Local Governance (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We move to the stage 3 proceedings of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill. Members should have with them SP bill 14A, as amended at stage 2.
Members should note that under rule 9.10.6 of the standing orders I have decided, with some reluctance, to allow three manuscript amendments, which are set out in a supplement to the marshalled list, which members should find on their desks. Please also note that revised groupings have been prepared and are also on members' desks.
I make it clear to members that I decided to accept those amendments with reluctance, having regard to the particular circumstances in which they were lodged. I take the deadline for lodging amendments that is set out in standing orders very seriously. My advice to members is to continue to lodge amendments in good time, before the deadlines are passed. My decision today creates no precedent concerning the acceptance of manuscript amendments in future.
I will allow a voting period of two minutes for the first division this afternoon. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 1—Electoral wards
Group 1 is on the number of councillors to be returned in an electoral ward. Amendment 1, in the name of Tricia Marwick, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3.
The Local Governance (Scotland) Bill will introduce proportional representation for local government elections, but the system as laid out in the bill is not as proportional as it could or should be. Amendment 1 would allow for two, three, four and five-member wards. Amendment 2 would provide that two-member wards should not be the norm, but should be used only for reasons of geography or sparse population. That is important for the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas because, otherwise, the ward sizes could be the size of a small country. Amendment 2 is necessary to maintain the councillor-ward link in such areas, which is what the McIntosh and Kerley reports believed should happen.
The Executive's justification for having three or four-member wards with a single transferable vote system is that it achieves the right balance between providing proportionality and maintaining the essential councillor-ward link. However, all the evidence shows that the balance would be better achieved with wards that could have two, three, four or five members. It is accepted that the more members per ward in a system, the more proportional the system is. It is also accepted that the councillor-ward link must be maintained. The balance between those two considerations was a central concern of the Kerley report and of the STV working group's interim report, both of which concluded that the balance is best achieved via wards with three, four or five members, with wards of two members in exceptional circumstances—which means in remote or sparsely populated areas. The benefit of having two, three, four or five-member wards is that it would provide proportionality, maintain the councillor-ward link and provide flexibility for areas in which three, four or five-member wards would be inappropriate or impractical.
The Executive, in producing the bill and in rejecting similar amendments to the bill at stage 2, set aside the conclusions of the two groups that it set up to consider the matter—the Kerley committee and the STV working group. Expert witnesses to the Local Government and Transport Committee, including Professors John Curtice and David Farrell, argued that, by restricting wards to three or four members, the system becomes significantly less proportional. In fact, if Scotland adopts three or four-member wards, as the Executive wishes, we will have the least proportional STV system in the world.
I welcome the fact that the Executive is introducing PR for local government, but it is essential that we get it right and that we get it right the first time. The debate is not about what is in the interests of political parties or councillors, but about what is right for the citizens of Scotland.
I move amendment 1.
I will speak to amendment 3 and in support of amendments 1 and 2. Today's debate is about the regeneration of local government and the reintroduction of genuinely representative democracy at local government level. Unfortunately, the Executive's proposed scheme is the worst of all worlds. As Tricia Marwick said, if the scheme is supported, it will make Scotland's scheme the least representative proportional representation scheme in the world. Even if Tricia Marwick's amendment 1 were supported—as it should be—we would still have the least representative proportional representation scheme in the world, but at least we would match some of the other schemes. The Executive is determined to drag the proportionality even lower. The Executive's proposal strikes the wrong balance; it has been dragged too far toward the member-ward link and not far enough toward proportionality.
Liberal Democrat members must recognise that the proposal is a compromise too far. In fact, it would be a compromise to accept ward sizes of two to five members. All the expert witnesses and independent groups, such as the STV working group, the Kerley committee, the McIntosh commission and the Electoral Reform Society, stated clearly that the minimum acceptable ward size in urban areas is five members. The Liberal Democrats must ask themselves whether they are willing to support fewer members per ward than the number supported by all those independent experts. I hope that they are not. I also hope that they will support amendment 3, which recognises the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland's recommendation that, for reasons of sparsity and size, there can be two members per ward, which allows us the flexibility required to make the scheme work. If we do not accept the amendments, we will be ignoring all the evidence that independent sources presented to the committee and sticking with grubby party-political compromises.
I am delighted to rise to speak on an important day and on an important piece of legislation.
Tommy Sheridan has accused us of all sorts of things, but it is important to recognise that if it were not for the Liberal Democrats, the Parliament would not be debating the issue at all. There is a lack of consistency in the arguments proposed by Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan, and in that which will no doubt shortly be proposed by David Mundell, if he follows the line that he has taken in committee. On the one hand, they are trying to tell us that the system of four members per ward proposed by the bill is not proportionate enough. On the other hand, they want to reduce that to a system of two members per ward or fewer, which is even less proportionate. There is inconsistency in their argument. Do those members want a proportional system or not? The Liberal Democrats want a system that is more proportional than that which we have at present.
Does the member accept that two-member wards would only be used in those areas, particularly rural areas, where to create larger ward sizes of more than two members would effectively have councillors responsible for an area the size of a whole country? How can he not support an amendment that would benefit people in rural areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, the south-west of Scotland and elsewhere?
Because I support a more proportionate system, and we cannot have that if we have wards of only two members. Two-member wards are not required in Ireland, which has similar rural populations to those found in many parts of Scotland, so I do not see why we would require them in Scotland.
I wonder whether Iain Smith will answer two questions. First, would ward sizes of two members be more or less proportionate than what we have now? Secondly, will he accept that the evidence to the committee for ward sizes of two came not from Tricia Marwick or from me, but from independent sources?
I do not recollect independent sources arguing for two-member wards in the debate. A number of council representatives who presented evidence to the committee put forward the case for two-member wards, but I do not recollect the independent academic witnesses to whom Tommy Sheridan referred earlier arguing for that.
In his opening remarks, Iain Smith put on record the role of the Liberal Democrats in introducing the legislation. Does he agree that what is happening today demonstrates what the Conservatives have argued all along, which is that in situations where we have proportional representation we end up with tails wagging dogs?
There would be few people on the Conservative benches had the Liberal Democrats not ensured, through the constitutional convention, that we got proportional representation for the Parliament.
It is a balance. As has rightly been said, the number of members in an STV system is a compromise. I am sure that David Mundell will argue that the bill's proposal is not proportionate enough, but his party does not believe in proportionality at all. His arguments in committee would suggest that he thinks that the only way in which proportionality can be achieved is to have every councillor elected in a single ward. It will be a compromise. We have listened throughout the debate—from McIntosh, through Kerley, to the responses to the white paper and the draft bills—to the concerns of local government about the need to maintain the member-ward link. That is why that compromise of three or four-member wards is there. That is a compromise, because we will not get perfect proportionality under STV. It is not a proportional system in that sense, but it is a system of fair votes. It allows us to ensure that the electorate has the final say on who represents it, but it also retains the important member-ward link and does so at a ward size that is reasonable and manageable for the council members and their electorates.
I propose to members that they reject amendments 1 to 3.
I know that members always enjoy hearing words of wisdom from Margaret Thatcher. Most apt for today is the great lady's profound pronouncement:
"It's a funny old world".
Yesterday, the First Minister announced that he could not imagine anything more harmful to Scotland's future than the politics and policies of the Scottish National Party, but today we find Mr Kerr, who is not always known for his generosity towards nationalism, throwing the same Scottish National Party and its leader—whoever that might be by 2007—a lifeline. Labour members should be in no doubt from all the psephology and academic debate that the principal beneficiaries of the hybrid voting system will be the SNP. The bill has never been about opening up local government to the diversity that is now evident in Scottish politics.
Will David Mundell give way?
I will give way later.
As I said at stages 1 and 2, the bill is about not proportional representation, but a hybrid voting system that is not used anywhere else in the world and is the lowest common denominator that could meet the short-term objectives of Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs without giving a single thought to local democracy and voters.
