Putting Citizens First the Report from the …...2 Putting Citizens First 4. The Arbuthnott...

HC 924

House of Commons

Scottish Affairs Committee

Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems

Third Report of Session 2005–06

HC 924 Published on 16 May 2006

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£0.00

House of Commons

Scottish Affairs Committee

Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems

Third Report of Session 2005–06

Report, together with formal minutes and oral evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 May 2006

The Scottish Affairs Committee

The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the office of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)).

Current membership

Mr Mohammad Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central) (Chairman) Danny Alexander MP, (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) Gordon Banks MP, (Labour, Ochil & South Perthshire) Ms Katy Clark MP, (Labour, North Ayrshire & Arran) Mr Ian Davidson MP, (Labour, Glasgow South West) Mr John MacDougall MP, (Labour, Glenrothes) Mr Jim McGovern MP, (Labour, Dundee West) Mr Angus MacNeil MP, (SNP, Na h-Eileanan An Iar) David Mundell MP, (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) Mr Charles Walker MP, (Conservative, Broxbourne) Mr Ben Wallace MP, (Conservative, Lancaster & Wyre)

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/scottish_affairs_committee.cfm A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Mike Clark (Clerk), Diane Nelson (Committee Assistant) and Camilla Brace (Secretary).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6295; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].

Scottish Affairs Committee 1

Contents

Report Page

1 Introduction 3

2 Putting Citizens First 3

3 Further debate? 5

Formal Minutes 6

Witnesses 7

Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2005 8


1 Introduction 1. In Session 2003-04, the Scottish Affairs Committee held an inquiry into the Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change,1 which followed the Government’s decision to retain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) at 129, and the provisional proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to reduce the number of Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster from 72 to 59.

2. The Committee’s inquiry focused mainly on the consequences of the creation of different constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to Westminster and to Holyrood, and the different voting systems used for different types of elections in Scotland.

3. In the wake of the Committee’s inquiry and Report, the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, (“the Arbuthnott Commission”), was established by the Secretary of State for Scotland in May 2004 to consider the consequences of having four separate voting systems for elections in Scotland and having different constituency boundaries for elections to Westminster and to Holyrood.

2 Putting Citizens First 4. The Arbuthnott Commission’s report, Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland,2 was published on 19 January 2006, and submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the First Minister; its main recommendations included:

the current mixed member system for electing the Scottish Parliament should be retained, but with open lists to increase voter choice;

constituency and regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament should be based on local authority areas rather than Westminster constituencies, with the regions revised to better reflect natural local communities;

candidates for election to the Scottish Parliament should not be prohibited from standing in a constituency and on the regional list;

clearer and more positive roles should be developed for constituency and regional MSPs;

the single transferable vote system should be introduced for European parliamentary elections; and

Scottish Parliament and local government elections should be held on different days.3

1 Scottish Affairs Committee, First Report, Session 2003-04, Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in

Scotland and the Consequences of Change, HC (2003-04) 77.

2 Published by Edinburgh: The Stationery Office, ISBN 0108881792.

3 News Release from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, 19 January 2006.

4 Scottish Affairs Committee

5. The House of Commons Library has produced an excellent and comprehensive analysis of the Commission’s report in its Standard Note SN/PC/3918,4 and therefore we have not rehearsed such an analysis in this Report.

6. Following the report’s publication, the Committee held a one-off evidence session on 14 February 2006, with evidence being taken from Professor Sir John Arbuthnott, the Chairman, and Dr Nicola McEwen, a member, of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems. We wish to thank them for their evidence.

7. When we questioned Sir John Arbuthnott and Dr McEwen, we raised with them several matters of concern about the Commission’s report, in particular, those matters which we considered needing clarifying. Such concerns included, for example:

coterminosity of Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries (Q3);

the remit of the Commission and honouring the devolution settlement (QQ4-10);

the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament (QQ11-16, 35-38 and 40);

the boundaries and size of Holyrood constituencies (QQ17-21 and 25-29);

Scottish local government elections (QQ22-24);

wasted votes (QQ30-33 and 48);

the multiplicity of MSPs representing Scottish Parliament constituencies (Q34);

voter confusion (QQ39, 41-47 and 49);

dual candidacy for elections to the Scottish Parliament (Q50); and

elections to the European Parliament (QQ54-58).

8. The Commission’s evidence attached to this Report. Coincidentally, the day after our meeting, Brian H Donohoe MP initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the Arbuthnott Commission Report,5 and the evidence taken by us was referred to during that debate.

4 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03918.pdf.

5 Official Report, 15 February 2006, cols. 498WH-505WH.


3 Further debate? 9. During our questioning of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, David Cairns MP, in March on our inquiry into The Sewel Convention: the Westminster perspective, we took the opportunity to ask him when the Government would be publishing its response to Arbuthnott. The Minister’s reply was non-committal:

“Our response will be forthcoming in due course….”6

10. The intervening weeks have not provided any further indication of exactly when “in due course” might be. We consider that, before the Government does publish its response to Putting Citizens First, all interested Scottish Members should have the opportunity to raise their own concerns with Ministers, and to seek to influence the Government’s response.

11. During his opening of the Westminster Hall debate on 15 February, Brian Donohoe pointed out that a Scottish Grand Committee had not met since 12 November 2003, and continued that a Scottish Grand might be:

“…the vehicle for a full debate on the whole issue of the contents of the report and the way forward on its conclusions.”7

12. In replying to the debate, David Cairns agreed that there had not been a Scottish Grand Committee since November 2003, but went on to say:

“…. As far as I am aware, there have been no such requests since then….However, it is within the right of any Scottish Member of Parliament to request a Scottish Grand Committee, and then it is up to the usual channels to allocate one.” 8

13. We endorse the suggestion that a Scottish Grand Committee would be an appropriate vehicle for a debate on Putting Citizens First. This Committee, composed of Members from all Parties representing Scottish constituencies, therefore makes a formal request that a Scottish Grand Committee be held to consider the matter of Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland, and recommends that such a meeting of a Grand Committee be held before the Government makes any substantive response to that report.

6 HC (2005-06) 983-ii, Q116.

7 Official Report, 15 February 2006, col. 498WH.

8 ibid, cols. 501WH-502WH.


Formal Minutes

Tuesday 9 May 2006

Members present:

Mr Mohammad Sarwar, in the Chair

Danny Alexander Gordon Banks Ms Katy Clark Mr Ian Davidson Mr John MacDougall

Mr Jim McGovern Mr Angus MacNeil David Mundell Mr Charles Walker

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (Putting Citizens First: the Report from the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1–13 read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

The Committee deliberated further.

Resolved, That the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2006: Memorandum by the Scotland Office be reported to the House.

The Committee deliberated further.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 23 May at 4.00 pm.


