Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Official Report 481KB pdf

---

Islands (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 4 is the committee’s third evidence session on the Islands (Scotland) Bill. This session is specifically on part 4 of the bill and the financial memorandum.

I welcome Ronnie Hinds, the chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission and Isabel Drummond-Murray, who is the secretary. I also welcome Roddie Mackay, the leader of the Western Isles Council, and Derek Mackay, who is its depute returning officer.

There are questions for all of you. Please indicate when you wish to respond. There will not be the chance for everyone to answer each question, so try to pick the ones that you would like to come in on. If you indicate, I will call you in. To remind those who have not given evidence before, you do not need to touch any of the buttons in front of you. It all happens automatically.

Historically, Orkney and Shetland have had protected boundaries for election purposes. Why is that not the case for the Western Isles?

It seems an anomaly. People have said that it was as if the Western Isles were just forgotten through an administrative hiccup.

You are correct that Orkney and Shetland were specified in the Scotland Act 1998. The council is pleased that the opportunity has been presented to address the anomaly. That will allow the Western Isles to be treated consistently with the other island areas. We are the largest in terms of population. It just ensures that the Western Isles will be represented at parliamentary level.

Does Ronnie Hinds have anything to add, or are you happy that that answer summarises the position?

I have nothing to add.

Will the proposal in the bill have any implications? Will it provide confidence? Do you expect that, because it provides for the status quo, it will work well? Are there likely to be unforeseen consequences?

On that particular aspect?

Yes.

No, none whatsoever.

Is everyone happy?

Yes.

Good.

Do you want to ask that question of the boundary commission?

My question about the implications of the change was to the boundary commission.

We work within the legislation. I see no implications of an adverse nature from the proposal for the Western Isles to become a single constituency. It should be straightforward.

Will the proposal open the floodgates for other requests?

Requests from other islands?

Or from other parts of Scotland.

We do not anticipate any.

Good morning. Hello, Mr Hinds, how are you?

Fine, thank you.

It has been a long time since you and I have seen each other.

As you know, I was previously a councillor in North Lanarkshire Council. The change in the law in 2004 brought in the new multimember ward. How do the Local Government Boundary Commission and the council take account of the practical issues created by the current three or four-member ward system, and what impact will switching to a one or two-member ward for a particular island or islands have on the number of councillors covering island areas?

I will have first go at that; Isabel Drummond-Murray may also want to contribute. One of the things that we said in our submission is that in the course of carrying out the fifth reviews of local government as a whole, we were given notice by several councils that it would have been helpful to have more than a three or four-member option to work with. That response came from across Scotland, and not just from the island areas.

The commission welcomes the proposal in the bill that there could be occasions where one or two-member wards could be applied in the designated island areas. That gives us additional flexibility, which is always welcome when you are trying to draw boundaries, particularly in island areas. We think that that is a good thing.

Do you want to add anything to that, Isabel?

It is about the greater flexibility that it offers us.

Would that have an impact on the Western Isles? Is there something that we need to consider there?

We agree. Getting more flexibility in general for the boundary commission around a one or two-member rule as opposed to three or four-member wards would be an achievement.

We strongly support the provision because it provides an opportunity for us to address concerns in some island areas where a council is too remote from the island community that it serves. There are anomalies in our system. The natural townships and communities within our island areas should be the drivers for the ward and the ward membership should be built on that.

We feel that sometimes, because it does not have flexibility, the boundary commission is driven solely by numbers and ratios, which has led to some unnatural combinations, leaving one village or township with much less representation than another. If the commission had flexibility in the island context, island communities and natural communities would be better represented, which would enhance democratic representation in the process. It would be good for us.

I apologise, Richard. I asked a question in the middle of your line of questioning.

In the past, the boundary commission and councils looked at the sizes of particular wards and tried to even it out—they took the line down certain streets even when people like me said, “No, we shouldnae go there”. Bearing that in mind and the fact that there will be a lower proportion of electors on an island compared to the three or four-member ward that straddles it, what is your view on creating smaller one or two-member wards where the electorate may be 50 per cent less than the three or four-member ward of which it was previously part?