It is to their credit that Tricia Marwick, Andrew Welsh and others have continued to argue for a fully proportional system, as they did at stage 2, despite being the obvious beneficiaries of the proposed system. The Conservatives intend to support them, because, if we are to abandon the first-past-the-post system with all its obvious merits, logic surely dictates that the replacement should be proportional, rather than the least proportional system in the world, as the evidence to the committee said.
Perhaps I was the only member who was listening to Mike Rumbles's lecture to the Parliament last week during the consideration of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill's provisions on the dispersal of groups. He said that those provisions would
"drive a coach and horses through the evidence-based approach to legislation that the Parliament is supposed to have adopted."—[Official Report, 17 June 2004; c 9216.]
Anybody who has sifted through the evidence that was given to the committee orally or in writing would conclude that there is precious little support for a system that uses the single transferable vote and, more important, that there is no support for introducing the hybrid, something-or-nothing approach that is proposed. That is why Mr Sheridan's amendment 3 and Ms Marwick's amendments 1 and 2 should be supported. If we are going to abandon first past the post, let us at least have a proper system of proportional representation.
David Mundell started off by observing that it is a funny old world. I must agree with him, because last week, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Tories united to oppose the powers of dispersal and today they are united in opportunism to try to maximise their own party-political advantages. The Tories oppose PR in principle, but, when we get down to the practice of it, they want the system to be even more proportional than the proposed approach.
I oppose all the amendments in the group. Many of the members who propose that we should have two-member wards are the same members who are saying that the system that the Executive has proposed is not proportional enough. It seems to me to be completely bizarre that someone can argue that the system is not proportional enough, but at the same time propose to make it less proportional in some parts of Scotland.
Is Bristow Muldoon therefore totally rejecting the evidence given by Argyll and Bute Council, which clearly showed that the needs of rural areas must be taken into account in the bill, which is what amendment 1 would ensure?
I reject much of the evidence that has been given in support of two-member wards. Back when I was a councillor, it was not the beautiful countryside, the rolling hills, the trees or the sheep that generated the case load, it was people. Account is already taken of some of the challenges that are presented by the geographical diversity of Scotland by the fact that there are roughly 2,000 members of the electorate to one member in parts of rural Scotland and roughly 6,000 members of the electorate to one member in the cities. In my view, that already takes perhaps too much account of the challenges that face people in rural areas. If anything, there might be an argument to be made for asking whether we have too many councillors in some rural areas. Rather than making the situation worse by ensuring that the cities have high degrees of proportionality and the rural parts of Scotland have low degrees of proportionality, the balance that has been proposed is fair.
People have said that the proposed system is the least proportional STV system in the world. However, we should be comparing the system not with systems elsewhere in the world, but with the first-past-the-post system that it will replace. The proposed system is hugely more proportional than that first-past-the-post system.
I accept that the proposed system would be more proportional than a first-past-the-post system. However, will Bristow Muldoon accept the evidence that it would be the least proportional STV system in the world, rather than dismissing that evidence?
I accept that many of the limited number of systems that exist have five-member wards. However, many countries have three or four-member wards as well, such as the Republic of Ireland, which has operated that system for many years.
I draw members' attention to the fact that Jeremy Beecham gave evidence that, in areas such as Birmingham, there was a problem with council wards that were too large—he spoke of wards with as many as 24,000 members of the electorate. It should not be a question of taking account of just the geographical size of a ward; we must also take account of the population size of the ward. If five-member wards were created, we could end up creating wards in Glasgow and Edinburgh that would be equivalent in size to some of Scotland's smaller cities. We should not be worrying about the geographical size of a ward, but the case load that we are creating for councillors in our cities, which I am sure is already high.
All the amendments in this group should be rejected on the basis that the bill's proposals are a balance between proportionality and the member-ward link. It has always been clear that that is the case. The member-ward link is an important part of the British electoral system and we would be ill advised to throw it away. I urge members to reject all three amendments.
It is important that we reflect on what we want and why we are debating this bill. We want better governance at local authority level. Part of the solution to that is a system of proportional representation. I am glad that there is now a consensus in Scottish politics that a system of proportional representation is needed to ensure that we deliver that better governance.
We need to create a more representative system of local government that maintains the link between people and their elected representatives. In answer to the points that Bristow Muldoon has raised, I say that, to do that, we need to give the system the flexibility to take account of the circumstances that he was describing. I support the amendments lodged by Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan because they will bring about the flexibility that will allow better governance and better representation. The amendments will result in greater flexibility in urban areas where there are large natural communities, such as Leith, which are bigger than three or four wards, and in the large rural areas. Therefore, they will result in the political flexibility that comes from maximising representation. We want fair votes and the flexibility to match local circumstances and meet local people's needs, because it is the local people who are important. That is why we need the flexibility that is afforded by the amendments in the names of Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan.
I enjoyed hearing David Mundell explain his position because it reminded me of those principled Tories who took the no-yes position in the debate on the Scottish Parliament—they did not want a Scottish Parliament but if there were to be one it should have full powers. If we are to have PR, we ought to have PR with the flexibility to match local needs.
I will be brief. I was moved to speak by Bristow Muldoon's comments on two-member wards in a small number of rural areas. He clearly put the view—perhaps I was mistaken, but it certainly came across to me—that there are already too many rural councillors. I will be delighted to take that message back to Mid Scotland and Fife and let many of the rural councillors know that there are too many of them. Bristow Muldoon made it clear that he is concerned about the work load of urban councillors, but why is he not concerned about the work load of rural councillors, which is exacerbated by the distances that they have to travel?
Does Brian Monteith recognise that the work load of a councillor with 6,000 electors—for example, in Glasgow—is likely to be far bigger than the work load of a councillor with only 2,000 electors?
I do not dispute that numbers might generate additional work. My point is about the ability to service that work, which might be in tower blocks; the councillor would not need to take a ferry between each floor. We are saying that a small number of councillors face difficulty in servicing their wards.
Bristow Muldoon said that there is some dishonesty in the Conservatives' approach in that we support the first-past-the-post system in principle but we want greater proportionality if we are to have the proposed form of STV. Frankly, what we want is honesty in the proportionality. If the argument compares the proposed form of STV with the first-past-the-post system and states that we should choose STV because it is proportional, it stands to reason that we will be better served if it is truly proportional. To have a hybrid that is hardly proportional at all suggests that there is no need—
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but the member did not give way when I asked.
There is no need to adopt a new system unless we have an honest system, such as the one that is proposed by Tricia Marwick and Tommy Sheridan.
The partnership agreement is clear. We have opted for a system with three or four members per ward to strike the correct balance between proportionality, the size of the ward and the councillor-ward link. The Local Government and Transport Committee endorsed that view. In relation to some of the previous comments, I point out that it is the job of committee members to take evidence but not always to agree. They should take decisions on their own about the merit of the arguments that are presented to them at committee meetings. While I am addressing the comments that were made earlier, I point out that Brian Monteith represents a party of centralisation and emasculation of local government, so it is abysmal for him to stand and shed crocodile tears for local councillors.
We recognise the arguments that have been made and the differing views on the matter. Amendments 1 and 2, in the name of Tricia Marwick, would replace the current provision of three or four members per ward with two to five members per ward and would provide for two-member wards to be permitted only where the ward is geographically remote or sparsely populated.
Amendment 3, in the name of Tommy Sheridan, is dependent on amendment 1. It provides that there should be two members per ward only where the boundary commission has made such a proposal due to exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances would be for the boundary commission to determine and, unlike amendment 2, amendment 3 does not restrict two-member wards to remote or sparsely populated areas.
Our concern about the proposals is that as we increase the number of members per ward, we weaken the councillor-ward link. As we decrease the number of members per ward, we strengthen the councillor-ward link but decrease proportionality. In both cases we move closer to one McIntosh criterion but further away from another. I contend that no system is perfect. STV is used in several countries around the world and has been adapted in each case to meet local circumstances.