Witnesses

Tuesday 14 February 2006

Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott, Chairman, and Dr Nicola McEwen, member, the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems

Ev 1


Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2005

The following publications have been produced by the Scottish Affairs Committee since the beginning of the 2005 Parliament:

Session 2005-06

Reports

First Report Work of the Committee in 2005 HC 836

Second Report Meeting Scotland’s Future Energy Needs: the Westfield Development Centre

HC 1010

First Special Report Meeting Scotland’s Future Energy Needs: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2004-05

HC 579

Minutes of Evidence

Minutes of Evidence Scotland Office Annual Report 2005 HC 580-i

331738PAG1 Page Type [SO] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidence

Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 14 February 2006

Members present:

Mr Mohammad Sarwar, in the Chair

Danny Alexander Mr John MacDougallMs Katy Clark Mr Angus MacNeilMr Ian Davidson David Mundell

Witnesses: Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott, Chairman and Dr Nicola McEwen, Member of the Commission,Commission on Boundary DiVerences and Voting Systems, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon. Sir John, Dr Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We took veryseriously the very point you have raised, because itMcEwen, could I welcome you to this evidence

session of the Scottish AVairs Committee on your had been raised by a number of individuals and byMPs and a much smaller number of MSPs. On theCommission’s report Putting Citizens First? Before

we start on the detailed questions would you like to question of coterminosity, in the section of thereport you refer to we were looking to test, as far asmake an opening statement?we could and we did this quite thoroughly, the extentProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Thank you forto which any of the possibilities which wouldinviting us to this Committee meeting. I think theembrace the idea that we used coterminousprime purpose is to respond to questions raised byboundaries for both the Westminster and theyour Members. I hope and expect you have receivedScottish parliamentary elections would yield not justthe report and recommendations. You know thatthe complement of MPs for the UK Westminsterthe remit of the Commission was to consider theParliament but also the appropriate number ofconsequences of diVerent boundaries and fourMSPs for the Scottish Parliament. One of ourdiVerent voting systems, the voter participation, theprinciples, and the principles are laid out in therelationship between public bodies and authoritiesreport, was to honour the devolution settlement andin Scotland and between MPs and MSPs and theto embrace the extent of proportionality andrepresentation of constituents by the diVerent tiersdiversity which that has yielded. The threeof elected members. We were specifically asked topossibilities raised would not yield that degree ofmake recommendations on arrangements betweenproportionality and therefore would have breachedelected representatives to ensure best possible serviceone of the primary considerations and principles ofprovision, the pattern of electoral boundaries inthe Commission.Scotland, the relationships with other public bodies

and the method of voting for the ScottishParliament. I draw your attention—and I am sure Q4 Mr MacDougall: Was it a question therefore ofthe Committee Members have seen this—to the constraints rather than practical solutions? At theactivities of the Commission and the evidence we end of the day we are all trying to encourage peoplehave taken. The record of activities is listed at the to think well of the electoral system and trying toback of the report. That is really all I should want to encourage people to value the democratic processsay by way of introduction. and in some ways you actually have to reflect that in

decisions which are taken but, again, accept the factthat there may be constraints placed upon theQ2 Chairman: Have you had any initial responseoptions and alternatives which are there. Whatfrom the First Minister or Alistair Darling?would you say if Alistair Darling told you to excludeProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: No, I have had nothose three particular options in setting up?direct response from them yet. They haveProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: You raise as aacknowledged receipt of the report; politely doingtheoretical constraint. It is the fact that thethat and indicating that there is much to bedevolution settlement, which established theconsidered by various bodies including yourselves.Scottish Parliament following the work of theScottish Convention, and indeed the referendum,

Q3 Mr MacDougall: You considered three possible embraced certain principles including that which Ioptions to achieve coterminosity of Westminster stated of diversity and the element ofand Holyrood boundaries, but rejected all three of proportionality and we embraced that as one of thethem. Could you expand upon your comment that principles. In the consultation document which wenone of the options would provide an appropriate or used close to the beginning of our process, we weredesirable solution to the range of concerns which very open in saying that we should be seeking not toyou had been asked to address? Why did you make undermine that principle or to come up with

something less clear in relation to that issue.that judgment?

3317381001 Page Type [E] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 2 Scottish Affairs Committee: Evidence

14 February 2006 Professor Sir John P Arbuthnott and Dr Nicola McEwen

Dr McEwen: On the issue of proportionality, that settlement. We positively value the diversity andplurality of views it has permitted and accordinglyspecifically aVected the proposal which was put

forward to have an electoral system which would any proposals we bring forward will reflect ourcommitment to maintaining the benefits ofhave two members of the Scottish Parliament elected

per Westminster constituency. We looked at all the proportional representation to the country” etcetera. It does seem to me that at the very beginningpossible scenarios by which that could be developed

and the detailed calculations are in the report, but you misinterpreted your remit in such a way as toclose oV any examination of anything else exceptnone of those could produce anything like the degree

of proportionality that the current system achieves. proportional representation. Would you acceptthat?On that basis, on that particular option, we had to

reject it in keeping with our remit and principles. Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: No, I would notaccept that.There were other options which did not have a

detrimental impact on proportionality, having 60constituency members, 60 list members, but then Q8 Mr Davidson: Why not?you have the downside that you are reducing the Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: A number of thingsnumber of MSPs by a significant amount there, or 60 come in here. I fully accept what you have said aboutplus 69 list members and we did not think that would the principle of devolution being the principle ofbe especially popular with very many people. For as subsidiarity. What we were asked to do was to makelong as we do not have a clear role for regional recommendations about the future and I have tomembers, then we felt it was problematic to suggest emphasise that what we are trying to do is not toa system where they would be in the majority. The come up with some kind of quick fix in thisother option we looked at was having a mixed document, we are actually trying to come up with asystem, a hybrid system of some PR and some first signpost or an analysis which any group—itpast the post. That seemed very messy with a happened to be the group I chaired—ofpotential risk of bias. We did not really find any commissioners would actually thoroughly explore insystem which would bring forward a workable order to present to parliamentarians and indeed toproposal for coterminosity. Over and above that we the public and to political parties what the optionsdid not really find a strong case for having were for the future. The consultation documentcoterminous boundaries anyway, at least not as a which we issued and the response we received to itdriver for the design of the electoral system. and indeed at any meetings we had about this with

members of the public or indeed MSPs or otherQ5 Mr MacDougall: So you were working within groups we have talked to, including experts that wecertain constraints and no practical consideration consulted, did not other than accept that thecould be given to them. You were working within a devolution settlement for Scotland, which had beenconfined area of options. a compromise put together at that particular time,Dr McEwen: Yes. had yielded a system which was to an extent—and I

have to say it was to an extent—proportional,because it is not a fully proportional system. In thatQ6 Mr MacDougall: And the three options you wereregard it had become respected by the electorate andgiven should not be under those kinds of confinedhad been accepted by the electorate. To go back onconstraints.that would have been challenging the devolutionDr McEwen: Yes.settlement as it had transpired and as it had been putinto eVect in Scotland. That is why I actuallyQ7 Mr Davidson: You seem to have interpreted verydisagree with the terms of your question.tightly the eight words in the remit “. . . while

respecting the principles of the devolutionsettlement” and assumed that meant you could not Q9 Mr Davidson: Would you not accept that if the

Secretary of State who set you up had wanted youmove at all away from proportional representation.I interpreted the principles of the devolution specifically to take account of the compromise that

was reached on the electoral system, he would havesettlement as being the principle of decentralisation,of subsidiarity, but I had not actually interpreted a said so rather than being delightfully vague. The

words “. . . while respecting the principles of theprinciple of the devolution settlement as being aparticular electoral system. I and many others, devolution settlement” do not mean what you just

gave me as your interpretation of them. While Ihaving campaigned for devolution for Scotland formany years, have never actually been specific in accept that many of your responses were framed

within the context of accepting proportionalterms of electoral systems. The electoral systemwhich emerged was a political fudge; it was a representation, that was because the whole exercise

was rigged from the very beginning because of thecompromise rather than a principle. What I do notquite understand is the mechanism or the thinking statement you made in your consultative document.