It would not matter if the electorate was smaller because it is the ratio of electors to representatives that really matters. However, I think that I get the thrust of your question. Given that we are focusing on island and, in the main, rural communities, it raises the possibility, especially if we have more strings to our bow—that is, one and two-member wards as well as three and four-member wards—that you could have quite different ratios within a given council area. We have to go into that with an open mind. We have not sat down and deliberated on our strategy, approach and methodology. However, we recognise the spirit of the bill.

Although we continue to have to work under the rules that apply for all local government reviews—namely that parity is paramount—we have been able to use special geographical circumstances in the past as a way of evening that out. We will probably have to do that to a greater extent when we consider island communities. Part of our approach will be to talk to the councils and communities and take their views carefully into account when we decide how to strike the right balance between parity and closer community representation.

You are talking about different types of representation in different places and different ward sizes and numbers of members. What do you think about council numbers overall? Can you see that changing for all the island communities and the Western Isles in particular? Will you go with the current number of councillors, following the most recent reviews, and distribute them about? Is there a possibility of an increase or decrease in the number of councillors?

11:45  

I will try to pick that apart a little. We do not have a pre-set notion that the existing number of councillors—either in the islands or in Scotland as a whole—is a limit on the work that we are about to take on. If you look at how we went about our business in previous reviews, you will find as many examples of areas where the number of councillors in a council went down as examples of areas where the number went up. That was not because there was an overall total that we were trying to work to; it was a reflection of the work that we had done.

The same approach would apply to the island areas. We do not go into this with the idea that if there are currently 22 councillors on Orkney there will always be 22 councillors on Orkney; that is not our approach. In spirit, the bill seems to offer a different recognition of the nature of island communities, and I think that we would be tying our hands if we went into the business saying that the number of councillors that councils currently have is some kind of ceiling.

Members should bear it in mind that when we ask councils what the right number of councillors is, the answer can sometimes be a surprise—the Western Isles can testify to that; they have told us on previous occasions that they have too many. Some councils have said that they would rather have fewer councillors, others have wanted more. We go into the exercise with an open mind and take councils’ views into account. I would not assume that our working to different legislation in this context will necessarily result in more councillors overall, although it could do.

I will bring in Roddie Mackay—you do not have to answer the specific question about whether there are too many or too few councillors.

I think that I am happy to say that our main aim today is to see an amendment to schedule 6 to allow the boundary commission to set different ratios for individual islands or for groups of islands that differ from mainland areas. That is our focus in relation to the question of having one or two-member wards as opposed to three or four-member wards.

We did not think that we would be focusing on the total numbers. Let me give you an example. We have 31 members at the moment. In earlier days, the boundary commission suggested that we should have around 28, but—like turkeys voting for Christmas—we suggested 26. We are quite flexible about the total number: we are realistic about that. That is not our driver today; our driver in this context is to get more appropriate and flexible representation for the islands.

North Ayrshire Council said that, although the bill makes provision for an adjustment to ward sizes, it does not make provision for altering the electorate to councillor ratio. It is far easier to serve a few thousand voters in an urban area than it is to serve voters who are spread over multiple islands. Should such provision be in the bill? Should there be an ability to change that ratio?

To do that would be tantamount to saying that parity was no longer paramount. That parity is paramount remains the position under the main legislation within which we work.

Our feeling is that, in the spirit of what the bill is seeking to achieve, the ability to have a choice between one or two-member wards and three or four-member wards in the island areas would probably get us to a position comparable to what is being sought. For example, we can readily construe a means by which we would change the current representation in Arran. That might mean that a ratio applied in Arran that was different from the ratio that applied in the rest of North Ayrshire, but to achieve such an end there would be no need for a new provision in the bill; it could be done by means of what is being offered in the bill.

