Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4272, in the name of George Lyon, on the general principles of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill.
The Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill makes improvements to two important functions of local authorities of which we hear little in Parliament but that are vital to all who seek election to office.
Part 1 of the bill, which is about electoral administration, aims to make it easier for people to vote and to improve participation at elections, as well as enhancing security and improving efficiency in the administration of elections. I am sure that all members support those aims. Part 2 is about modernising and improving the registration of births, deaths and marriages by taking advantage of advances in information technology to offer new and more efficient services to constituents.
I thank the Local Government and Transport Committee for the work that it has done on the legislative proposals and for its broad overall support for the bill. The committee made a number of comments and recommendations in its report and has requested more information on certain aspects of the bill. I intend to write to the committee and to respond in full to its concerns before stage 2. However, I will respond to some of the key issues during the debate.
I thought that it might be helpful if I said a bit more about e-counting, although I should make it clear that e-counting does not form part of the bill. In relation to part 1, the committee raised concerns about the new arrangements for access to election documents and the effect that the introduction of e-counting might have on those arrangements. I assure the Parliament that the principle of confidentiality of the vote will not be compromised by e-counting, should we go ahead with it. Nor will there be any reduction in the information that is available to candidates and their agents.
Last week, the Executive and the Scotland Office carried out further testing of an e-counting system, and parliamentarians, the media and others attended demonstrations to see at first hand how the system worked. We are evaluating the results of those tests, alongside the very positive feedback from those who attended last week's demonstrations and from all who attended the previous demonstrations in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow; 31 of the 32 local authorities attended the first set of demonstrations. The official responses have been positive, although we will need to deal with one or two issues that were raised as the process advances.
When does the minister expect to come to a decision on whether e-counting will be utilised for the 2007 elections?
I hate to use the word "shortly", but we are conscious that decisions have to be taken in the next few weeks because election rules have to be drawn up. We have conducted the last test of the system and once we have collated all the feedback we will be in a position to make the final decision on whether to go ahead.
E-counting would give us an opportunity to modernise part of our electoral process. As those who attended the demonstrations know, e-counting would enable a complex, combined election count to be completed much more quickly than would be possible using manual counting. That is important in the light of the introduction of the single transferable vote.
If we decide to go ahead with e-counting, a number of choices about the times that the counts will take place will be opened up to the Executive, the Scotland Office and local authorities. For example, e-counting would allow Scottish Parliament and local government counts to take place simultaneously with the results being announced overnight. Alternatively, the counts could be split, with the Scottish Parliament count taking place overnight and local authority counts taking place the next day, as was common practice in the previous two elections. Another option would be for Parliament and council counts to take place on the following day.
Decisions would have to be taken on the number of counting centres that would be required. I am certainly aware that the island constituencies and some of the rural authorities would want to have count centres in each of their areas.
Final decisions on e-counting will be taken shortly, and we are working closely with the Scotland Office and electoral administrators to ensure that, if we go ahead, decisions on timings and count centres will be well informed to provide the most effective basis for a successful combined election.
I have seen the report of someone who attended one of the demonstrations. He expressed concern that the rejection rate of ballot papers would be much higher than would be the case in a visual check, in that if the mark is only 95 per cent in the box, it is likely to be rejected. How refined will the e-count be and will manual intervention be possible to deal with such a problem?
We have systems to deal with the problem. Not only can the scan be recalled and examined to allow agents to review the acceptability of a particular ballot paper but, if there is real doubt over an individual ballot paper, it can be recalled, examined and either counted or discounted. We are reassured by evidence from the demonstrations that, even after ballot papers have been marked, folded and crumpled up, the machines have still been able to identify most of them. We have to follow through that process to ensure that every vote counts on the night.
I welcome the committee's support for our plans to introduce performance standards for returning officers at local government elections. As the Electoral Commission will set performance standards for national elections, it seems only sensible to have a common set of standards to ensure uniformity and consistency.
I note the committee's reservations about the level of parliamentary scrutiny and certainly understand the Parliament's wish to engage in developing the standards. That is why I am keen to restate my assurance that the committee and the Parliament will be fully consulted in the process.
On part 2, the committee raised a number of concerns about registration fee income, marriages at sea and the inclusion of clan information in the book of Scottish connections. As we are constrained for time, I hope to address those matters in my concluding remarks.
I ask the Parliament to support the motion and I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill.