Does the minister accept that although McIntosh recommended a proportional system, it was Kerley who recommended that STV should be adopted because it was proportional and maintained the councillor-ward link and that ward sizes should be from two to five members?
Kerley also said that the criteria that McIntosh set out should be balanced. That is why we believe that having three or four-member wards strikes the right balance for Scotland. I was pleased that the Local Government and Transport Committee accepted that after weighing up the wealth of evidence that it was given.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
We should also bear it in mind that STV has operated well in Ireland with a minimum of three members per ward and that the sparsity of population in many parts of Ireland is not dissimilar to that in Scotland.
The bill provides for the boundary commission to consult councils fully from the first stages of its review.
The minister says that we should consider Ireland. Is he aware that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland recommended to members who visited Ireland that they should not choose the system there?
We have had many arguments about the issues and I am aware of that point. However, the system there works and Ireland has broad similarities with Scotland in the sparsity of population.
Consultation will be especially important for rural and island authorities, which will want to take every opportunity to ensure that local ties and other factors are taken into account. Our bill provides that opportunity.
We introduced amendments at stage 2 to underline the need for local ties to be taken into account and to add a stage to the consultation process on the boundary commission's draft proposals, to give councils the opportunity to comment on them and to allow those comments to be considered before the proposals are published for wider consultation.
We firmly believe that having three or four members per ward strikes the right balance for Scotland. I ask for amendment 1 to be withdrawn and for amendments 2 and 3 not to be moved.
I have heard the Executive's arguments, which I heard at stage 2. Nobody apart from Labour and Liberal members is convinced by them.
The McIntosh commission recommended a proportional system for local government elections. Kerley was charged with concluding what the right kind of proportional system was. Kerley recommended STV, which is what we are examining today, but what is important is that Kerley recommended that each ward should have from two to five members and that a ward could have two members in exceptional circumstances. Amendments 1 and 2 would create such a system. They would put in the bill the Kerley report's recommendations.
Every independent group of witnesses and experts who gave evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee recommended ward sizes of between two and five members. The Executive can reject that—it has the numbers to do so. However, we should not pretend that the bill proposes anything other than a political fix by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. The minister gave the game away—he talked about the partnership agreement and how that was more important than putting in place true proportionality.
Bristow Muldoon said that rural areas have too many councillors. Like Brian Monteith, I think that that remark will come back to haunt him.
Will the member explain why she believes that it is important to have a high degree of proportionality in urban areas but a low level in rural areas?
The member misrepresents me, but I do not misrepresent him. I heard him say that rural areas have too many councillors. I do not support a hybrid; I support the Kerley group's recommendations. That group was established to consider the form of proportional representation for local government. It recommended STV and ward sizes of between two and five members. Iain Smith can continue to deny that any expert opinion—and in particular Kerley—suggests that, but that will not be true.
I quoted the Kerley report in a Local Government and Transport Committee meeting. Kerley recommended four-member wards, but I accept that he said that other ward sizes, such as five or two members, might be acceptable in exceptional circumstances. He recommended that the right size was four members.
The member makes a point indeed.
If we are going to introduce a PR system for local government and if that system is going to be STV, it is incumbent on us to get the best possible system that retains the member-ward link and offers proportionality. The Executive's bill is simply not good enough and I urge members of all parties to support amendments 1 and 2.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Tricia Marwick].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 44, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 48, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Section 3—The quota
Group 2 is on the quota and the transfer of votes. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 11.
To provide for greater flexibility, we lodged several stage 2 amendments to remove to secondary legislation those details from sections 3 to 8 that dealt with the STV process. Two of those amendments removed text from sections 3 and 5 and inserted new text in the bill so that matters relating to the quota and the transfer of ballot papers could be covered by the order-making powers in section 9. However, we were unable to remove sections 3 and 5 fully at stage 2 because the parliamentary authorities advised us that any such amendments would be regarded as wrecking amendments. As a consequence, the provisions made by sections 3 and 5 are now duplicated in section 9, which was also amended at stage 2.
Will the minister explain the Executive's thinking about how the quota will be determined? Under STV, it is normal practice for the quota in a three-member constituency to be a quarter plus one. In a four-member constituency, the quota is normally a fifth plus one. Is that what the Executive will propose? Why can that not be written in the bill rather than left to subsequent orders?
The matter will be dealt with in secondary legislation largely because the Local Government and Transport Committee wanted us to do that. The committee felt that the flexibility of having the detail in secondary legislation would provide a more appropriate way of fulfilling the bill's purpose. We sought to remove sections 3 and 5 in response to the committee's request.
Sections 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(d) already encompass the provisions at sections 3 and 5 respectively. Amendments 10 and 11 are purely technical amendments that are designed to remove the duplication of provision.
I move amendment 10.
I am interested to hear that Mr Kerr was nearly accused of introducing wrecking amendments. I had thought that such an honour belonged only to me.
I support amendments 10 and 11 and I have argued strongly that the details of the system should not be in the bill. As we will see when we debate the amendment in my name in group 3, members must take cognisance of the fact that there is no single way of calculating the outcome of election under STV. In fact, myriad options are available, which Parliament must address and must be able to continue to address. The best way to do that is to deal with the detail of the electoral mechanism in secondary legislation.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Section 5—Transfer of votes
Amendment 11 moved—[Mr Andy Kerr]—and agreed to.
After section 9
Group 3 is on a review of the method of counting. Amendment 4, in the name of David Mundell, is grouped with amendment 7.
Amendments 4 and 7 deal with an issue that I have continually sought to highlight, particularly after I had the welcome opportunity of participating as an observer at the count for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections.
From the evidence that was submitted to the committee by people such as Professor Bill Miller, it has to be accepted that, no matter what method of STV is adopted and what undertakings the Executive might give today, STV is "excessively complicated" and "incontestably opaque". Indeed, those were the words that were used by Lord Jenkins in the report on PR that he compiled for Tony Blair. Professor Miller told the committee:
"The counting procedures are extremely complex and obscure."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 2 December 2003; c 328.]
Professor Miller called on MSPs to focus their attention on these issues. Indeed, he called on MSPs to be able to explain to their electors exactly how the counting system under STV works.
During his discourse on this issue, will Mr Mundell explain to the chamber how he came to be elected to the Parliament under the d'Hondt system, as I do not think that that is especially clear to members of the public?
The d'Hondt system is much more comprehensible than the single transferable vote system. There are 16 members of the Scottish Parliament for the South of Scotland and the number of members from each party is broadly in proportion to the number of votes cast for it. People understand that. They understand that in the South of Scotland the Conservative vote went up and that we gained two constituencies, whereas the vote for the Liberal Democrats went down and they gained nothing. The d'Hondt system is relatively simple and involves people putting an X on a piece of paper. Until Iain Smith has respect for the electorate and the difficulties that people face with some systems, I cannot have respect for some of the things that he says.
We will deal with this issue when we debate the amendment in Group 5, but I do not think that it is acceptable that in last week's London Assembly election more than 220,000 votes were rendered inadmissible. These are important issues that should be debated in Parliament.
It is also important that we debate the issue of which system is at the heart of the STV process. We should debate whether to use the Gregory method or the weighted inclusive Gregory method, and whether—as I said at stage 1—the Gregory in question is Gregory Peck, Gregory the gorilla or Pope Gregory. Such issues need to be debated by parliamentarians, rather than just by political anoraks and academics—if those are different things.
Throughout the committee stages of the bill, I made it clear that I did not support the methodology that the Executive originally proposed. Contrary to all statements of supporters of STV, the system does not ensure that every vote counts or that there are so-called fair votes. Under the system proposed by the Executive, some preferences do not count whereas others count several times. How is that fair or logical? I want to see a system promoted that allows all votes to be counted and all preferences to be taken into account.