The commission advocates not having different ratios in council areas, because the rock on which we are founded must be parity. We can work around it, as we have done in the past and will seek to do again in this context, but not having it would not give us a strong enough framework in which to work. I return to the point that the main objective of what we do is to ensure that democratic representation in this country is as fair as it can be. Comparable ratios within a council are an important part of that.

The comhairle is not advocating a move away from parity. The boundary commission has flexibility to take account of geographical circumstances in an island area. We do not see a great move from parity. A change of more than 10 per cent might sometimes be needed to take account of circumstances, but parity remains a key issue.

Does Roddie Mackay want to add to that?

No. Our thinking is the same. I know that the boundary commission considers parity to be paramount. If I could find a word that was a wee bit below paramount, I would go for that. Parity is crucial, but it should not be the sole driver of how we calculate things. We should work on the flexibility that we both agree would be good in the island context. It might inform and feed into different ways of doing things in other areas in the future.

That leads me nicely into the next questions, which concern any proposed changes. Ronnie Hinds mentioned that the commission would deliberate internally. What sort of external consultation might it participate in officially? How might that consultation play out—which stakeholders might be involved in it and what timescale would be involved—to ensure that everyone’s opinions and voices are heard?

We recognise that consultation is always an important part of our work, but that is particularly the case with the islands for implementing the bill.

I ask the broadcasting staff to turn up the volume. I am still struggling a bit to hear.

We recognise that consultation is important. The commission has not yet met to discuss how it will go about it, but there will be an absolute commitment to engaging not only with councils but with communities on the islands. Taking that consultation forward will be a priority.

There is a question of timing and not pre-empting any changes that might occur during the bill’s passage, but we will seek to undertake the review in time for the next local government elections. That points to our beginning the consultation early next summer.

I have just thought of a question that I do not think has been asked yet. Anyone can stand for anywhere in the area in which they live. I stay in North Lanarkshire, and I previously could stand anywhere there. However, for a two-member island ward, should we stipulate that the candidate must live on the island? Can we do that or should we encourage political parties to ensure that the candidates that they select for island seats live on the island? I know that Ronnie Hinds does not like to get into that.

I am sure that you will not want to answer that last question, Ronnie, but please address the general point.

The general point is probably more a question for the Electoral Commission than for the boundary commission. The witnesses from the Western Isles might want to comment on the matter, but we could make our approach so restrictive that it would be difficult to get candidates to stand. When we consider the possibility of going down to a single-member ward such as is provided for in the bill, there is an important question of proportionality. As we draw the boundaries more narrowly—that is the way in which your question tends—we have an issue straight away about proportionality if one part of the council is represented by a single member and other parts by two, three or four members. Compounding that by putting a territorial stipulation on candidacy would make life difficult to manage.

When we went to Mull, we heard about where the council works and the difficulties that some members face in travelling around more than one area. I ask Roddie Mackay to work that into his answer, because it seems to be a genuine concern.

It is a genuine concern. I agree with Ronnie Hinds about the need to avoid having too many stipulations about who can or cannot stand. It would be a can of worms and would not work. We think that having the flexibility to go down the one or two-member ward route will give us more natural community representation anyway. More people will stand in their area because they know it well. We all aim to get the representation of the people as close to the people as possible, and what Richard Lyle asks about will happen through that process.

That will address the travel issues. There may also be savings, because people will not have to travel for two or four hours to serve the community. They will be able to attend their community councils, for example, for a much lower cost. We will be able to release member expenses—not that you want to vote for that—for front-line services, so there is a win in that too.

That is a very clever lead-in; you must have seen the next question from John Mason.

You will not be surprised to hear that it is on the finances in the financial memorandum. I will start with the Local Government Boundary Commission. It is a routine part of your work to look at boundaries; you are doing a lot of work on that anyway. How much extra work will be involved under the bill? Are the finances that are specified in the financial memorandum realistic? Some people would say that looking at boundaries is just part of your normal work, but others might say that there will be a lot of extra work involved.