When you say “maintaining the benefits ofthat those eight words in there, which aredelightfully vague, should then be translated into the proportional representation” which you think is a

wonderful thing, obviously the responses you getvery hard statement in your consultative documentwhich says “The introduction of proportional will then reflect those parameters and many such as

myself, who would have wanted to opposerepresentation for the Scottish Parliament electionsin 1999 has been a welcome innovation and our proportional representation, took the view that

there was no point in responding to you because youremit requires us to respect the devolution

3317381001 Page Type [O] 11-05-06 19:50:24 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1



had already made your minds up and that the fight Q12 Mr MacNeil: Yes, or did you feel constrainedabout proportional representation would have to by the backing, especially of Westminster, of firsttake place after you had reported. past the post?Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I should say that I do Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I am not sure whethernot agree with that and I do not think that is a you are asking the same question as I have just beenreasonable interpretation of where we finished up asked or not.following our consultation, for the following reason.We received very open responses on all aspects ofwhat we asked people about and I have to say that Q13 Mr MacNeil: Slightly diVerent. I am interestedthe view you are putting was not a view that we to see what the thinking was. Did you have a blankencountered with any degree of commonality. slate in front of you or was the electoral climate inDr McEwen: I agree with you that the statement in the United Kingdom already set for you by the sortthe remit is vague and open to interpretation and we of electoral system we have for the Parliament herehad to interpret it and we had a full discussion at the in Westminster?outset to interpret what we felt was meant by Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I cannot remember“respecting the principles of the devolution the phrase in the report; I wish I could remember itsettlement”. My own feeling as an academic reading oV by heart. There is a phrase that there is no easythe literature of the period and engagement birth for a political system: it is dragged kicking andwith it was that an element of proportional screaming from the dynamics of the discussion andrepresentation—not complete proportional

the political interactions of the time. Obviously, torepresentation but an element of that—was centralan extent, that is what has happened in the initialto the devolution settlement, it was central to thestages of devolution and in the establishment of theproposals of the Scottish Constitutionalelectoral system for the Scottish Parliament. I thinkConvention, it was central to the proposals whichthat the position of the Commission on this was towere put forward in the referendum and the Whiteset out a clear set of principles, clearly stated—Paper. We took the view—and we can debatewhether you agree with them or not they are clearlywhether that was the right view—that to deviate instated—to seek responses on that, not to be hung upany significant way from the level of proportionalityon any previous views that members had taken. Iwhich had been achieved in the existing systemhave made the point that they left these as far aswould be inappropriate and unacceptable andpossible behind them and considered all options. Ifagainst the wishes of the electorate as expressed inyou are asking whether we could have movedthe referendum.further, it would have depended to a prettyconsiderable extent on the kind of information andQ10 Mr Davidson: Would you accept that a majoritythe kind of response we were getting from theof the members of the Commission “had form” inScottish people and from local authoritythe sense that they were known to be supporters ofrepresentatives, MSPs and so on. These are theproportional representation before the first meetingpeople who responded. We worked with thetook place?responses we got. The evidence and the movementProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Having chairedtowards our final discussions were conditioned oninnumerable meetings of this Commission, both inwhat system has been established as a result offull form and in partial form, in public and in closeddevolution, and what we think could be done tosession, I should maintain stoutly that thisimprove it. We tried to answer the questions we wereCommission acted in a logical and analyticalasked and that is why I read out the remit at themanner and did not come to the discussion tablebeginning, “. . . to make recommendations on . . .with that degree of pre-condition that you havearrangements between elected representatives . . .stated.pattern of electoral boundaries . . . relationshipswith public bodies . . . method of voting . . . whileQ11 Mr MacNeil: First of all, congratulations onrespecting the principles of the devolutionyour report; it has been quite diYcult. We have heresettlement”. We genuinely went about our task to trya great example of the poachers and theto achieve these things. We also realised that thegamekeepers being the exact same people and theCommission favoured an evolutionary approachsystem you are dealing with really is a system where,rather than a revolutionary approach, that theas the feller said “You wouldn’t start from here”.evolution of the system in Scotland was going to beYou are having to cope with a system which has beenprogressive. We are at the earliest stages in the life ofa compromise between a first-past-the-post systemthis new Parliament, it is six years into existence,and something which looks vaguely democratic andthere is a long way to go. We have set our targetsI think you have managed to achieve that to aactually in terms of evaluating what we havereasonable degree and have probably improved onrecommended, if that is accepted and implementedthe system we had, not the most proportional andin two elections after 2011. By that sort of time ittherefore not the most democratic system. Do youwould be natural to ask where we are going, how farthink you really could have moved to a morewe have advanced, how we have evolved, whetherproportional and more democratic system?this is working in the interests of Scottish people andProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Are you askingthe delivery of services for citizens. That is why Iwhether I think that the Commission could have

moved further than we did in the report? used the title Putting Citizens First. The ultimate test




is whether the electoral system serves the interests of voting systems which now existed and what ouropinion was on that and what our guidance was. Wethe citizen. So there is an evolutionary approach and

I hope that has answered your question. have given that advice.

Q14 Danny Alexander: In that case, did you consider Q17 Danny Alexander: Turning to the subject ofwhether the people of Scotland would be better boundaries, could you expand on your view that theserved by having their representatives to the balance in boundary changes has swung too far inWestminster Parliament elected by a proportional favour of parity in terms of numbers and away fromsystem? natural boundaries?Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We were not asked to Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: In the course of ourmake recommendations on that and we did not work, and indeed we raised this in the consultationspecifically make any recommendations on that. All document, we were very interested in the responsesI should say about that is that we had some of our of individuals to the issue of the extent to which theyfirst formative away sessions at a time when there were clear about the boundaries within which theyhad just been a national general election and there were placed with regard to constituencies andwas huge coverage of this issue of proportionality voting. We were very interested to have their viewsgenerally across the UK at that time. We were also on the extent to which they regarded community orfaced with conflicting views from the ordinary locality as being an important aspect of thepeople. The closest we could get to the ordinary boundary within which they were asked to vote. Ipeople to some extent were focus groups which were should say that, certainly with remote and ruralset up independently. If asked, yes, these individuals Scotland, more so than in urban Scotland, there is aand many other individuals at public meetings very, very strong identity with community,would recognise the first-past-the-post system as the extremely strong. People feel they want to knowsystem they were familiar with, but when further where they are, they want to know who they areasked whether they liked the idea of being voting for in the context of the locality which is goingrepresented proportionally with a mix or a diversity to be governed. I am a microbiologist by training, soof representation, yes, they liked that. You have no I am not an expert on political science and you guyseasy diVerentiation in the views of the public so that are practitioners of political science and very expertis the kind of background to the discussions we had in it. What I should say is that the issue you haveat that time and we simply included in the report the raised is a fundamental issue of political science andScottish Social Attitudes survey which showed that it has been raised by very distinguished writers in thisin that particular survey, as a measure of public area. The issue is: do you restrict yourself to theopinion, a pretty clear majority of people would like narrow issue of parity in terms of numbers, or doproportionality more generally. But that was outside you take account of the fact that there areour remit and we did not make recommendations. community and collective local elements which

override strict parity? What we are saying in thisreport, because we actually looked at a possibleQ15 David Mundell: You were though working in amodel for boundaries, is that natural communitiescontext where certain political decisions had beenare as important as parity.made, for example the introduction of the singleDr McEwen: In the public meetings that we had andtransferable vote in local government.the responses to our consultation I cannot recallProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Correct.anybody raising spontaneously an issue of parity ornumbers, but people did raise issues of community

Q16 David Mundell: Objectively you would not and identity. At the public meeting in Galashiels anecessarily have started this exercise from the point particular issue was raised about the size of thatat which that decision had already been made to Westminster constituency. We just felt that, in termsreach the outcome you mentioned in your previous of engaging voters and helping to strengthen the linkanswer. I am not seeking to draw you into saying between elected representatives and their voters,that the introduction of STV1 was a good or bad community should be at least as important as parity.idea, but that surely was a diYculty in this exercise:a number of decisions had been made which shaped

Q18 Danny Alexander: I strongly agree with that,the outcome or made a wider outcome more diYcultnot least the point you made about rural areasto set out.particularly is very important and it has certainlyProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: The context in whichbeen the grounds for most disputes with the Localwe were working and which any commission whichGovernment Boundary Commission in relation towas trying to look at this breadth of issues to do withthe new boundaries and a dispute is still going onboundaries, voting systems and representation in aabout the boundaries for the Nairnshire ward in mynew and evolving political climate was going to beconstituency for example where two communitiesfaced with, was the position of evolution that climatehave been arbitrarily excluded for the sake of a fewhas reached at this particular time. You are correct:hundred voters. Those sorts of things do help toSTV had been introduced by the Scottish Parliamentundermine people’s confidence in the system. Justfor local elections and we took that into account. Wemoving on from that, in the report you place a lot ofwere specifically asked to look at the number ofemphasis on local authority boundaries as thebuilding blocks.1 Single transferable vote.




Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: The unit? Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I read in a newspaperthat apparently he had strongly hinted that theScottish Executive would not decouple the elections.Q19 Danny Alexander: The point we have just

discussed is very pertinent to whether there can beeVective building blocks or not.

Q24 David Mundell: Given that those elections areProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Yes.14 months away and your own work woulddemonstrate that the average member of the public

Q20 Danny Alexander: There is also the point that if in Scotland has no idea what the STV systemyou are going to change local government involved, how do you think that gap in knowledgeboundaries there is always going to be a time lag— and operation is going to be overcome?there is currently a time lag—before that leads into

Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I have purposelychanges to parliamentary boundaries. Is it inavoided going through the logic of some of thesepractice possible to change those boundariesthings because it is actually quite long to go throughtogether at the same time?it. It is very clear on this issue why the CommissionProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: We consider this tocame on balance out in favour of suggesting thatbe a very important point and the lag is actually adecoupling was wise. I go back to a point which Iproblem in my view and has been a problemmade earlier that this is a point in time. If it is decidedhistorically. What we are suggesting, and it may benot to decouple for the next round of elections thena revolutionary suggestion in this case, is that thewe may learn from that and they may be decoupledScottish Local Authority Boundary Commission,in future. One of the elements of the evidence whichthe Scottish Parliamentary Boundary Commissionis pretty clear is that you want people to be clearand the Scottish Westminster Parliamentaryabout the basis on which they are voting and if youBoundary Commission should be acting much morebring too many uncertainties together you aretogether. If this were possible, then in acting muchasking for some element of confusion. We cite themore together we would actually avoid some of theevidence of the multiple elections which took placedislocations which you say will creep into the system

if they are not brought together. We strongly in London not that long ago when the proportion ofadvocate that. spoiled votes was really very high when multiple

systems were placed before the public without toomuch preparation. To answer your point aboutQ21 Danny Alexander: How do you then make surewhat can be done in 14 months, you will note that athat that one boundary commission is takingsignificant part of our report is to do with votercommunities as the building blocks and not theeducation. If we are going to have these two electionsarithmetical approach which excludes a lot ofat the same time, there is a really, really urgent needcommunities from feeling they are really part ofto get that underway now. By doing that we mightthe process?actually prevent some of the confusion which weProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Varioushave suggested might take place.recommendations, if they are going to be put into

eVect, are going to be put into eVect by diVerentbodies. Colleagues in the Scotland OYce would be

Q25 David Mundell: Turning to your proposal toabsolutely central in relation to these particularrecommendations if they were followed through merge the Scottish Parliamentary Boundarybecause they have to be further explored. There are Commission with the Local Government Boundarysome elements here which would be directed towards Commission for Scotland, what would be its role inan electoral commission and to other bodies as well, drawing these Scottish boundaries for the UKnot least to Parliament and indeed MSPs. Parliament?Dr McEwen: Our impression from speaking to the Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I am not sure that isBoundary Commission was that they were a question for me or for the Commission. What weconstrained by the set of rules under which they are arguing there in principle is that if we are going tooperate and it may be the case that you then have to see something done about the drag, something donerevisit those rules. Our sense is that it has become about the issue of timing, about the decisions ofless important for communities over the years than diVerent boundary commissions, then a certainparity and we are suggesting a rebalancing. degree of concerted action is necessary and what we

are suggesting is one way to do that. It then requiresQ22 David Mundell: May I first of all ask you about the appropriate authority, and that would start withyour recommendation in relation to the splitting of the Scotland OYce, to address that issue and thethe local government elections. I am sorry I missed detail of it.the initial part but I understand that you said that Dr McEwen: In the Summary of Recommendationsformally there had been no response to the report under Boundaries, the last paragraph does not makefrom the First Minister or the Secretary of State. a specific recommendation for the WestminsterProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: To me. constituencies, but it says “Consideration should

also be given to integrating” that as well. It seems tomake sense. However, our recommendations areQ23 David Mundell: Yes. There seems to have beenspecifically targeted towards the drawing up ofa number of indications that the recommendation in

relation to the split of elections had been— Scottish Parliament constituencies.




Q26 David Mundell: In that context, what weight do all be ruled by the Duke of Buccleuch. I wonderabout the extent to which it is fair to take that intoyou think should be placed on the parity between

constituencies in terms of the size of the electorate? account. In the model you have produced for us onpage 25, which you presumably regard asIt appears to me and I think Danny was referring

partly to that, that in the past large geographic acceptable, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Islesput together have less in them than the average of theconstituencies have tended to have a smaller

electorate, other than one or two exceptions, Glasgow constituencies. Would you accept that isgrossly unfair if you are seeking to have equal voteswhereas what has emerged is that you have very

large geographic constituencies which also have the of equal value? What you are saying there is thatsomebody in Orkney, Shetland or the Western Islesparity electorate. That balance has been lost.

Dr McEwen: Exceptions are always going to have to is three times as valuable in voting terms in theScottish Parliament as somebody in Glasgow,be made for particular communities, the island

communities and so on and the particular rural because that is the eVect. I notice that you alsosuggest East Lothian at 71,000, where the eVectneeds or pattern of the geography of Scotland. We

are not saying that parity is not important, but in would be even worse. Have you not gone overboardin accepting this rurality argument and that this issome senses with a mixed member system you can

balance a loss of parity at the constituency level with just another example of anti-urban bias?the additional members’ element, with taking the list Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I do not accept thatelection and trying to make up some of it there. We we approached this in a biased manner. I tried todo think it is important but it is just that the give a background to why we came to thecommunity should also be taken into consideration conclusion, both in speaking to people and in talkingas well, much more so than has been the case. about community structures, why we thinkLooking back at the records, further deviations of topography actually is important and whyparity used to be permitted. It is a relatively recent remoteness and rurality and sparsity actually dothing that we find fewer and fewer deviations from present diVerent challenges. I know this veryparity are being permitted. We are suggesting that it particularly from my work in relation to thehas maybe gone a little too far in that direction. provision of health services in Scotland. TheyProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Just to make a produce quite diVerent challenges from other partsgeneral point about your question, if you take a of the country. That is simply trying to take ahelicopter journey across Scotland, the outstanding helicopter ride and very briefly add to the point youfeature you notice is the geopolitical map of have been making. We are not the BoundaryScotland. You cannot look at Scotland as a whole Commission, we are not the Electoral Commission,without taking that into account. It is not simply a we have said that very up front in the first page of theflat land mass, this is a very diverse map and it is a report, therefore I am not trying to do that work forvery diverse map in relation to population densities them. What we are actually doing is to say that if youand to communities. That is one of the things which accept a particular line of argument, then it producesis behind us. If you move south of the border—and this kind of model and we are not saying that is theI have had to do this in relation to the allocation of only kind of model. I do think that you have to takehealth service resources—you find less case for very seriously the fact that Orkney and Shetland andsparsity. If you define sparsity, it is actually quite the Western Isles do have very diVerent social anddiYcult south of the border to maintain a case for structural features about them which require athat. Scotland is diVerent in that regard, it is even considerable element of attention to these. The factdiVerent from Ireland, because the Irish county that they are smaller in population is something wesystems are not set in the same geographical, have to accept. I should say that we are notgeopolitical distribution of land mass and people as devaluing the votes of the rest of Scotland in the wayScotland is. That is something which interests me, that you have suggested.but in relation to what Nicola has said, it introducesa good case for an element of tolerance, which is

