Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to take up the minister’s offer of further engagement and therefore I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 66.

Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 67 and 68 not moved.

Section 28—Pilot schemes under the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002

I am going to speak only to my own amendment, convener, and I will be quite brief.

Amendment 69 will require parliamentary approval not for all pilots but for any pilot that alters how votes are cast. My primary area of concern is e-voting—electronic voting, digital voting or however you wish to phrase it. I am not seeking to ban e-voting pilots outright, although in all honesty I would do so, but I think that any move from a paper to an electronic ballot, even as part of a pilot, would be of such significance that it should require specific consideration before it went ahead. Any trial of a new system, even in a single area, will still be part of a live election in which somebody will be elected to represent a community.

Given the significance of long-held concerns about the potential ability to compromise such a system, there should be that additional level of scrutiny. Therefore, I propose that any pilot that changes how votes are cast be subject to the Parliament’s approval.

I move amendment 69.

I thank the committee members and the minister for taking part in the debate. I recognise that these would be significant changes, but we should be a bit cautious about the argument that significant changes cannot be introduced to bills through amendments, because that robs everyone other than the Government of the ability to make significant changes. Back-bench MSPs from the governing party, as well as Opposition MSPs, also have the right to legislate for substantive things.

Apologies, convener—I read the wrong number at that point. You are right: the proposed threshold would be 0.01 per cent of voters for constituencies, and it would be 0.05 per cent for the regional list. Sorry—I should have made that clear.

Amendment 68, on by-elections, is designed to address what I see as democratic distortion caused by having single-member by-elections for multimember wards. Again, it might seem a little odd that this amendment is being moved by a Green, given that, as of this year, we have finally started winning some by-elections. However, I think that it is important to air the distortion argument in Parliament.

For example, at the moment, Perth City North has three Scottish National Party councillors in a three-member ward as a result of a by-election. That is despite the SNP having less than 50 per cent support—it still has substantial support—and there being strong support in that ward for both Labour and the Conservatives.

Four out of four councillors in the Drumchapel/Anniesland ward were from the Labour Party after our colleague Bill Kidd stood down from his council seat to focus on this Parliament. If there was another by-election in Hillhead, in Glasgow, because Councillor Ken Andrew decided to move on and do something else with his life—I emphasise that I do not believe that he is going to do so—the Greens would win that ward and would have three out of the three councillors in a ward that elected only one Green at the last election.

The Scottish Parliament made the choice to adopt a proportional system—the single transferable vote—for council elections. Other countries that use STV for their local elections do not generally have by-elections. For example, the Republic of Ireland does not have by-elections. Of course, Northern Ireland also does not have by-elections, but that is for very different reasons—it is about maintaining balance between communities—so I generally do not use that as an example. The Republic of Ireland does not because it has a similar system to what I am proposing.

If a vacating councillor was originally elected on a party ticket, that party’s nominating officer would be able to appoint a replacement for them. I would propose maintaining a by-election system for independents, so it would not go as far as it does in other systems. In Ireland, for example, if an independent councillor vacates, it is up to the council to decide how to appoint their replacement. I would not go quite that far, as I think it is reasonable to have by-elections in the case of independents.

I thank Mr Simpson for that intervention, which takes me to the exact point that I wanted to close on.

I concede—absolutely—that there is a trade-off. Individual candidacy matters more in a local election than it does at any other level. It often does not matter quite as much as those of us who are candidates and elected representatives would like to think it does, but it matters more at a local election, so there is a trade-off.

At the moment, many people—usually most people—vote to elect councillors from a party that does not come first in a multimember ward, and they are then left without representation as a result of a by-election caused by a vacancy left by any candidate other than the one who came first.

I do not comprehensively recall the—

Yes.

Yes.

As somebody who vividly remembers my residential experience, I completely appreciate that, although this morning’s meeting has brought me to the distressing conclusion that that was almost 20 years ago. [Laughter.]

Good morning, all. I want to return to and focus on an issue that has been touched on a couple of times. Professor Mannion mentioned evidence that shows that about 80 per cent of the outdoor education that young people in Scotland currently get is not residential—I think that he said that it averages out at about half an hour a week in total. I am interested in your thoughts on the value of outdoor residential education specifically, as opposed to outdoor education more generally.

Suggestions have been made, when the bill was proposed and in the consultation process, that a wider entitlement to outdoor education would be more appropriate than a specific entitlement to residential education. Obviously, the bill proposes residential education specifically, and I do not think that anyone round this table would dispute the value of that—you have all given a compelling case for it. However, I am interested in your thoughts on the argument about whether we should create that specific entitlement or take the wider approach of entitling young people to outdoor education in the round.

I think that it was you, Professor Mannion, who acknowledged that outdoor learning is expensive. The benefit to the children and young people involved is indisputable, but it is resource intensive. Is there a particular value for money argument for residential learning opportunities, as opposed to the wider approach of an entitlement to outdoor learning? I am specifically looking for the argument for residential learning being particularly valuable.