The Local Government Boundary Commission works cyclically. The fifth reviews that we have just completed, which we mentioned earlier, have to be done every eight to 12 years. That means that, for a large part of the decade, the commission is dormant. A lot of people think that that is a good state for it to be in, but I think that we should be doing our work more continuously. That would work better. It would be less surprising to people if we did not appear only once every 10 years and say, “We’re going to have a look at your boundaries again,” because, in many cases, collective and organisational memory has been lost.

With regard to this piece of work, you will know that, for the three islands councils as they are conventionally understood, the Minister for Parliamentary Business took a decision not to go ahead with the proposals that we had produced. That work had already been done. From that baseline, therefore, one would say that, for us to do the work again will constitute additional work.

We think that it is the right thing to do—we had no difficulty at all with the minister’s decision. The additional work is part and parcel of what I would like to see in any case, which is a more continuous approach. It would be a better way of using the scarce resources that we have and of managing the business. The reviews would always be going on somewhere in the background, and the island reviews will be a step in that direction.

You said earlier that you will be talking to councils and communities. There are six councils, so that is not too bad, but there are quite a lot more community councils. Are the costs in the financial memorandum realistic? You could visit all the islands, although that might be expecting a bit much. I presume that there will be an impact on mainland communities that currently share a ward with islands, so you may need to speak to them as well.

It strikes me that there could be a considerable amount of work involved. Have you really thought through yet how you will go about it in practice?

The costs are an initial estimate. You are right, and we recognise the scale of the challenge, but it is difficult to pre-empt the commission’s consideration of how it wants to go about that work—for example, whether all commissioners will visit all islands or whether the work will be divided up. Similarly, for the team that I manage, there is a question around how we will address and engage people. We want to do so positively, and we are happy to take advice. I know that the committee has been out on visits, and other people have been consulting in the islands. Before we came into the meeting room today, we were talking about the challenges of visiting a lot of the islands, but we will want to do that. The cost is a ballpark figure—it may well go up.

The memorandum specifies:

“Costs for travel, promotion and consultation £160,000.”

Is that feasible?

The largest part of that is for a consultation portal. Until now, we have used an externally hosted portal, but we are exploring whether we can do that in-house, which would bring down the cost significantly and free up more money for things such as travel within the overall budget that has been set.

The memorandum also specifies:

“Additional staff: £35,000 to £70,000”.

Again, the challenge for me is to ensure that we have the resources to service the Local Government Boundary Commission and the Boundary Commission for Scotland, because we work for both. There will be questions around finishing the 2018 Westminster review. Responsibility for Scottish Parliament election boundaries was transferred between the two commissions back in May and decisions are pending about the timescales for that review. There is a bit of juggling, but we estimate that we will need one or possibly two more members of staff to help with the review. That is broadly realistic.

I want to ask the council about costs, too. The memorandum suggests a cost of £30,000 per local authority, which I guess is to do with consultation in which councils can seek the views of their communities. It seems a bit odd to me that the cost is simply £30,000 for each authority times six, which is £180,000. As far as I am aware, North Ayrshire Council has two islands to talk to, whereas Argyll and Bute Council and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar have quite a lot of islands to talk to. Are the witnesses from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar comfortable with those figures?

12:00  

We are comfortable with ours. You would have to ask Argyll and Bute Council about its figures. Because we live in, work in and move around our islands, a lot of the consultation that we do is possibly more real and on-going than the consultation in a lot of other areas. Given that we are so close to the people in our communities, we are continually garnering information. The issue of one or two-member wards, for example, has been on our agenda for a few years. There have been lots of consultations about different aspects of island life and different Government initiatives, but the issue of one or two-member wards is often a by-product that arises in consultations. We therefore already have a lot of information and feedback around that from our community consultations—we use a range of community consultation tools—and we think that £30,000 is more than adequate.