We have been told that there would be technical difficulties in introducing such a mechanism at the forthcoming local government elections. However, having embarked on the course of changing the local government electoral system, the Executive should do all that it can to ensure that the elections take place under a system of STV that uses the weighted inclusive Gregory method.
Does the member accept that in its stage 1 report the Local Government and Transport Committee agreed that the weighted inclusive Gregory method should be introduced as soon as possible?
I do, and I very much welcomed Dr Jackson's support on the issue. The aim of my amendments today is to urge the Executive to introduce the weighted inclusive Gregory method for the next local government elections and to require it after every election to review the system that is being used. We all know how easily undertakings that are given in Parliament during the passage of a bill can disappear into the mist. Amendment 4 would introduce a requirement for a review of the electoral system to take place each time that it was used. In particular, such reviews would take into account technological changes that may have occurred since the previous election. It is important that consideration of the bill by Parliament should include at least some discussion of the method of counting that is used under STV, as adopted by the Parliament.
I move amendment 4.
It is not characteristic for me to support Conservative amendments, but amendment 4 is not worthy of opposition. The amendment is worthy of multiparty support because it would allow us to learn whatever lessons need to be learned from the introduction of a radically new electoral system. It is with that in mind that I hope that the Parliament will recognise that we have to review major changes that are made to the counting methods of a new electoral system. I do not see that there should be any Executive opposition to the amendment—it is not a Tory amendment; it is an amendment to introduce efficiency and to make the best possible use of the electoral system.
The committee suggested in its stage 1 report that putting the detail of the STV process in secondary legislation would give us flexibility over the system of STV that is used in the future.
Although the committee concluded that the method that is set out in the bill at introduction was the most appropriate one for local government elections in Scotland at the present time, given the currently available counting technology, committee members considered that the weighted inclusive Gregory method of counting would be the most effective method. However, they recognised that the adoption of that method would be likely to make manual counts under STV unrealistically time consuming. They therefore recommended that the necessary measures should be put in place to allow an alternative counting method to be adopted in due course if electronic counting technology could be proven to be reliable, robust and accurate. We took that recommendation on board and lodged a series of amendments at stage 2 that moved the detail of the STV process from the bill to secondary legislation.
It is in everyone's interest that we use the method of STV that is most appropriate to Scottish circumstances. It was for that reason that we accepted the committee's recommendation. Amendment 4 would place a requirement on us in primary legislation to conduct a review of the method of counting used in that election. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
When will those details be produced? What is the timetable for introducing the statutory instruments that will give the details?
As I said, we need to keep an eye on what is going on around the world with regard to counting systems and technology. By removing the statement of the details from the bill and putting it into secondary legislation, we have created the scope and flexibility that we need and that is why the amendment is unnecessary. Any requirement to review the conduct of elections would be dealt with in orders dealing with the conduct and administration of the elections under section 9(1), rather than in the primary legislation.
I suspect that Mr Mundell's amendment might be a probing amendment that is aimed at establishing our intentions in this area. I therefore make it clear that we have no difficulty with the principle of reviewing the conduct of elections. We arranged for the Electoral Commission to review the conduct of the 2003 elections for the Executive. It will be even more important to set appropriate arrangements in place for reviewing the elections under the new electoral system. Such a review would also play a vital role in informing future consideration of the possibility of changing the STV system to be used for local government elections in Scotland.
I hope that, with that reassurance, Mr Mundell will be persuaded not to press his amendments.
All the points that I wished to make were covered in my contribution and Mr Kerr's response was as I expected. However, given Mr Sheridan's support, I will press amendment 4.
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 28, Against 82, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Section 10—Reviews of electoral arrangements
The amendments in group 4 concern the review of ward boundaries. Amendment 18, in the name of Mr Andy Kerr, is grouped with amendment 5.
I shall speak to amendment 18, which has been grouped with amendment 5, lodged by David Mundell. In doing so, I shall ask Mr Mundell not to move his amendment.
The introduction of STV for local government elections will result in a new system of multimember wards. Therefore, one of the key issues to arise during consideration of the bill has been the conduct of the ward boundary review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. The key issue has been whether the commission should create new wards by bolting together existing local government wards or should start from scratch and redraw the ward boundaries.
There are arguments in favour of both approaches. Bolting together existing wards would minimise the upheaval for councils and for all those involved in the electoral process, but starting from scratch would allow the commission to produce new wards that take account of local circumstances and to remove some of the anomalies that have arisen with existing ward boundaries.
The Local Government and Transport Committee and the STV working group both concluded that starting from scratch would be the best approach, but we wanted to find a middle way—a compromise—that would allow the commission to use the existing wards as building blocks, where appropriate, but which would provide sufficient flexibility to take a different approach where that would secure a better outcome. We lodged an amendment at stage 2 that was designed to give effect to that approach. Because there was discussion in the Local Government and Transport Committee about the exact effect of the amendment, we withdrew the amendment at that stage but undertook to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3.
Given that background and the interest that has been shown in the conduct of the ward boundary review, I will take a moment to set out exactly what amendment 18 will do. The criteria for the ward boundary review are set out in schedule 6 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. In carrying out the review, the commission will have to take account of those criteria, and only those criteria, that are laid out in that legislation—parity, any local ties and the desirability of fixing easily identifiable boundaries.
Amendment 18 will ensure that the commission has to consider the existing ward boundaries as part of the overall review process. The commission could decide to bolt together existing wards if that seems appropriate and is in accordance with the schedule 6 criteria. However, the commission will have to take a different approach where that is required by the schedule 6 criteria. It could propose adjustments to the existing ward boundaries, or it could start from scratch, as appropriate.
Amendment 18 will also ensure that the commission has to explain why it has chosen not to bolt together existing wards. In other words, people will be clear about why the commission is proposing a change. However, the key point is that the commission will not be restricted to the bolting-together approach, but will need to apply the schedule 6 criteria to determine what is appropriate.
Two specific points were raised by members of the Local Government and Transport Committee, and it might be helpful if I comment briefly on each of them. Iain Smith was concerned that the amendment would apply to all future ward boundary reviews. I can confirm that the amendment will, in fact, apply only to the first ward boundary review. Committee members were also uncertain about the exact balance that would be struck between bolting together and starting from scratch. I hope that what I have said clarifies the position for them, but I should also point out that we have inserted additional text into this version of the amendment to make that explicit in the bill and to place beyond doubt the fact that the commission will still be required to propose changes to ward boundaries, where appropriate, in accordance with schedule 6.
Amendment 5, in the name of David Mundell, would prohibit the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, in fixing ward boundaries, from having regard to existing or previously existing electoral wards or polling districts, except in pursuance of paragraph 1(3) of schedule 6. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 6 covers the criteria relating to easily identifiable boundaries and local ties, which I mentioned earlier. Those criteria are subject to the overriding requirement to achieve parity of representation among wards. We consider amendment 5 unnecessary. In carrying out the review, the commission will have to take account of the schedule 6 criteria and those criteria only. The paragraph 1(3) criteria are the only ones within which existing wards could conceivably fall, so amendment 5 adds nothing to what is already provided for.
Amendment 18 will ensure that the commission has the flexibility to start from scratch where appropriate. To that extent, I suspect that amendment 18 encompasses the purpose of Mr Mundell's amendment, and so I invite him not to move amendment 5.
I move amendment 18.
As the minister said, the way in which the new wards would be constructed was the subject of considerable debate in the Local Government and Transport Committee. Evidence was taken on the issue—not least from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. I was particularly pleased that the boundary commission made it clear to the committee that it is in a position to create new wards from scratch—using various new methodologies that are available to it—within a relatively short period. That is one of the key reasons why I felt able to support the view that we should start from scratch. The boundary commission's evidence was helpful because it meant that the argument used by some people that starting from scratch was a way of wrecking the arrangement had no validity.
