The start of the Council meeting was adjourned for 20 minutes. After that time Labour councillors left the Council Chamber and held the meeting in the Banqueting Hall. SNP councillors remained in the Chamber and did not take part in the Council meeting.

John Mason stated, “Normally I believe in being law abiding and following the rules which are in place. For eight years as a councillor I have not done anything like this. However, once in a while a matter arises which is so important that we need to do more than just vote against it. The crucial point here was that they were taking away the opposition members’ right to debate and vote when a decision is being made. That was going too far for me. In my eyes I had to choose between democracy and the Council rules and I felt I had no choice but to support the former.”

ABOLITION OF OPPOSITION VOTES

• In the 2003 elections Labour received about 50% of the vote but 71 of the 79 Council seats.
  
  This was unfair but was according to the rules and was accepted.
  
  
• Since 2003 the Policy & Resources Committee has had 29 members of whom 25 were Labour and only 4 opposition.
  
  This has also been considered unfair but has been accepted.
  
  
• This summer P & R is being replaced by a committee with 16 members, all of whom are Labour with no opposition.
  
  This is not acceptable.
  
  

DRIFT AWAY FROM DEMOCRACY

It is widely accepted that one of the key tests for a democracy is how minorities are treated. This can mean ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, or those with a minority point of view, etc.

No democracy is perfect and although the First Past the Post system of election has produced a mix in Glasgow City Council very different from the way the residents have voted, it has still given minority parties in the City the opportunity to express their views in debate and to take part in votes when decisions are made.

Over recent years there have been many contentious issues debated and decided in committees of the Council. Some of these have been very important and have provoked strong disagreement and debate, e.g. the schools PPP/PFI projects and the Housing Stock Transfer. However, throughout there has been the opportunity for politicians and the public to express their views and engage in debate before a decision is made. Such debate has sometimes even led to changes in the ruling group's plans, e.g. concerning primary schools in Castlemilk.

It has to be accepted that this debate about the Council's committees and decision making system has not caught the public imagination in the way that the schools and housing issues have. However, in many ways this current debate is of a much more serious and fundamental nature as it will decide how all future decisions in the Council are made. Should debate be held before a decision is made or only after the event?

It can also be argued that the House of Commons at Westminster is broadly accepted as democratic and as they operate a cabinet system Glasgow can legitimately operate one too. However, the key issue here is that Glasgow has had a better system than Westminster and is in danger of sacrificing a stronger for a weaker alternative.

Comparisons with Zimbabwe or North Korea have been considered distasteful by Cllr Purcell as we do not intend to have imprisonment or torture here. However, the point remains that this new system is a move in their direction. It is a move away from an equalities agenda where minorities are allowed to speak, are listened to, and are fairly treated, to a situation where the majority group not only wins the votes but prevents the minorities taking part in the debates or voting at all.

It is for these reasons that we as opposition councillors are so strongly opposed to these changes to Glasgow City Council's committee system.