I thank my former committee colleagues not only for making my stay on the Local Government and Transport Committee as enjoyable as it could be, but for their work in compiling the stage 1 report on the bill. The Scottish National Party endorses the report, which expresses general support for the bill while acknowledging that its proposals can be improved in certain areas—although I say to David Davidson that, no matter what improvements are made to the counting system, it will still struggle to find any Tory votes. In the short time available, I will address a number of concerns and highlight some improvements that might be made.
First, I want to raise the vexed issue of electoral fraud because, after all, any change to the electoral process must have at its core the aim of raising public confidence. Although we warmly welcome attempts to make voting more convenient for people, we do not believe that such an approach should be introduced at the expense of the security and privacy of the ballot process. The committee comments on that issue on pages 16 to 18 of its report. The Executive must be guided by the principle of prioritising measures that will raise public confidence in the safety and security of the vote. That is why the issues that the Electoral Commission raised in its briefing to MSPs are so important and why we must listen to—and why the Executive must act on—the commission's comments about the pilots and the use of personal identifiers. The commission said:
"we are concerned that the pilot schemes proposed will not offer sufficiently widespread safeguards against postal voting abuse and are unlikely to provide an effective guide to the likely impact of a national scheme. Crucially, this approach gives no guarantees of improvements in security for postal voters ahead of the next Scottish Parliamentary and local government or UK Parliamentary elections."
The Executive should take particular note of that advice.
As the minister pointed out, sections 1 and 2 are intended to increase efficiency of electoral administration and seek to introduce the concept of performance targets to encourage best practice in service delivery. In paragraph 52 of the report, the committee makes it clear that it
"considers it important that when standards are developed they are specific and deliverable, and that there is uniformity and consistency".
I would like to give a couple of examples, based on my personal experience and perspective, of ways in which a more consistent approach could help in the delivery of electoral services. My first point is to do with the formatting of the data that are held on the electoral register; the Labour Party has taken up that point previously. It has become clear from recent experience in a number of areas of Scotland that a uniform method of holding and producing electoral register data does not exist. The formatting of the data—with regard to addresses, for example—is not done in a uniform way across all electoral registration offices. It would be hugely helpful to the efficiency of the electoral process if that information were held and produced uniformly by electoral registration officers across Scotland. It would be particularly useful if the new register, when it is produced in December, were to include ward codes, because that would make a considerable difference to the way in which political parties participate in elections.
It would be useful to hear from the minister when we expect the final ward boundaries to be agreed and brought into being. That point is not related to the bill, but the further that that slips, the more difficult it will be for the electoral process.
Secondly, we would support the development of a national online register, which we believe would be helpful in delivering a more effective and efficient service. I understand that the Executive is putting out to tender a process to do with raising awareness of individuals in the community about the elections next year—both the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections—and that is important. However, I seek assurances from the Executive that that exercise will go beyond just encouraging people to come out to vote and that it will include an attempt to begin to explain to people the complexity of the three voting systems that will be before them next May. There is a job of work to be done in that regard and I would like to hear whether it is intended that the tender should include an exercise of the kind that I have outlined.
There is a need for standards and for greater consistency between returning officers and electoral registration officers; I will say more about that in a moment. First, however, I will mention the by-election in Moray, where political parties were denied the opportunity to sample ballot boxes. I know that the parties have no right to do that, but it is allowed in many other parts of Scotland. For some reason, it was not allowed in Moray—not that that mattered too much to us, given that we could have weighed the votes rather than having to count them.
While I am on the subject of Moray, I should also say that we ought to be able to deal with issues regarding election expenses, although the bill does not give us that power. Some of the sums of money that have been spent by the United Kingdom parties in recent by-elections in Scotland have been obscene; we need to control those amounts.
Does Bruce Crawford agree that it is not the amount of money but the authenticity and principle of the policies that get people to vote?
I was going to mention authenticity and principles, because some of the practices that were employed in Moray, particularly by the Tories and the Liberals, were nothing short of a disgrace.
Consistency and standardisation between returning officers and electoral registration officers could be improved, for example with regard to election stationery. The development of a complete and standard range of items of stationery for the use of voters, political parties and electoral administrators would be an example of best practice; if that was done, all the training modules could be more synchronised and guidance could be developed nationally rather than locally. That would be quite a help.
I am grateful for the minister's assurance that the level of information that will be available will not be cut back in any way as far as e-counting is concerned, but I believe that ballot-box sampling also needs to be considered. Sir Neil McIntosh of the Electoral Commission said in his evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee:
"I know that sampling was raised in a previous discussion. That needs to be thought through carefully because an electronic system does not have the personal opportunity to sample, which the current system does. Thought should be given to how that should be tackled. It should be pursued and should be part of further consideration once the shape and timing of first, an electronic counting system and secondly, electronic voting are known."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 7 February 2006; c 3276.]