I have reflected on the minister's amendment 18 and on my amendment and, on this occasion, I am in agreement with him that his amendment would achieve what my amendment seeks to do, so I will not move amendment 5.
I ask for brief speeches as we are running short of time.
We should consider the effect of Mr Kerr's amendment 18, which is not quite as he suggests. His amendment would prevent consideration of the rules set out in schedule 6 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 in drawing up the bolted-together option for ward boundaries, which would mean, in effect, setting aside the requirements relating to parity, community, strength of boundary and geography. How can the reasonableness of the boundary commission's proposals, arrived at after proper consultation, be tested by an adulterated proposal—forced through by the Executive—that disregards basic issues such as the number of electors per ward, the geography of the wards and the communities involved? How could the boundary commission reasonably reject the bolted-together option if schedule 6 is to be set aside?
In seeking to buy off Labour councillors and a number of Labour backbenchers who have concerns, the Executive is prepared to compromise the work of the boundary commission. That sets a dangerous precedent. It is a direct assault on the independence of the boundary commission, it opens the door to gerrymandering and I suggest that it would leave the boundary commission open to legal challenge.
I am pleased that the Tory amendment will not be moved, because it did not make sense. Section 10 should go through unamended. If the Parliament allows the proposal in amendment 18 to go forward, I suspect that there will be many battles in the near future over boundaries—caused by the specific requirement for the Labour Party to appear tough for the benefit of their councillors and back-bench MSPs who oppose the bill.
We should thank the Executive for listening to the view of the committee at stage 1 that the proposals on the boundary review should be in the primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. That important concession from the Executive is why we are having this debate.
I had some concerns about the stage 2 amendment in Andy Kerr's name as I felt that it was slightly clumsy and that it was not clear what it was intended to do. However, I certainly do not agree that the amendment intends to do what Bruce McFee has suggested. That is made perfectly clear by the addition to the amendment—the proposed new section 10(2B)—which makes it clear that the boundary commission will be able to draw up boundaries and will have to have primary regard to schedule 6 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. What proposed new subsection (2A)(b) states is that the boundary commission will address why a bolted-together option does not meet the requirements of schedule 6 so that, in essence, it can say, "We cannot do a bolt-together because it does not meet the requirements of schedule 6." It does not say that we can create a set of boundaries that does not meet the requirements of schedule 6. Bruce McFee has misunderstood the proposal in the amendment, which strengthens my concern that the original amendment was perhaps clumsily worded. The addition of proposed new subsection (2B) to the amendment clarifies the matter.
I am happy to support amendment 18.
The Executive's amendment 18 is unnecessary as the necessary flexibility already exists within the boundary commission. I ask that, in summing up on the group of amendments, the minister takes the opportunity to give a categorical commitment to Parliament that no right of appeal will be allowed to delay the boundaries being ready for the 2007 elections.
I call the minister to wind up.
I have very little to say apart from to respond to Mr Sheridan's point. We have made the timescales involved in the process absolutely clear. There will be strict limits on the timescale and we do not expect any delays of the type that Mr Sheridan envisages.
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Abstentions
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 80, Against 23, Abstentions 6.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
After section 10
Amendment 6, in the name of David Mundell, is grouped with amendment 8.
I lodged amendment 6 for reasons to which I have alluded. Again, it is extremely important that the Parliament focuses on first, the simultaneous operation of multiple electoral systems and secondly, the need to ensure that people understand the voting systems.
We cannot brush aside a situation in which large numbers of people fail to register an admissible vote. That simply is not good enough. The example from the recent London Assembly and mayoral elections, which took place on the same day, could not be clearer. People were asked to put an X on a piece of paper under one system and to express a preference numerically under another system and 220,000 ballot papers were judged to be inadmissible. The same problem has arisen in Northern Ireland when two elections have been held simultaneously. The matter is important and I am not satisfied with what the Executive has said about it to date.
Other problems arise, some of which can be illustrated by the experience in Scotland during the European elections. For example, in Dumfries and Galloway, the 9,500 postal vote applications were sent out with instructions about how to vote in a first-past-the-post election, so further correspondence had to be entered into with confused postal voters. Such problems arise when multiple elections take place simultaneously. The Executive must tell us how it will minimise the number of rejected ballots that might be generated under the proposed new system. Better still, I hope that it will tell us that it will decouple the Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
I move amendment 6.
Contributions must be very brief, please. I call Andrew Welsh, to be followed by Bristow Muldoon.
Amendment 8 is a consequential amendment, so I address my remarks to amendment 6, although my attitude to both amendments is the same.
Amendment 6 is a negative, blocking, Tory amendment that appears to aid democracy and electoral fairness while in fact doing the opposite. If the amendment were agreed to, its provisions would bring the Executive and the Parliament into disputes over rejected ballot papers and interfere with the impartiality of the long-established existing system of dealing with spoiled ballot papers. It would politicise local government disputes by—uniquely—allowing ministers and Parliament to intervene and adjudicate on part of the results of local elections. They are rightly not allowed to do that at parliamentary elections and allowing them to do so at local elections would be a very bad precedent to set.
Amendments 6 and 8 are not necessary. Long-established statutory rules and responsibilities exist for dealing with spoiled ballot papers. Returning officers at the count, and on the night, adjudicate on spoiled papers, witnessed by election agents. They do so in accordance with clear rules that are laid out in statute. Any spoiled papers are held in sealed envelopes and anyone who disputes the election result can apply to the courts within 21 days to have the result set aside. That is exactly the same system as the one used for parliamentary elections. In extreme circumstances, the returning officer has the power to set aside the result.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am very short of time, so I will continue.
In the cases that I mentioned, it would be for the courts of law to deal with rejected ballot papers. The courts are the established and correct method of doing that.
The reasons for rejection of ballot papers by returning officers are strictly governed by legislation, as is the form and content of ballot papers. Clearly, if 3 per cent of ballot papers were rejected as invalid, they would come under set categories and that would be plainly seen.
The Tory amendment 6 would allow an organised attack on election results and the democratic process and would drag Government and Parliament into the dispute. That would hardly be a service to democracy. If David Mundell is worried about ballot papers being spoiled through a lack of understanding of the new STV system, the solution is obvious and rests elsewhere: voter education and information will be crucial. During the earlier stages of the bill, the Executive promised extra money for such voter education. I would like the minister to confirm that commitment. There are also statutory obligations on returning officers and polling clerks to ensure that signage and help for electors are available at every polling station.
We have here a wrong Tory diagnosis and wrong Tory amendments. Both amendments 6 and 8 ought to be rejected.
I have to renege on my promise to call Bristow Muldoon because the clock defeats us. I must give the minister an opportunity to respond.
The clock is very unfair.
I am aware that Mr Mundell and others commented at stages 1 and 2 on the level of rejected ballot papers at the Northern Ireland Assembly elections last year. The Electoral Commission's review found that there was no accurate record of the reasons why the papers were rejected. The commission considered that such a record was vital to ensure the transparency of the count and to identify any underlying problems. The commission recommended that up-to-date guidelines should be prepared on the processes to be adopted for rejecting ballot papers, and that staff should be trained in their use.
It is right that these serious matters be raised. I acknowledge that big challenges lie ahead in raising voter awareness of the new system. We acknowledge the danger that the introduction of STV might result in an increase in the number of rejected ballot papers. However, as we have discussed at the Local Government and Transport Committee, and in the Parliament, those difficulties are not insurmountable. I believe that we have the capacity and the resources to overcome them.
Will the minister confirm that, contrary to what we heard from Andrew Welsh, amendment 6 would not give the Parliament new statutory powers to overturn an election, but would simply give the Parliament the power to investigate why a high number of ballot papers had been rejected? That would not be overturning an election.
Once again, Mr Sheridan is siding with the Tories. I rather agreed with Mr Welsh. His arguments illustrated the core Tory belief on this issue and on the bill as a whole. It is curious that Mr Sheridan is once again backing Mr Mundell.