Q29 Mr Davidson: Would you not accept that it iswhat has been raised by one of your Committeepossible to have the perspective that sparsity doesmembers in relation to this debate between the hardpose problems without that then necessarilyissue of parity and locality.translating into this diVerential in representation? Ican certainly accept that colleagues representing

Q27 David Mundell: What about in urban Scotland? rural areas have much greater travel times than I doIs that more straightforward then simply to and therefore I can see the very strong argument inoperate parity? favour of them being given additional assistance inDr McEwen: Urban Scotland has communities too. terms of staV and so on and so forth. I do not quiteProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: I am not saying understand this leap of faith which then translatescommunities do not exist in urban Scotland. I was into the idea that they should be grossly over-really pointing to the extremes of this. I think the represented politically when it comes to voting in theissue of parity will be less diYcult in urban Scotland. centre. I was struck, looking at the figures for the

General Election before last, that the person whowon Orkney and Shetland, had they stood with thatQ28 Mr Davidson: May I follow up on your pointnumber of votes in East Kilbride would not haveabout looking at the diVerences in Scottishwon it. They would not have been second, theytopography? Land, as it were, does not vote. Acres

do not have votes otherwise presumably we should would not have been third, they would not have been




fourth, in fact they would have been fifth. It seems Glasgow, but that is only because the Labour Partydoes disproportionately well out of the first-past-to me to be absurd that somebody can be elected to

Parliament with a number of votes where they would the-post element, that its share of first-past-the-postseats is significantly greater than its share of the vote.actually only have come fifth had they stood

somewhere else and that you have perhaps failed to A vote for Labour in the regional vote is a votedenied to another party, so surely in that sense, fromface up to that diYculty. None of the themes running

through there, it seems to me, entitles you to move your point of view it is not—so grossly away from the concept of equal votes ofequal value as you have done. Q31 Mr Davidson: In that case they would be as wellDr McEwen: We are not moving away in making not bothering. If the principle is that a vote forconcessions for the Western Isles, Orkney and Labour in the second ballot is a vote denied toShetland, because those concessions are made another party, you would do as well not bothering.already anyway within the existing system. That is Dr McEwen: The principle is that the regional vote,not a departure, that is just in keeping with the the party vote if you like, in any mixed memberpatterns which are there. There are debates about system around the world, is the vote whichthis, but there seems to be an acceptance that special determines the proportional distribution of seats forarrangements be made for the island communities the parliament. The Labour Party is advantagedin order that they can access their elected within the system at the moment, but it works forrepresentatives apart from anything else. Accessing the others.your elected representative is surely very importanttoo. Q32 Mr Davidson: I understand that but what you

are saying to me is that you chose not to address this.It is a fair response. You chose not to address the factQ30 Mr Davidson: These constituencies, like mythat a Labour vote is a wasted vote in the secondown, have the electric telephone and all sorts ofballot in Glasgow, East Strathclyde, Westmodern devices to access their representative. May IStrathclyde, Edinburgh and the Lothians andalso ask in relation to this about the question of theCentral Scotland and Fife. In five out of the eightsecond ballot, the sort of assisted places scheme? Inareas, the fact that a second ballot Labour vote isterms of Glasgow, every Labour vote in the secondwasted did not seem to you to be something youballot last time around was wasted because it did notought to express a view on.elect anybody. It is foreseeable that the same thingDr McEwen: No, that is not the case at all. For us thewill happen again next time. You have not addressedonly alternative was a single transferable votethat in any way. Can you explain to me why?system, for the reasons we have explained to you.Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: We were attracted toThat would have removed that particular problemthe situation in New Zealand and you will see thatyou are addressing, but we felt on balance, for all thewe thought that some of the issues to do with theother reasons—mistaken and misleading terminology about first

and second votes could be considerably rectified ifQ33 Mr Davidson: Because of your remit. You werewe used a similar ballot paper design to that of Newcaptured by your remit and therefore you could notZealand. It is actually the case that in a multi-propose that.member system the proportion of votes which will beDr McEwen: Yes. In terms of fulfilling the criteria setamassed and then decide the number of regionalout those were the two potential systems. We felt onMSPs for diVerent parties actually depends first andbalance that a mixed member system was the betterforemost on the voting intentions of people votingsystem. Yes, the issue that you are highlighting is afor their parties. At the present time there is a heavyfeature of a mixed member system.preponderance, as you said, in Glasgow which givesDanny Alexander: I just wanted to say that the singlethe dynamics which we see. We are setting outtransferable vote is Ian’s obvious preference forrecommendations—and I shall say it again—notelections.simply in the context of today and tomorrow but in

a much longer-term context and in a context ofevolution. I do not know, and I suspect that you do Q34 Chairman: I represent Glasgow Central. I havenot know either, what the future voting pattern is 11 MSPs interfering in my constituency. I thought,going to be, but if that future voting pattern is going before this report was published, that you wouldto be based on maintaining the degree of probably address this issue of coterminousproportionality we have at the moment and that that boundaries. There are seven people under the listdegree of proportionality is reflected in a mixed system in the Parliament at one time undermember representation system, then the distribution proportionality and now, after seeing this mess, I amof these seats is going to reflect the votes for the party beginning to change my mind. You have notand that becomes a very important determinant. It addressed this issue. Why not?may well be that in future these votes for a particular Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Let me take youparty in Glasgow will become extremely important through this. We have dealt with some aspects of thisin determining the make-up of the Scottish in the discussion which we have already had thisParliament at some stage. afternoon. The number of MPs elected fromDr McEwen: I understand the point you are making Scotland to the Westminster Parliament is set at 59.that the Labour Party does not gain any additional The number of MSPs for the Scottish Parliament is

set at 129. What is being suggested in this, and Imembers from the regional vote in an area like




should take a much more positive view of the have to occupy more than half the land mass ofoutcome if it should be implemented in this way than Scotland and elect seven MSPs. It would alsoyou do yourself, what we are going to end up with, include the part of Scotland to which Ian referredis a tier of government which is made up of local earlier as being sparse. At the end of that election weauthority representatives elected by single should have seven people. How do these seventransferable vote for the first time and we can go on people decide how to govern half of the land mass ofto discuss that if you want. We are going to finish up Scotland? Is it clear to the people of Orkney, to thewith the new number of MPs elected to the people of Shetland, to the people of the WesternWestminster Parliament, which is going to be 59, Isles, to the people of the Highlands exactly howalthough in future is it always going to be 59? I just they can use these seven people not only to representleave that question hanging. We are hopefully going them but actually to do the business of governmentto be making a good deal better and clearer use of the within the Scottish Parliament which needs to bemixed member system which Scotland has for its done? At this point, that seemed to the CommissionParliament if our recommendations are accepted, so to be a very considerable diYculty.that within Scottish parliamentary constituencies Dr McEwen: We recognised that the singlethere is a clear remit for the constituency MSP and transferable vote would have some advantages overthat these regional MSPs, as indicated here and the existing system: all members would be elected inargued for in this report, also have a great deal of the same way, it would enhance local choice andinteresting work to do. I am not in any way

power over the election of their members. However,diminishing or trying to undermine the role of any ofwe felt that there were several disadvantages. One ofthese elected representatives, it would have beenthe things we underlined was that it is important toabsolutely irresponsible for us to do that and we areensure that the electoral system is the best system fornot doing that. I recognise that the role of thethe institution in which the members elected willWestminster MP remains the role of theserve. So it may be appropriate for localrepresentation for Scotland in the Parliament wheregovernment, but we did not think on balance that itmost of the money is decided, where most of thewas the best system for electing the Scottishinternational business is decided and where most ofParliament, a national parliament, a policy-makingthe reserved items of business are of incrediblelegislative body. One of the concerns we had wasimportance to the people of Scotland. So you andthat an STV system can encourage a localism, a sortyour colleagues have an immensely important task.of “clientalist” politics and that is not necessarily theOur task as a commission is to try to create asort of system you want if you want your legislativecertainty in the minds of the public that they knowbody to be able to make diYcult decisions on behalfwhere to go to get guidance, without in any wayof the country as a whole. We were also concernedrestricting to whom they can go for that guidance,that under an STV system you would be less able tobecause they can go to you as MPs, they can go to