I hope that when the minister winds up, he will give us specific information on ballot-box sampling.
Overall, the Scottish National Party is supportive of the report and the bill in its broadest terms, although we recognise that some improvements need to be made.
I join Bruce Crawford in thanking my former colleagues on the Local Government and Transport Committee for continuing their good work by producing an excellent report, which throws up—on a cross-party basis—challenges that the Executive must deal with.
The Conservative party believes that democracy is the basis of our society. The minister was right to talk about the need for people to have confidence in the system, but the system must also be accessible, both physically and in the sense that it can be understood. That is the public's principal concern. They must be able to understand the process and what their rights are. I am sure that no member would argue that we should not examine that issue more closely before the bill is passed. The system must be more than user-friendly; we must encourage people—especially young people—to participate in it. That will involve an education programme.
When we talk about accountability, we mean that people who have been elected before must be accountable for what they have done on behalf of their constituents. Holding local government elections and Scottish Parliament elections on the same day mires the process in confusion, because it means that everyone is deluged with national policies and people are not able to consider their local concerns. I am taking over David Mundell's proposed bill on local government elections, which represents an important attempt to provide accountability, openness and access to the electoral system. If those aims are to be achieved, the whole system must be properly funded and staffed. The Association of Electoral Administrators has great concerns about whether sufficient resources are available.
I have talked about separating the two elections, but that would involve increased costs; I will deal with that in due course. There is huge confusion among the public. The minister mentioned that some education on the STV system—which most people do not understand—would eventually be provided. The returning officers claim that what is proposed is not a good way to introduce that system. Most councils support our position—they favour decoupling.
We are considering the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill. The fact that Mr Crawford could not stick to the subject demeaned someone for whom I used to have great respect.
The minister has a habit of not revealing all the gems until he gets to his winding-up speech. I would have thought that he would have wanted to put all his cards on the table, to listen to the debate and to respond at the end, but there we go.
Mr Crawford mentioned that the extent to which returning officers allow candidates and agents to participate in, and to understand, electoral procedures varies. I note that the new electronic counting machine has a screen that could be accessed by such people. We need to hear more about such positive measures. If the Executive is going to produce such a device, does that mean that it is in favour of allowing candidates and agents to see what goes on during an election? I presume that the minister has seen the machine in question, so he will be able to give a better explanation of how it will work.
Another issue that must be examined is the behaviour of people in the areas around polling booths. In the past, I have had to ask the police to remove political people from the voting area. They might say that they are involved in sampling, but not everyone sees it that way; their activity might be regarded as intimidation. That has been going on for a long time. The police have a clear role to play; candidates or individuals should not have to say to the police, "These people are blocking the door." That sort of activity, as opposed to just the technicalities, would encourage more people to turn out to vote.
I thank the minister for going over his e-counting system. With the same restraint that the Local Government and Transport Committee showed and concerns that it had, the Conservatives support the general principles of the bill and look forward to hearing far more of the detail from the minister. I hope that he will be able to respond in his winding-up speech to many of our queries. We must ensure that we have local accountability in the electoral process, but as long as the elections are mixed up that will not happen. The Executive needs to start the education of the public in the voting process now and not leave it until the last minute. That said, we support the general principles of the bill.
I thank the clerks and the support team to the Local Government and Transport Committee for their help in enabling us to put together the report. I also give my thanks to committee members: those who were there throughout the process and those, such as Mr Davidson, who were there for part of the process. I also send best wishes to my former deputy convener in his new role in the Parliament.
I was a bit confused when Mr Davidson talked about intimidation in Scottish elections. Things must be an awful lot more robust in the electoral process up in Aberdeenshire than they are in West Lothian, because I have certainly never encountered intimidation of any voter as they cast their ballot. The Conservatives could perhaps enlighten us further; perhaps people were just a bit paranoid about going to the ballot box and casting a vote for the Conservatives.
I thank the member for his cheap comment, but I have asked the police to intervene when people wearing electoral badges representing a party were behind the teller's desk. There is no role for that—it is illegal.
David Davidson may have seen that as intimidation, but I find it some distance away from that.
David Davidson's points about two elections being held on the same day and people not understanding the system were mere hypothesis. Northern Ireland has had first-past-the-post elections and STV elections on the same day and the number of spoiled ballot papers has not been dramatically high.
This will undoubtedly be one of those days when many of the contributors are in agreement.