We do not want ballot papers to be rejected because people are confused about how to vote. Therefore, we are committed to ensuring that people understand the basics of STV, understand how to mark their preferences on the ballot paper, and understand the broad principles of how the votes are counted. We have to consider a variety of ways of getting the message across. Some are simple and practical such as leaflets; others will involve new systems and the provision of advice and support in polling stations. The STV working group is now considering practical implementation issues such as voter education and publicity. We will address those issues when the group reports to ministers. We will also discuss voter awareness and related issues with returning officers and will work with them to minimise the number of rejected ballot papers.
On amendment 8, we will have to specify what constitutes a rejected ballot paper, but that matter is best dealt with in secondary legislation. I invite David Mundell to withdraw amendment 6 and not to move amendment 8.
There is no time for Mr Mundell to do anything other than to indicate whether he will press amendment 6 or seek leave to withdraw it.
I will introduce a bill to decouple the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. Therefore I seek leave to withdraw amendment 6.
Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 12—Interpretation of Part 1
Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.
Section 18—Severance payments for councillors
That takes us on time to group 6. Given that only 10 minutes have been allocated for the group, I ask members to keep their speeches brief. Amendment 19, in the name of Andrew Welsh, is grouped with amendment 20.
I will be as brief as I can. I also declare an interest, which is that my wife is an Angus Council councillor. I made that clear at committee and I want to make it clear again today.
The SNP will move amendment 19 to address the anomaly and unfairness in the original bill that arise from the fact that qualification for severance pay will depend on a councillor not standing at the next election and the fact that candidates who stand for re-election will be excluded. A councillor of many years of public service who was not re-elected would receive no such payment while former council colleagues who did not stand would receive the full payment for their years of service. At the heart of the situation lies the question about why the severance payments were introduced at all. Are they a recognition of past public service or simply a financial incentive to get longer-serving councillors out of local government? I ask the minister to make clear on which side of the fence his provision lies.
If its aim is to remove existing councillors from local government and bring in fresh faces, it will lead to the obvious problems of loss of experience and expertise and of how to achieve a financial reward that is sufficient to entice former councillors not to stand, which would give the proposed remuneration committee a financial puzzle to solve. The payment may be designed to reward past public service. If so, and if the bill is not amended, the provision will clearly discriminate.
I am clear that the severance payment should be a recognition of past public service. As such, all past public service should be recognised and people should not be penalised by a rule that doubly punishes electoral defeat—a defeat that could be on the narrowest of margins.
Amendment 19 would prevent discrimination against long-serving councillors who wish to be judged by the electorate and not pre-judged by the bill as drafted.
I move amendment 19.
I speak to amendment 20 and in support of amendment 19.
Under the Executive's current provisions, within, say, the Labour Party—given the size of its wards across the country—a councillor who wanted to go forward for election could be defeated by 2:1 in a local selection contest, and would be guaranteed a severance payment for their previous council service, yet a councillor who won the 2:1 vote but who was then defeated by 2,000 votes to 1,800 would not be entitled to any severance payment.
The Executive's provision lacks any principle or logic. If the idea is to reward past service, which is a good idea, let us do that. Let us not base the reward on whether the councillor stands for election again. The provision is discriminatory and amendment 19 seeks to address that fact.
Amendment 20 seeks to address the idea that we should somehow debar someone from standing for election in future simply because they have been rewarded for their past service in a local authority. We should be careful about how we debar people from standing for election. One of the ways to debar them is not to agree that they should be rewarded for past service, only to say, "By the way, you can't stand again for election in the future." That is utter nonsense, which is why amendments 19 and 20 should be supported.
I found Mr Kerr's comments on the provision at committee compelling. It is a payment for an adjustment between one system of election and another. Politics is about hard decisions: everybody who goes into the political process has to make hard decisions about whether to stand in a particular election. It is not for Parliament to negate the candidate's personal responsibility in that regard.
When the proposal was originally mooted, we were informed that the severance payment was to recognise service to the community by councillors who would not be continuing after the next elections. Frankly, what we have now is another expedient—introduced cynically—to use public money to buy off Labour councillors in the authorities where the number of Labour councillors elected is grossly out of proportion to the number of votes that Labour receives.
Labour members know that there will be casualties within the party, and they intend to use severance payments to buy off the problem of certain selection meetings.
"The severance payment proposal contained in the Bill is tantamount to a bribe to persuade councillors to stand down at the next election".
Those are not my words, but the words of Councillor Pat Watters—a Labour councillor—on behalf of Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which says it all.
Mr Sheridan's amendment 20 is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it amendment. It would allow councillors to take what is, in effect, a voluntary redundancy payment and reapply for their jobs later. We cannot support that.
Frankly, ministers have spoken nonsense about the severance scheme, and have danced around trying to make it stack up. It is an abuse of public money to use it to sort out internal Labour Party problems.
The Executive has had a consistent position on severance payments. We are proposing a one-off scheme, available only to those councillors who choose to stand down at the next election. Andrew Welsh's amendment 19 would mean that councillors who chose to stand but were not elected would be entitled to a severance payment. We simply do not think that that is the right approach.
In fairness to Mr Mundell, the introduction of a new electoral system is, as he rightly recognised, a big change for everyone. We acknowledge that not all councillors will want to take part in the new arrangements. We respect that view, so the scheme will give councillors a choice: they can choose to take a severance payment or not, or they can choose to stand again for election under the new voting system. That will mean that all candidates go into the next election on an equal basis.
Is not it the case that the reverse is the situation with respect to MSPs and MPs?
I accept that there are different arrangements for MSPs and MPs. We are dealing with the local government elections and the system that will elect local government in the future. The arrangements are just different.
It is not right in principle that councillors who stand again should also be eligible for a severance payment if they are defeated. We also need to look at the bigger picture. In line with our widening-access agenda, we want to create opportunities for more people to consider standing for election. The average Scottish councillor is male, white and in his 50s. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is hardly representative.
Of course there is something wrong with that. If there is not, why does the minister want to change it?
Yes, we do want to change matters. We need to find ways of encouraging people from a range of different backgrounds to come forward, which I would have thought Mr Sheridan would want. That will work only if posts are available for them to fill. Amendment 19 would restrict the ability of parties to field new candidates. Amendment 19 is wrong in principle and would be detrimental to our widening-access agenda, so I ask members not to agree to it.
With amendment 20, Mr Sheridan is trying to be all things to all councillors. I acknowledge that the scheme may appear harsh to some, but we are not in the business of letting councillors benefit from a severance payment and then stand again. The practical effect of Tommy Sheridan's amendment 20 would be that a councillor could accept a severance payment and stand down at the next election. Then, a few months later, they could win a by-election and benefit from the new salary and pension arrangements that will be in place.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No.
That would do nothing to encourage more people to stand, it would do nothing for the age profile of Scotland's councillors, and it would do nothing to address gender inequality, which are all matters that we want to address.
Tommy Sheridan also needs to consider how constituents would view a scheme that allows councillors to accept a severance payment and then come back shortly afterwards with a new salary and pension. The reaction would be less than positive.
Our severance scheme is fair and lets councillors choose what is right for them. Mr Sheridan's amendment 20 would amount to a golden handshake and a golden hello for some councillors, which we do not think is right.
I invite Parliament to reject amendments 19 and 20.
As Tavish Scott has revealed, the severance scheme is a bribe to get rid of councillors, not a reward for past service. David Mundell said that there will be an adjustment between systems. Such adjustments should be fair and should not discriminate unfairly against certain councillors and not others. If pre-2007 councillors are to have past service recognised, that should apply to all pre-2007 councillors. There should not be any discrimination. The severance scheme should apply to everybody. There should not be one rule for MPs and a different one for councillors. The issue is a point of principle for Parliament to decide, and it should do so.
