maiden speech. [Laughter.]

In my constituency, which as members know is largely rural, many council wards are larger in area than the average parliamentary constituency in the central belt. Very few of them are held by Labour councillors. Will the member explain how the electoral system that he proposes, with a large multi-member constituency for local government, could possibly retain the link between the councillor and the electorate in large rural areas?

I think I said that in my opening speech. The member will be aware that the number of councillors in Dumfries and Galloway declined from 70 to 47. I do not hear any of the councillors complaining about a 50 per cent increase in their ward size. Even if we had wards with two or three members in rural Dumfries and Galloway, they would still be a tenth of the area the member has to represent. She seems to get round it, so I am sure that the councillors will be able to manage just fine.

Back to those Buddhas of suburbia, the Liberal Democrats; not content with selling out on tuition fees and Sutherland, as has been so eloquently put by colleagues, the final ignominy for the Liberal Democrats is to support—

I am getting a bit fed up with the constant reference to tuition fees. If the member asks any student who is going to university this month—or any parent of any student—whether they are paying fees, he will find that they are not. The fees are being paid for by the Scottish Executive. Let us have a bit of truthfulness here.

We have had that debate, and the public will make up their mind about it. Mr Rumbles should consider where the Liberal Democrats are in the opinion polls in relation to tuition fees. [Interruption.]

Order.

Everyone knows that students who work in a burger bar after they have graduated will have to repay fees.

Will Mr Gibson give way?

No—the Presiding Officer cut my time by two minutes because of Iain Smith's incoherent ramblings. [Laughter.] Let me continue.

By not supporting the motion, the Lib Dems are refusing to implement one of their cornerstone policies.

Order. [Interruption.] Just a second, Mr Gibson. I want to make it clear that those were your words, not mine.

It is the only Lib Dem policy that the public are aware of. Bought and sold for Labour gold—what a parcel of rogues in a Parliament.

Donald Gorrie contradicted the comments that he made in The Scotsman three weeks ago. It is clear that only the SNP stands up against municipal Stalinism, stands for democracy in local government and opposed not only 18 years of official Thatcherism, which we got through the first-past-the-post system, but three years of unofficial Thatcherism. The SNP opposes inertia and supports McIntosh's recommendation on the introduction of PR for the elections in 2002.

I commend my motion to the chamber.

On that note, I suspend the meeting for lunch. [Interruption.] I am sorry. There is a business motion. I beg members' pardon: I do not suspend the meeting just yet.