Local Government Committee, 03 Dec 2002
Meeting date: Tuesday, December 3, 2002
Official Report
283KB pdf
Subordinate Legislation
Scottish Local Government Elections Regulations 2002 (draft)
Our first business today is a piece of subordinate legislation that is subject to affirmative procedure. We are joined for this by Peter Peacock, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services. Peter, the committee members have suggested that we make you an honorary member, as you will be here for most of the day, as well as next week and the week after that. Indeed, you have been here for about three weeks already. It is up to you. If you would like to be an honorary member, we will set something up.
As far as I know, there have been no comments from members about the regulations, which were sent to members some time ago. The report of the Subordinate Legislation Committee has been included in the papers for today's meeting. That committee drew the attention of the lead committee and Parliament to several instances of defective drafting in the regulations.
Members will know the procedure, but I will remind them quickly. I will ask the minister to give evidence and then open it up to questions only. I will then ask the minister whether he wants to add anything else before I open it up for debate.
Thank you very much, convener. I look forward to receiving the brochure on the benefits of honorary membership in due course.
There is no salary.
There are no benefits.
As you said, convener, the Subordinate Legislation Committee brought to our attention some minor drafting errors. We advised that committee that although the errors should not have occurred, they are minor in nature. None of the provisions requiring amendment will cause any difficulties in practice, but amendments will be introduced to correct them at an early opportunity. We have it in hand to do that soon.
We are introducing a package of measures that deal with procedures at local government elections. The regulations are part of the package. The purpose of the regulations is covered in the Executive note and is straightforward. They deal with revised procedures for the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers for local government elections. The procedures were introduced for the general election in February 2001 and are now being introduced for local government elections to bring both sets into line with each other. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Does anyone have any questions?
This is not so much a question as a comment. I just want again to indicate my concern that when drafting defects are brought to the attention of the Executive, the statutory instrument procedures mean that they cannot be rectified as the instrument passes through the parliamentary process. That strikes me as madness. Perhaps the Procedures Committee should re-examine the rules governing consideration of statutory instruments for the future. It is mad that if we spot a drafting error we cannot correct it without either throwing out the whole instrument or introducing an amending instrument.
I would like to comment generally on the issue of postal ballots. Recently, it was brought to my attention that, because of new rules for the rolling register, the register that comes into effect after the annual canvass on 1 December replaces the register that is in effect at that time, even if an election is under way. The new register may come into effect after the closing date for postal ballots. If a local authority were running an all-postal-ballot election but the register changed between the postal ballots being sent out and the announcement of the election result, that could create an interesting situation. The anomaly must be addressed. It may not be possible to do so in this legislation, but I believe that the Electoral Commission is considering the matter.
I share Iain Smith's concern about the regulations and the drafting changes that need to be made to them. I am worried that it was left to the Subordinate Legislation Committee to identify instances of defective drafting in the instrument.
The regulations are very comprehensive, but they stop short of instructing when counts should take place. Given the huge problems that we experienced in Edinburgh in 1999, should the Scottish Executive and the Parliament suggest when counts for Scottish Parliament and local authority elections should take place?
Both Iain Smith and Tricia Marwick raised the issue of the drafting of instruments. That is a matter for the Parliament and its procedures. If the parliamentary authorities were considering how the matter should be handled, I am sure that the Executive would be happy to share with the Parliament its experience of drafting statutory instruments. I understand the point that Iain Smith makes—there would be merit in our being able to correct drafting errors in instruments without having to bring them before the committee for a second time. However, I am sure that there is logic in the current position.
Iain Smith raised the issue of the relationship between postal ballots and the rolling register. I am aware of the problem to which the member refers. It is not clear that the Executive is specifically responsible for dealing with it, but the authorities that are responsible for such matters are aware of it, as a recent case has brought it to their attention. I am sure that they will examine the implications of that case and whether the problem can be rectified in future.
Strictly speaking, the issue that Tricia Marwick raised is outwith the terms of this statutory instrument. We are not examining the issue of election counts at this point. My understanding—I would be happy to confirm it to the committee in writing—is that the arrangements for Scottish Parliament elections are governed by the Scotland Office, rather than the Scottish Executive. Tricia Marwick should raise this issue with the Scotland Office, which has prime responsibility for Scottish Parliament elections.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government Committee, in consideration of the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Regulations 2002, recommends that the instrument be approved.—[Peter Peacock.]
Motion agreed to.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—