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 11, Against 98, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 disagreed to.
Section 22—Orders and regulations
Group 7 is on subordinate legislation provisions. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 26, 21, 22, 14 to 17, 23, 23A and 23B. I remind members that amendments 26, 23A and 23B are manuscript amendments that were lodged today. The text can be found in the supplement to the marshalled list of amendments, which has been placed on the desks in the chamber.
Executive amendments 13 to 17 are straightforward technical amendments. The bill as introduced makes provision for the establishment of the Scottish local authorities remuneration committee, which will make recommendations about how councillors should be remunerated. Once the committee reports and details of the new system of remuneration are established, it will be necessary to put in place legislation to give effect to the new arrangements. That will involve the use of the regulation-making power under section 17(1). Section 22 provides that any such regulation-making power includes the power to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential, transitory or saving provision as ministers think necessary. The bill also contains a separate stand-alone power to make ancillary provision.
We have considered how to make the consequential provisions that will be required following the introduction of a new system of allowances and remuneration for councillors. As we do not know at this stage what the remuneration committee will recommend—and therefore what provision will be required—we cannot include an appropriate provision in the bill. However, the extent of the regulation-making power under section 17(1) is limited by section 22, which at present may not allow the power to be used to modify an enactment. We consider that the introduction of a new system of remuneration may require modification of primary legislation, which is why we propose an amendment to section 22 to clarify the matter. As a safeguard, where an order under section 21 or regulations under section 17(1) contain provisions that add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an act, the affirmative procedure will apply. Amendments 13 to 17 give effect to the policy that was agreed at stage 1. They will ensure that we can amend or repeal existing legislation on councillors' allowances if it is incompatible with the recommendations of the remuneration committee.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee lodged amendments 21 to 23 because of concerns that one of the order-making powers in the bill could be used to modify the bill itself, once enacted. We have closely examined that point. Section 9(1) provides that ministers must make an order relating to the conduct of the election and that the order must cover certain key essentials of an STV system. Although such an order could be used to amend an existing act, section 22(3) provides that any such order would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Subordinate Legislation Committee is concerned that an order under section 9(1) could be used to amend the bill once enacted and might even be used to abolish STV. Amendments 21 and 22—and amendment 26, in the name of Alasdair Morgan—are intended to prevent such an order from amending the bill, once enacted.
I might be able to reassure the committee by explaining that, in our view, the section 9(1) power could not be used in that way. Our legal advice is very clear that subordinate legislation powers must be construed within the realms of the parent legislation and cannot be used to subvert the act in which they appear. As a result, it is simply not possible for section 9(1) to be used to abolish STV. Moreover, we must not forget the additional safeguard of parliamentary scrutiny, which offers us further reassurance that any attempt to abuse the section 9(1) power would be unsuccessful. For those reasons, we believe that amendments 21 to 23 are unnecessary, as strong safeguards already exist.
Will the minister assure us that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate and vote on any order that relates to the determination of the quota and the method of transfer of votes?
Mr Canavan raises a different matter that was dealt with earlier this afternoon. However, I will certainly come back to him on that point.
We are concerned about the danger that amending the bill to include a restriction of the sort proposed by the Subordinate Legislation Committee could call into question the proper interpretation of all the other pieces of legislation in which similar order-making powers appear without a similar restriction. Moreover, there is a danger that, in consequence, people might argue that such powers are wider than the Parliament actually intended. Although I am sure that that is not the committee's intention, it would be one of the consequences of its amendments.
Amendment 23 seeks to provide for a super-affirmative procedure to be adopted for orders made under section 9(1), and amendments 23A and 23B, in the name of Alasdair Morgan, seek to make adjustments to that procedure. Although I understand that additional preliminary requirements have been adopted for some acts, they reflect their particular subject matter. I should also point out that the super-affirmative procedure is not a generally recognised one.
The rules governing the conduct of council elections are at present subject to annulment. As the affirmative procedure that we have adopted for orders under section 9(1) already offers Parliament greater scrutiny, we are not convinced that further enhancement of the affirmative procedure is necessary. As a result, I ask Sylvia Jackson not to move amendments 21 to 23 and Alasdair Morgan not to move amendments 23A, 23B and 26.
I move amendment 13.
As the minister has pointed out, the Subordinate Legislation Committee was concerned about the delegated power in section 9, which is why we lodged amendments 21 to 23. Indeed, our full reasons for doing so are contained in our report.
I am grateful to the minister for his remarks and particularly for his important clarification about the scope of subordinate legislation to amend the provisions in acts. I believe that that clarification not only reassures the committee about its concerns over the bill's subordinate legislation provisions but serves to clear up the position with respect to all legislation, unless otherwise specified. However, it must be a matter of regret to the committee that the Executive could not have supplied that clarification when Stewart Maxwell initially raised the question that led to our on-going deliberation.
That said, the reassurance that the committee sought has now been put on the record for the chamber. It is very important that subordinate legislation powers are construed within the realms of parent legislation and, in this case, cannot be used to subvert sections 1 and 2.
With that reassurance, as convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I will not move amendments 21 to 23. However, I will say that the committee's future review of subordinate legislation will examine the super-affirmative procedure in much more detail.
Clearly, I started from the same point as the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee—of which I am a member—with my concern that the provisions in section 22 could be used to amend the bill, once enacted. We were concerned not that the current Executive or any Executive that we could foresee for the immediate future would use the powers in that way, but that an ill-disposed Executive could use them to abolish the PR system by adjusting the numbers involved—particularly those referred to in sections 1 and 2—so much as to revert to a first-past-the-post system.
The question is whether the order-making powers in section 22 can be used to alter sections 1 and 2 of the bill once enacted. It is all very well for the minister to say that he has legal advice that they could not, but others have received legal advice that clashes with his. Moreover, it is not good enough for the minister to say that it is not his intention to use those powers to amend sections 1 and 2. The fact that that is not his intention or that of the Government does not mean that a future Government could not use the section 22 powers in that way.
I am aware of the Pepper v Hart ruling under which ministers' intentions can be used in a court case at a subsequent date to argue against statutory instruments that are laid by a Government. However, that would be too late, because we would have to go to court to argue against legislation that a Government was putting through Parliament. That is a dubious procedure at best; it is by no means certain and therefore gives no guarantee that section 22 would not be used to amend sections 1 and 2. I therefore wonder why the Government is resisting amendment 26, which is simply a generic, for-the-avoidance-of-doubt type of amendment. It does not do any damage to the Executive's provision or frustrate the Executive's will in any way, but guarantees the will of the Parliament that statutory instruments that are laid under the bill, once enacted, cannot be used to amend it. I do not see what is wrong with amendment 26. I understand the argument against amendment 21—although I do not necessarily agree with it—which is that the amendment could bring into doubt other acts that do not have such a provision. However, the wording of amendment 26 is used in other acts that the Government has introduced.
I therefore urge the minister to re-examine his thoughts on the issue and accept the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concern on the matter, which his assurances do not fully address. They may address the concern for the current Executive, but he cannot bind future Executives.
As has already been pointed out, the Subordinate Legislation Committee was concerned by the answers that Executive civil servants gave to various questions that I and other members of the committee asked them. I will quote briefly from those answers for the minister's benefit. When I asked about whether section 9 could be used to amend sections 1 and 2, the answer was:
"Theoretically, an order made under section 9(2) can modify an enactment, so it would be possible".—[Official Report, Subordinate Legislation Committee, 15 June 2004; c 511.]
Our legal advice says that that is the case.
As Alasdair Morgan has said, amendment 26 does not in any way detract from the Executive's policy, attack its position or undermine what it is trying to do. In essence, amendment 26 tries to close the door to ensure that any future Executive that is opposed to the bill and to STV could not use a statutory instrument to get rid of STV, but would have to introduce primary legislation and take it through the Parliament using the full procedure. We should close that door by supporting amendment 26.