MSPs, they can go to local authority representatives have positive action policies. The Scottishor indeed they can go to Members of the European Parliament has made major strides there in genderParliament. There is no restriction there: there is equality, has yet to make any strides in ethnicresponsibility and a need for much more clarity minority representation, but under the STV systemabout the role of all these players in this complex it would be much more diYcult to achieve that.system and that should all operate in the interests There are several other things, specifically theof the citizen. That is what is behind my problem of the representation of the Highlands andrecommendations; if you find that a mess, I am Islands which would be present in relation to thesorry. Scottish Parliament, but is not present, for example,

for European elections where the whole of Scotlandis one constituency anyway. We felt that when youQ35 Chairman: The Scottish Parliament thinks thatare electing a government and a legislative body itSTV is good for local government. In your reportwas probably not as good a system as a mixedyou recommended STV as being good for themember system.European Parliament. So why is STV not good for

the Scottish Parliament elections?Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: This, together with

Q36 Mr Davidson: Could you just clarify that forcoterminosity and one or two other issues wasme? I do not quite understand, apart from theabsolutely the most hotly debated issue of therurality, element how seven people could not divideCommission, as you can imagine. On balance—andup half of Scotland’s land mass in terms of the rangethe reasons will be given in a moment—theof tasks and responsibilities and so on, yet they areCommission decided that at the present time, notable to do that, say, for Glasgow where the range ofnecessarily for all time but at the present time, we didtasks and responsibilities and issues and individualnot think that it was correct for us to recommendproblems is every bit as great, in fact, given thethat we should move to a single transferable votedeprivation in Glasgow is overwhelmingly largersystem. One of the key aspects, not necessarily athan that of the rural areas of Scotland, it could beweakness but one of the key consequences of theargued that the problems were worse. Implicit insingle transferable representative system as it wouldyour answer was that you turned this down becausework in Scotland is that we should have to create, init could fit every other area but not the Highlandsorder to fulfil our principles of proportionality and

diversity, at least one constituency which would and Islands.




Dr McEwen: That was not the only reason; that was they got the right answer or the wrong answer, alarge percentage of these people failed theone of the reasons. It is practically more diYcult to

cover a large land mass area than it is a city. That examination. There is a lot of confusion out there.We have made reference to that very clearly,does not mean that the tasks you do when you are

covering it are any more or less diYcult. Not at all. particularly in the section dealing withrepresentation, and lot more work needs to be doneIt is just the practical diYculties that imposes.and pretty quickly on educating the electorate, thepeople of Scotland, in relation to how their votingQ37 Mr Davidson: It is just the travel question.system and their democracy actually works. WeDr McEwen: It is in a sense a travel question, yes.have made recommendations that school leaversProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: You are correct thatshould not actually leave school without such anthe practicalities of STV in Glasgow are much lessunderstanding: that is part of their civic education.diYcult to solve.We are making suggestions that every householdbefore an election should get a very clear indication

Q38 Chairman: What is the diYculty if two of how this system works. We are making theWestminster constituencies can have four Members recommendation that after the election peopleof the Scottish Parliament under STV and probably should be told who has been elected, how to contactin rural areas, where I have a slight diVerence of them and, moreover, that in the future, we hope,opinion with my colleagues, you can have five under with good use of the digital system and indeedSTV. What is the diYculty there? You will have perhaps a helpline which would be national, if youcoterminous boundaries and people will have links have any queries about that you can get somewith their constituencies. Where is the problem? In guidance. You can get some guidance about youraddition you will have at least three institutions areas, about your MEP or whatever and it thereforeelected with the same voting system. becomes much easier for people to understand theDr McEwen: Under our recommendations of course value of the people who have been elected to serveyou would at least reduce one of the voting systems. them and how these people can be used. That is aIt is not the driving factor, but there are advantages very important first element in this. We have onlyall the same. That specific recommendation was not been scratching the surface of teaching people andone which we sat down and considered. The one educating them. I know that remarks have beenwhich had been brought forward to us was to have made that this is unnecessarily complex and that ittwo Scottish Parliament Members per Westminster would all be much simpler by some other means, butconstituency, so that was the one we analysed in nevertheless devolution does throw a complexitydetail as to whether or not that would be feasible. I into the situation and it does so in many othershould have to sit down and work out the arithmetic countries as well. We have to face up to that and weof that to see whether it would be feasible or not. have to begin to plan and educate people for it.

Dr McEwen: One of the things which was a greatQ39 Mr MacNeil: Your report highlights the cause for concern for us was that the survey evidenceproblem of voter confusion and it has been suggested that people understood the system less thementioned today that a vote for Labour is very often second time around than they did in 1999. There is aa wasted vote in many parts of Scotland. As you say real need for continuing education there. In fact thatin the report, STV gives maximum power to probably reflects the emphasis that the Electoralindividual voters. There is a deal of confusion Commission put in public information on theamong the voters over the various systems and I importance of voter turnout. That is obviously ashould like you to address that. Also, when you were laudable objective, but we think that needs to go inwriting this report were you governed by being most conjunction with continued education on how thedemocratic or being most proportional? Were you system works. What was the second part of yourtempted at any time to suggest, given that the question?Westminster seats had fallen to 59, that there shouldbe a decrease in the Scottish Parliament or the first-

Q40 Mr MacNeil: When you were looking at thepast-the-post seats and an increase in the list seats tovarious systems, given that the Westminstermake the Parliament more democratic andnumbers had fallen to 59 and I note on page 36 theproportional? There are two parts to that: the voterpercentage of seats against the percentage of votesconfusion and looking at making Parliament moreand I know it is going to be hard to get some sort ofproportional.exact parity particularly with constituency votes andProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: It is quite clear fromregional votes being diVerent, did you think in anyquite a bit of the evidence that there is a good dealway of decreasing the first-past-the-post seats andof confusion, not just about the voting system, butincreasing the lists for some parity in the Parliament,about the roles of the two diVerent types of MSP.some proportionality?That came out particularly in relation to theDr McEwen: We considered it as an option when weresponses of the members of the focus groups whenwere considering the ways in which you couldwe actually tried to get down to the diYcult to reachachieve coterminosity. This relates back to yourpeople. It also came out with the Scottish attitudesprevious question about whether we should besurvey. If you actually look at the Scottish attitudeslooking to make the system more proportional. Isurvey which set some of the questions whichhave to say that although the system is not directlyhighlighted the features of the Scottish

parliamentary electoral system and gauged whether proportional—there is still an element of




disproportionality in it—this did not really come up Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I think that is a veryimportant practical matter.as an issue in the consultation responses or the