Do you anticipate that it will be simple and straightforward in some areas, where everyone is going to agree, but that it will be more challenging in other areas and you may need to do more work?

I do not think that we have such challenges in the Western Isles. I will not pre-empt what will happen and say that everyone is going to agree, but, in every consultation that we have had to date that has included the subject of one or two-member wards, people have said that they like the idea. They think that it will be more realistic and a more appropriate representation on the islands to have the flexibility of one or two-member wards.

They agree with the principle, but that does not mean that they agree where the lines should be.

Absolutely. We have not gone into the detail of where the lines would be. However, I think that we would put the lines where we know innately that people would like them to be, as long as they stack up with the boundary commission’s requirements.

Okay. Thank you.

I do not normally do this, but I am conscious that Roddie Mackay has travelled a long way, and I am mindful of Ronnie Hinds’s comment that he was dormant for 10 years. Given that we have you in front of the committee today, is there anything that you feel we have missed in our questioning that you would like to bring to our attention before I close this part of the meeting?

We are gracious and recognise that Ronnie Hinds has been dormant, but we are offering him the potential to get out and about, meet people and see our lovely islands. Isabel Drummond-Murray has requested not to attend in the winter but only in the summer.

To be serious, we have been working very well on the our islands, our future initiative over the past few years—particularly on the Shetland and Orkney relationship, through which a lot of ideas have come up, which is great. The Islands (Scotland) Bill has also been useful, and we welcome the opportunity to come to the committee and say what we have to say about it all. However, we are being realistic and offering an alternative that will bring people closer to decision making. We are following the community engagement and community empowerment agenda that we constantly hear about, and the bill fits in well with that. In terms of island proofing, which has become an in-phrase at the minute, the bill will give a different slant to how we do things in the islands around the wards, so it is a welcome opportunity and the islands are a good place to test it.

Thank you, Roddie. You will excuse my flippant remark. If Ronnie Hinds wants to add anything, we would like to hear it.

I will respond in kind. We are turning this into a mutual admiration society, but I have fond memories of the visits that we made to the islands in the course of the fifth electoral reviews, and I anticipate the same when we repeat our visits.

Mr Finnie’s question about the bill is a good one. It is not clear to me whether the £30,000 per council is supposed to be an allocated sum for each of the six or whether it is a pot from which they would draw. It might be worth getting some clarity on that, because I would not want to think that some of the work that we have to do with the councils would be constrained by the sense that £30,000 was not enough to cover their expenses. I do not think that that would happen, but it is worth getting some clarity on that.

There are one or two additional points that we want to emphasise in the light of the need for flexibility and the fact that we welcome the additional flexibility that the bill proposes. The bill’s wording regarding the possibility of one or two-member wards refers to islands that are “wholly or mainly” within a ward. We think that it would be more flexible to use the phrase “wholly or partly”, because there could be examples of an island being a minority part of a ward and not necessarily falling within the ambit of what the bill, as it is currently drafted, discusses. We think that it would be equally valid for one or two-member wards to be considered for such an island. We leave with the committee our view that “wholly or partly” would be better wording than “wholly or mainly”.

In a similar vein, with regard to having more flexibility for local authorities that have both an island and a mainland component—for example, North Ayrshire—the bill does not provide for us to consider one or two-member wards for the mainland part but provides for us to consider only the island part. For flexibility, it would be helpful if we could also consider having one or two-member wards on the mainland. That would avoid any clunky, knock-on consequences of saying that one or two-member wards might be the right solution for Arran or Bute, for example, without seeing the ramifications of that for Ardrossan and the surrounding area. We would be happier if we had the option of having one or two-member wards in the surrounding areas, too. That would be in the spirit of what the legislation is trying to achieve.

Thank you. The committee is looking forward to its trips to Orkney at the end of the week and the Western Isles in the middle of October to take evidence on the Islands (Scotland) Bill. I thank the panel for attending the meeting.

12:05 Meeting continued in private until 12:20.