We are perhaps concerned about something that does not really exist. I would have thought that it is possible to make orders and amend enactments under any section only as far is required for that section. Therefore, it would be possible to amend an act using the powers in subsections (1) and (2) of section 9 only to introduce the things that are provided for in those subsections. The problem that is being raised is not genuine.
In response to the points raised by Mr Morgan and Mr Maxwell, I recognise that, as Mr Maxwell said, civil servants gave evidence that day. However, I point out that they said they would provide further information later, which they did. On 15 June, the Executive sent a letter that I am sure that Mr Maxwell and Mr Morgan have read. For the sake of brevity, I shall quote only one sentence from it. The letter says:
"I can now confirm our view that the power in Section 9(1) could not be used to amend the primary legislation in which the power appears, unless an express provision to that effect had been included."
It is important to reflect on that statement and on the words spoken by the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee a moment ago.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 41, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Does Sylvia Jackson want to move amendment 21?
No.
Amendment 21 moved—[Mr Stewart Maxwell].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 44, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 disagreed to.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Amendments 14 to 17 moved—[Tavish Scott].
The question is, that amendments 14 to 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
The result of the division is: For 99, Against 1, Abstentions 10.
Amendments 14 to 17 agreed to.
Does Sylvia Jackson want to move amendment 23?
No.
Amendment 23 moved—[Mr Stewart Maxwell].
Amendment 23A moved—[Alasdair Morgan].
The question is, that amendment 23A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23A disagreed to.
Amendment 23B not moved.
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 45, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Section 23—Short title and commencement
Amendment 24, in the name of Helen Eadie, is grouped with amendment 25.
At stage 2, the minister, Tavish Scott, and various members, including David Mundell and Iain Smith, equated the idea of a referendum with consultation. I do not ask for further consultation. I think that we all agree that there has been enough consultation. My proposal is that we should give the people of Scotland a choice in a referendum. At stage 2, Bruce McFee said that my proposal was about political expediency, but my idea came from a gut feeling—the feeling that was spoken about in this afternoon's time for reflection—that it is the right thing for the people of Scotland.
The case for a referendum on the future of local government in Scotland exposes all those who reject the idea. To reject a referendum is a serious political error on all our parts. This is the moment to decide whether voter apathy can be reversed; the method by which to reverse it is to engage the public in a national debate. If we do not do that, our relationship with the public will continue to erode and that will undermine our ambitions indefinitely—our arrogance will cost us dearly. Are we, each and every one of us in the chamber, afraid to engage with the public? Are we afraid of elections and of taking the debate into communities? I am not sure why members are afraid of a referendum, but I think that it is because they are afraid to explain the complexity of the system to the public.
Another reason to favour a referendum is that it would surrender political power to popular power. It would say to the people, "We, the political class, are failing you. We have not listened enough. We have not been interested in hearing your voices except once every four years. We face a desperate need to find new routes to public trust, so we are letting go." That would be the answer.
Will the member take an intervention?
In a moment.
John Smith said throughout his life that we should always have a referendum when we consider constitutional changes. The bill represents a constitutional change. The Tories gave massive amounts of energy to the European constitution and they said that we should have a referendum. Local government is every bit as important as that, if not more important, so why are members rejecting the idea of a referendum?
John Smith also said, within the Labour Party, that there should not be a change to our voting system without a referendum. That idea was carried by the trade unions, by the Labour Party and by every subsequent Labour Party conference. Our manifestos in 1999 and 2003 were silent about any constitutional change, but here we are, about to take the people of our country for granted by not engaging with them. It is vital to engage our people. I for one would be happy to hold meetings throughout my constituency if the Parliament decided to hold a referendum.
Does Helen Eadie concede that the European constitution will transfer a massive level of power from one Parliament to another but that it does not refer to the election system for European Parliament members? The two issues cannot be compared when talking about referenda.
That is absolute nonsense. In case any of us missed it, I should say that when Professor Plant produced his report—which was of major importance for all of us in this country—he said that the whole idea of proportional representation was to retain as much power and control as possible at the centre. That is what Westminster has done to Scotland and that is what we are about to do to local government. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is what we are about to do to the people for whom local government matters most. Proportional representation is always about holding power at the centre; it does not devolve power. I will always vote against proportional representation. [Interruption.]
Order.
I challenge each and every member to take the debate to the country. Members are afraid.
I move amendment 24.
A considerable number of members wish to speak and I tell them now that I will not be able to call them all.
I do not agree, of course, with the proposal that Helen Eadie eloquently made. We have waited five years for the bill. Helen Eadie and others have lost the argument.
Amendment 24 comes from a member who opposes fair votes for the people of Scotland. Every measure of public opinion that has been taken in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom supports the move away from what is in effect a corrupt first-past-the-post system to a system of fair votes, such as that which the bill will institute for the people of Scotland. Helen Eadie has lost the argument.
If the member thinks that the system has so much support, why is he scared to put it to the people?
My party fought the previous Scottish Parliament election with the proposed system as a major plank of our policies. The system of parliamentary democracy involves taking decisions that are in the best interests of the people of Scotland.
I would not have minded having a referendum in the early days of the previous parliamentary session, but we have waited five long years for the bill to be introduced. Amendment 24 is a last-ditch attempt to delay the process further and I urge the Parliament to reject it.
I am pleased to support amendments 24 and 25 in Helen Eadie's name. We have heard much talk about democracy. If the Parliament imposes the proposed major change in how our citizens are governed locally without their direct involvement, that will be an affront to local democracy in Scotland.
The Parliament must recognise that PR for local government is not simply a policy issue; it is a major constitutional change to another tier of government that will affect directly the democratic system in this country. It will change the relationship between the electorate and their local representatives and it has implications for accountability, representation and local democracy. The bottom line is that the PR proposal has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with coalition politics.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities briefing quoted the Westminster Parliament's Scottish Affairs Committee, which questioned the
"strange decision by the Scottish Executive to introduce STV for local government elections, when the overwhelming majority of local councils oppose such a move, and there is scope for causing confusion amongst electors."
I accept the legitimate arguments from both sides about the merits or otherwise of PR, but I do not accept that we can debate that sufficiently and make decisions without the input of those who will be affected. To dictate such a fundamental and far-reaching change to the governance of Scotland in the high-handed fashion that has been adopted is arrogant effrontery against our citizens. They expect better from us.
I acknowledge the spirit with which Helen Eadie expresses her views and I understand but do not agree with the passionate words that she uttered a moment ago. Similar amendments were discussed but not moved at stage 2 and I respectfully suggest that the arguments remain the same. There was extensive consultation on the subject even before the partnership agreement was concluded last May. The key measures in the bill have been subject to consultation during recent years and they have attracted considerable interest and debate since they were first aired in the McIntosh report.
The responses to the most recent white paper showed a significant majority in favour of the introduction of the single transferable vote—960 responses were in favour whereas only 39 were not. Even if we discount the pro-STV postcard campaign, that still leaves a significant majority in favour of STV. There is no need for a referendum of the kind proposed in amendment 24 and I ask respectfully that Helen Eadie withdraws her amendment.
Ms Eadie, do you want to press or withdraw amendment 24?
I will press both my amendments.
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 110, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Amendment 25 moved—[Helen Eadie].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 110, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Schedule
Constitution etc of Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee
Amendment 12, in the name of Andy Kerr, is in a group on its own. Minister, before you begin, I have to say that I will probably not be able to call anyone else to speak unless you are very quick.
Amendment 12 is a straightforward amendment that removes a paragraph from the schedule to the bill. The bill as introduced requires that consultation takes place with
"such associations of local authorities and such other persons"
as ministers think appropriate. Our new approach, however, will ensure that representatives of local government are given an opportunity to be involved in determining the skills and expertise that are needed by members of the committee and that the principles of the public appointments process are not undermined.
I move amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
That ends consideration of stage 3 amendments