public meetings, so it was not really something wewere looking necessarily to increase. We were merely Q43 David Mundell: Do you not think though thattrying to ensure that any recommendations did not politicians have a role to play in this process?have a detrimental impact the other way. We did Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Of course.consider that specific proposal of having 60 first-past-the-post constituency members and 69 regional Q44 David Mundell: Do you not think that it ismembers and we rejected it for a number of reasons, unhelpful to have certain politicians going roundnot least because there is still an element of saying that losers get elected to the Scottishuncertainty about the role of regional members and Parliament when actually fundamentally, under auntil that is clearly defined, we did not think it would system of proportional representation, there are nobe wise or acceptable to have regional members in winners and losers in the traditional first-past-the-the majority. post way?Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Bearing in mind, on Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I should hate toa lighter note, your Chairman’s concern about the intercede in a debate which has probably occupiednumber of regional MSPs he already has to deal you privately. I do think that politicians do try hard.with, we did not wish to multiply this. They are much involved with organising educational

visits, actually visiting schools. You do that all thetime. They do have a part to play but the three bigQ41 Mr MacNeil: Staying on a lighter note, withindrivers now are the educational system, the mediathe voter confusion you suggested that nobodyand the internet and we must make use of these inshould leave school until they understood, at the riskrelation to preparing people’s understanding of theof keeping some people at school for ever. Whatdemocratic systems we have.other approaches do you think should be out there

and who should take the lead? Should it be theQ45 David Mundell: It cannot be helpful if peopleGovernment, should it be television advertising orare saying that somebody you rejected has beenwhat? I should hate to think of 45-year-olds stillelected to represent you.behind a desk trying to work it out.Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: I know the point youProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Speaking as a retiredare making. I am not going to go there.Scottish Principal of a university I should hope thatChairman: I am sure you would agree on this onesome of them would eventually reach university.that the people who are really winners under this listThis is actually a serious issue and there aresystem are the Conservatives. They had one andproblems with the school curriculum. Many peoplenow, under this system, they have 18. If Labour isthink that if we just tell them a bit more about foodthe loser in this system, everybody else is a winner.safety and just tell them a bit more about sexual

education, blah, blah, blah, blah, there is aQ46 Ms Clark: Continuing with the issue of a systempossibility that everybody would be much better.which creates voter confusion, if your report wasTherefore there may well be a reaction by the schoolimplemented that would mean there were threeauthorities to us saying that we are just another lotdiVerent types of voting system for the four types ofasking them to do something extra. I do think thatelection in Scotland. Is that really less confusingpreparation for civic society, if we are actually goingthan what we currently have?to tackle the extent to which young people areProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: It is a step towardsdisengaged, actively disengaged from politics, has tothat and I have indicated that we have positivelystart early. We cannot just allow people to drift intosought that the extent to which our proposals arethis later on in life, because it is just not going tosuccessful if implemented should actually behappen. Somehow that has to be tackled. It could bereviewed. We have explained why as a commissiontackled such that it would be consistent with thewe elected not to go down the route of the singleexisting elements of the school curriculum and wetransferable vote for the Scottish Parliament at thishave actually mentioned some of these in the report.time. I believe that if you take the discussion we haveThe Scottish Parliament itself does work,just had about voter education and make that veryWestminster does work, the Electoral Reformclear and if you take the recommendations in theSociety does work. It is actually part of the remit ofreport about the advice to individual voters, tothe Electoral Commission. It is something which ishouseholds and indeed the provision of advice, wequite common in this country that umpteen diVerentgo a long way to encouraging people to understandbodies are responsible for doing the same thing. Wehow we are using the voting system and how we arecould actually rationalise that and get a much moreapplying it in Scotland. That would help. I docoherent use of good media, good internet and goodrecognise the point you have made and it is a pointeducation and we would start people oV on thethat the Commission wrestled with considerablyright foot.actually in relation to our final recommendations.Dr McEwen: We should agree that if we were

Q42 Mr MacNeil: Just as an aside, would it help if starting from scratch with a blank piece of paper, wethe voting age were reduced to 16 so that things probably would not come up with four diVerentbecome directly relevant to people who are still at systems or even three diVerent systems, but that is

not where we are starting from. We looked atschool?




international evidence, we looked at practice within the polling station there should be a very simpleprocess for them to understand how to cast thatScotland and elsewhere in the UK as well and we did

not find any strong evidence to suggest that having vote.diVerent electoral systems operating with the same Dr McEwen: Absolutely; I think you are right. Whatsociety was in itself enough of a problem to drive I think you are getting at is that the first-past-thechange in the Scottish Parliament electoral system. post system is the most easily understood system andThere are issues and we have concerns about putting it is. That came forward from our focus groups.these systems together on the same day, for coupling What was interesting about the focus groups andelections, but voter education can in some senses about some of the survey evidence was that whileaddress some of the diYculties. first-past-the-post is seen as the easiest to

understand, it is not seen as the most fair. So we werebalancing these diVerent criteria as well. There isQ47 Ms Clark: Would you not accept that makingalways going to be a role to play for voter educationthese changes is likely to make the situation morein any system, even in Westminster elections, toconfusing? At least at the moment voters know thatensure that people understand the process in theevery election they go to has a diVerent system.election of a government. One of the advantages ISurely what you should be aiming for is a simplehave always thought was associated with a mixedsystem which voters understand and where votersmember system was that you have the choice offeel that every vote they make counts.electing a candidate and a party. You do not haveDr McEwen: Absolutely. You just named two of thethat choice in a first-past-the-post system. You doprinciples we set out in trying to come up withnot have that choice in an STV system, but you dorecommendations, one is that it be as clear ashave the choice in a mixed member system.possible and there were issues which we tried toProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: What we are actuallyaddress and we worked to try to make the existingalso advocating is that if you clarify the role of thesystem clearer and more easily understood and alsoelected representatives in that system, you have anto ensure that there is a relationship and an easilyMP, you have a constituency MSP, you have anunderstood relationship between the casting of aMEP and you also have regional MSPs and we arevote and the election not just of a local candidate butarguing that in the future that might well help withof a government. We tried to address that.the issues which are currently being discussed inScotland about the eYciency of public service andQ48 Ms Clark: You have also conceded that in largeregional services. I go back to an earlier point thatparts of Scotland the second vote does not countwhat we are doing is actually creating anbecause you have accepted, for example in Glasgow,opportunity for elected representatives likethat if you vote Labour in the first vote then peopleyourselves to have the maximum impact for theask what the point is of the second vote. They wantgood of the citizen.to vote Labour, but it is not going to count, so what

should they do? Surely you should be looking at allof the issues in the round for every voter in Scotland. Q50 Danny Alexander: I want to return, if I may, toDr McEwen: I think we have done that, to be fair. this question of the dual candidacy, if I might put itThere are advantages within the existing system for in a non-pejorative way, as opposed to the waythe Labour Party in particular and the problem you David put it, people standing on both the list and theare presenting as a problem is actually because constituency for the Scottish parliamentaryLabour is advantaged by that system. I should have elections. The UK Government, as its opinions arethought it was a benefit for you rather than a expressed through the Government of Wales Bill,problem. Yes, there are downsides and upsides to all clearly thinks that dual candidacy is not a sensiblesystems; there is no perfect electoral system. We just way forward. Why does the Commission think thatfelt on balance that the system we have, with such a situation should be allowed to continue atrevisions, is the best system for Scotland’s Holyrood? I should also point out that the SecretaryParliament. of State for Wales has said that if the CommissionProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Just to come back to has considered what he called the systematic abusesthe point you make about the so-called wasted vote carried out by list members in Wales, he would havefor Labour at the present time, as Nicola has reached the same conclusion that we have, namelyexplained, that is a feature of the present that a ban on dual candidacy is the only eVectivecircumstances. I should just recommend that you solution. Do you agree with his line of thinking? Islook back at political history. Circumstances do the Welsh situation one you have studied in comingchange. to this conclusion?

Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Of course we read thematerial on Wales. The points the Commission tookQ49 Ms Clark: In the past of course we had a votinginto account on this important issue are as follows:system which people found very easy to understand.first of all we actually found no evidence that thereWhat you seem to be suggesting today is that peoplewas a problem for voters in having dual candidacy,are going to need a great deal of continuingnor incidentally did the Electoral Commission, whoeducation just to understand the system. Surely ithave done their own study of this. The idea that ashould be the case, irrespective of everybody’s age,loser is then elected by another aspect or anotherwhether they are a young person or a very elderlybranch of the proportional representation system isperson, that if they know who they want to vote for,

whether it is a candidate or a party, when they get to actually a hangover from the first-past-the-post




thinking: those coming second are only losers, in a the other hand, you have a system where it is everyman or woman for himself, Labour, for example,majoritarian system. The logic of PR is that you

actually use the best people as voted for by the have two seats in the European Parliament just nowand aspire to have three, you would then have threeelectorate, and under a proportional system that will

not only be the first-past-the-post candidate. As you Labour Party people promoting themselves. Youwould presumably have an equivalent number forare aware, I am pretty concerned that we do this on

behalf of citizens. Banning dual candidacy would, if the other parties. You are then talking about a dozenpeople trying to promote themselves and it isyou think about it, actually restrict voter choice and

potentially diminish the quality of constituency diYcult to see how in those circumstances theelectorate are in a position to make genuine choicescontests. If this were to be forced with a lack of

consensus, I think there would be quite a serious risk because people will not be able to promotethemselves equally across the whole of Scotland inof alienating voters and, finally, we debated long and

hard about the question of open lists and we firmly the same that a simple list of four would. Would youaccept that?believe that the use of open lists is actually a better

way to address this issue. These things, taken as a Dr McEwen: I would accept some of that. Thisparticular paragraph is referring specifically toclutch of things, as you have to do with all of the

evidence in this, point us in the direction that simply Members of the European Parliament. I think thatthere is a lack of recognition of all elected membersbanning dual candidacy is not as straightforward as

it seems. but there is a particular lack of recognition amongstMembers of the European Parliament, perhaps inpart because their work is largely in Brussels and soQ51 Mr Davidson: May I ask how many degrees youon. I guess we were talking here about one of thehave between the two of you?consequences of a STV system for a EuropeanDr McEwen: Quite a few.Parliament election in that the members once electedProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: Chairman, I shouldwould be more visible and more known potentially,have to ask, I honestly—would be better able to engage with the voters.

Q52 Mr Davidson: Sorry, sorry; we are members ofthe Committee and we ask the questions. I am asking Q55 Mr Davidson: Why would that be the case?

Winnie Ewing was quite highly visible acrosshow many degrees you both have.Dr McEwen: A fair few. Scotland, but that was not because she was elected

from a single person constituency, in fact I do notthink she was ever elected under the PR system,Q53 Mr Davidson: Can you give us a figure or havewas she?you forgotten?Dr McEwen: I do not think so.Dr McEwen: I have three.

Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: You have asked andI shall tell you. I have a Batchelor of Science, I have Q56 Mr Davidson: So the question of how you area PhD, I have a Doctorate of Science, I have been elected does not necessarily determine how you gotelected to the fellowship of several academic there. The people who are elected, irrespective ofinstitutions and I have several honorary degrees. how they are elected, whether or not it has been byThat adds up probably to about 12 or 13. STV or by a list, will then get known as a result of

their actions, will they not? Those who work hardand pursue particular things will have a higherQ54 Mr Davidson: May I turn to the question of the

European Parliament, in particular may I refer to profile. The particular point I want to come back torelates to the point you make in paragraph 4.100paragraph 4.96? I want to explore some of the things

you have in there. The third sentence says “By where you are referring to MEPs and saying “Theydo not usually have a substantial role in constituencyrequiring voters to select a party rather than an

individual the existing system makes it diYcult for matters and we do not think that electing them usingthe single transferable vote would encourage them tocandidates to develop a profile among the

electorate”. The doubts I have about some of your acquire one”. Surely that is totally wrong. If I amstanding and Katy is standing and Mohammad isrecommendations come back in a sense to this. I

suspect that if I stood in my constituency for any standing for Labour under a single transferable votesystem I am not only competing with people fromother party I would not be elected. I am elected

because I am a Labour candidate rather than other parties, I am also competing with mycolleagues from the same party and therefore I dobecause I am attractive looking and have a nice line

in humour and so on and so forth. I suspect, with all have an incentive in those circumstances to beassiduous in constituency matters to the neglect ofrespect to my colleagues here, that the same would

apply. What I do not quite understand is if you are my wider responsibilities in order that I can raise myprofile and leapfrog my colleagues. You do not seemaware of that how you managed to put forward that

“. . . the existing system makes it diYcult for to have taken this point on board at all during this.Dr McEwen: The points you raise are some of thecandidates to develop a profile among the

electorate” as though that mattered. It seems to me downsides of STV which made us reject it as the bestelectoral system for the Scottish Parliament.that if you have lists running then there will be

identification with the top person on each list and in However, you are talking about a situation whereyou have seven Members of the EuropeanScotland that is realistically four or five people. You

then have clear identification with those five. If, on Parliament covering the whole of Scotland and their




role is not principally a constituency based one Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: That is precisely thedealing with the sorts of issues you deal with and view that the Commission took, remembering thatthat MSPs deal with. We felt that if they had to at the present time the European elections are on theenhance their profile in this way then it potentially basis of a closed list, accepting that there are cases tohad benefits for people’s understanding of the be made for that, as we have just heard. If you areEuropean Parliament, which is very low, even lower encouraging voter choice, then you have to look atthan their understanding of all the other elected ways of doing that and what you said is exactly theinstitutions. This section is addressing the reasoning we followed in the report.disadvantages that we recognise STV has as anelectoral system for, say, a national parliament and Q58 Mr MacNeil: The one minor downside theresuggesting that they are not there, and are certainly is—and this has come up in party discussions—ifnot as prominent, in an election for the European there is somebody who is young and talented butParliament and in this case we felt that the does not have a big public profile. The SNP is litteredadvantages of STV in enhancing voter choice and so with such people.on outweighed the disadvantages; just in that Professor Sir John Arbuthnott: Much of theparticular election. discussion this afternoon reflects, and we say it in the

report, that there is actually no ideal system forQ57 Mr MacNeil: Is not the STV for the European electoral arrangements.Parliament following the same philosophy as theopen list for the Scottish Parliament where it puts the

Q59 Chairman: May I thank the witnesses for theirchoice—and we might like that in political parties—attendance this afternoon? I am sure their evidencein the hands of voters? One thing I get throughoutwill be very useful. Before I declare the meetingyour report is that you are indeed putting the citizensclosed, do you want to say anything which has notfirst and the choice remains with the citizen. It mightbeen covered during our questioning?be disadvantageous to us in political parties whoProfessor Sir John Arbuthnott: We have covered themight want to present voters with a fait accompli.report in refreshing detail and in some cases forensicHowever the voters can come back and upset yourdetail, we welcome these comments and we are gladapple carts the way we see them. I would say that itthat we have stimulated this debate.is perhaps one of the strengths that STV has beenChairman: And thank you very much for telling usseen to hand the power to the voters in the same way

as you have done with open lists. about your degrees. Thank you.

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited5/2006 331738 19585

Putting Citizens First the Report from the …...2 Putting Citizens First 4. The Arbuthnott...

Documents

Transcript of Putting Citizens First the Report from the …...2 Putting Citizens First 4. The Arbuthnott...