Local Government Committee, 12 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000

Official Report 209KB pdf

---

Representation of the People Bill

Good morning, comrades. I wish everyone a happy new year.

The first item on this morning's agenda is the Representation of the People Bill; to discuss it, the minister, Frank McAveety, has joined us. Members will have received an explanatory note on the bill, which deals with postal voting on demand for local government elections. Frank McAveety will make some comments, answer questions for clarification and, if necessary, we will open the matter for debate. I should point out that an Executive motion will go before Parliament, to be taken without debate. The issue does not seem to me to be very controversial; however, that may change. I invite Frank McAveety to give his comments on the bill.

Thank you. I extend my good wishes to the committee for the new year.

We are in a new committee room in the Hub and I note with interest the ring of fire that is directly above my head. I am rather worried that the committee has some levers—opposition members have given me assurances that there are levers under the table—which will be pulled depending on the answers that I give. In theological terms, if the ring of fire rises above my head, it will look good at chapel on Sunday.

The Representation of the People Bill is a piece of UK legislation, which includes elements that may have an impact on local government work in Scotland. We want to draw the committee's attention to the matter so that we can address it in the context of Scottish local government elections. The bill is the outcome of the all-party group chaired by George Howarth at the UK ministry, to address the effectiveness of electoral mechanisms.

The bill includes the establishment of new provisions for electoral registration, the most prominent of which is the concept of the rolling register, which most parties see as a positive development. The rolling register allows the electorate to register or change registration at any time, in contrast to the current annual system. It is a reserved matter but, as it will apply to UK elections, it is important that the Scottish Parliament has a chance to address the issue.

There are many other elements to the bill, such as making voting easier for disabled people. That will apply to parliamentary elections, but we can bring forward supplementary legislation to apply that to local government elections in Scotland. Today's committee presents an opportunity to address that. There are other opportunities, such as pilot schemes for local authorities to test new forms of voting. I know that many members who have been involved in council work have been exploring various possibilities, such as electronic voting. We must consider that approach in the context of the McIntosh report.

Today's motion relates to postal voting on demand. Local government elections are a devolved matter, but the bill has been drafted to include Scottish local government elections and today's motion asks the Parliament to agree to that. The postal voting arrangements must be consistent. If we do not address the matter, people might be able to demand a postal vote for national elections, but not for local government elections. We share the frustration of individuals who have not been able to register their votes. We must attend to their concerns. It is important that we deal with the Representation of the People Bill in the context of Scottish local government elections. I hope that members will support the motion. I am happy to address members' questions.

Are there any questions?

Like other colleagues, I support the general thrust of the proposal and the common sense behind the idea that Westminster should legislate for Scottish local government elections in this particular case. I have advocated postal voting on demand for some time—it is a good idea.

Other people may have had the same experience as I have had when canvassing for local government and national elections, which is that by the time people wake up to their need for a postal vote, the deadline has passed. Do the proposed regulations make the closing date for postal votes closer to the election date?

I do not have the details of that, but I will ask one of the civil servants to come to the table to answer the question.

It will be a rolling register, so that people will be able to register throughout the year. However, at the end of the day, it will be down to publicity to make people aware of elections and closing dates.

The rolling register is obviously a positive part of the proposal. The memorandum mentioned lots of publicity in the run-up to the election; however, allowing for the general lack of public interest in the political process until the very last minute, the more it is possible to allow those who have only just woken up to the fact that they need a postal vote to get one, the better. There are obvious logistical problems. Nevertheless, the later it is still possible to get a postal vote, the better.

What Donald Gorrie is asking is whether there is any intention to extend the final deadline for postal ballots. Although some people may be aware of local government elections, others are not. Members will recall that the television advertising in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections talked about people having two ballots, but the local government elections were completely ignored; until they turned up at the ballot box, many people did not realise that local government elections were taking place. As well as improving publicity, we should extend the final deadline for submission of postal votes.

I will check whether that is included. There will be deadlines in any context—someone will always be too late. No matter how well intentioned we are about involving the electorate, there will always be some folk who are not engaged.

The detail of Howarth's paper—we will provide copies if members do not have them—tries to address ways in which we can energise the public and make electoral structures more accessible. The reasons why people do not participate in elections may relate to broader UK political matters. We will consider the issue of deadlines and flexibility of implementation and come back to the convener of the committee with an answer.

I welcome this initiative, particularly in relation to accessibility for disabled people. However, there may be costs involved. Has some thought been given to the fact that such changes may involve increased costs for local government? Where would it be appropriate to deal with that?

Local government should address those matters. The most far-sighted authorities in Scotland are those that have recognised two distinct issues. The first issue is whether folk want the flexibility to register for postal voting more effectively, at an earlier date, because of their disability. The second issue—one that the committee is concerned about—is the accessibility of polling stations and the cost of adaptation. Local authorities should address those issues in any assessments that they make of the resource base. There are variations throughout Scotland, and I would be reluctant to say that there is a standard issue. If there was a planned programme, I do not think that the costs would be excessive, given the budgets that are available. I think that local authorities could cope.

Since May, no representation has been made, by either the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or local authorities themselves, specifically to the ministerial team on any of those matters. I would have thought that, given the two or three months' evaluation process that followed the difficult joint elections, which had been undertaken for the first time, those matters might have arisen. I suggest that those matters might be worth exploring with COSLA, through this committee, to determine whether accessibility is an issue.

Essentially, Howarth's paper addresses the registration concept rather than the physical barriers to participation when people want to exercise their right to vote. Committee members will probably know as well as I do the utter determination of the elderly, in spite of their infirmities, to get to the polling booth to register their vote. There is an incredible courage in that, and I admire them.

As members have no more questions, is there anything else in general that anybody wants to say?

No. [Laughter.]

I was not addressing the minister.

Does the committee agree that this legislation should be pursued by the United Kingdom Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee will write to you, Frank, about the comments that have been made this morning. An Executive motion will then be put before the Parliament without debate, and the legislation will be changed appropriately. Thank you, Frank, for your time.

Thank you.