What concerns me more about elections being held on the same day is that the campaign will not provide the proper opportunity for the issues that are of relevance to both elections to be debated or for justice to be done to either of them. It is clear that voters can make up their minds how they want to vote, but will enough attention be paid to the issues that relate to the local authority elections, which tend to be obscured by national politics?
Voters are perfectly capable of differentiating between both elections when they are held on the same day. The most recent Scottish Parliament elections highlight that; for example, in Clackmannanshire, Labour won control of the council yet the Scottish National Party won the parliamentary seat. In Aberdeen, Labour did considerably better in the parliamentary elections that day than it did in the local authority elections. People were able to differentiate between candidates and between performances by the parties at various levels of government and cast their votes accordingly. It is possible for people to make such distinctions.
Turning to the bill, the first point that I would like to raise with the minister, which is raised in the first paragraph of the committee's report, is that the Electoral Administration Bill is currently passing through Westminster. Will any changes to the Westminster bill have implications for the Scottish bill and will any such changes require the minister subsequently to lodge amendments to the Scottish bill? My second point concerns performance standards. The fact that performance standards will be set by the Executive on local authority elections in the future has been widely welcomed, but the minister recognises the committee's point that we would welcome an opportunity for Parliament to be able to participate in scrutinising those standards to ensure that they have got broad buy-in. When we are dealing with standards, elections are the property of all the people and political parties of Scotland, and we need to ensure that everyone has confidence that the agreed standards will make elections more efficient and reliable. I recommend that the minister responds to that point.
On postal votes, concerns were raised about the problems with fraud that have come up in other parts of the UK but are not, as far as I am aware, widespread in Scotland. I ask the minister to respond to some of the points in our report about how more progress could be made in dealing with potential fraud. The integrity of the voting process is essential to our democracy.
On e-counting, I attended the presentation on the new voting system at the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre in Glasgow. I was impressed with the system and think that it is the way forward for elections. When the more complex counting that is associated with the single transferable voting system is in place, we will be able to get the count done more quickly than would otherwise be the case.
I agree with Mr Crawford's point about the sampling of votes. It is important for political parties to be able to sample votes so that they can reassure themselves about the integrity of the voting system, and because it helps with planning for future campaigns by identifying levels of support and ensuring that the support that has been measured during canvassing is reflected in the votes that are cast on the day. Of course, any such information will have to be protected so that an individual voter's right to a secret ballot is assured, but general information should be made available to parties at a level that does not identify how individuals have voted.
My preference—the committee has not discussed this issue—is that we continue to have an overnight count, particularly for parliamentary elections. In elections to our national Parliament, we want to be able to get past any dubiety over the result and announce who the Government of Scotland will be so that people do not have to speculate on the basis of exit polls or the like.
On registration services, there was broad recognition of the issues and the provisions in the bill were widely supported. However, some points of detail were raised. David McLetchie voiced concerns about whether the automatic electronic notification of death certificates would benefit individuals because they would still have to go through the process of purchasing a death certificate to be able to recover insurance policies and deal with other aspects of a person's death. I ask the minister to expand on the benefits of that part of the system.
There was widespread support for the proposed book of Scottish connections, which will allow people from Scotland or those with Scottish roots to keep in touch with members of their family. In the future, the book could act as a stimulus to additional tourism from the Scottish diaspora.
My final point is not covered in the bill, but it was raised in evidence. The Church of Scotland wishes deacons to be able to conduct religious marriages in the Church of Scotland. I am aware that there is an interim arrangement whereby the Executive enables that to happen, but the Church of Scotland is looking for that to be put on a legislative basis so that it can plan for the future.
There was overall support for the bill from the vast majority of people who gave evidence. There will be widespread support from political parties and the individuals who are taking part in today's debate. If the general principles of the bill are agreed to, as I expect they will be, it is important that we use stage 2 and stage 3 to get some of the matters of detail right. I support the general principles of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill.
As has been said, the bill is not particularly contentious. I want to pick up on a couple of things that have been mentioned already. If I heard the minister rightly, he said that one of the bill's objectives is to make voting easier. Of course, making voting easier, in the hope that that will somehow raise the turnout, is one of the preoccupations of modern politics. We are going down the wrong track if we think that making voting easier is the way to do that. We need to reflect rather more fundamentally on why people do not vote, which I suspect is much more to do with a cynicism about politics in general and about political institutions than it is to do with the ease with which they can cast their votes. I cannot see anything in the bill that will make it fundamentally easier for people to vote.
Some of the points that Bruce Crawford made about security of the ballots are fundamental. The fear that the ballot process is not secure and that votes might be tampered with, particularly in postal voting, might put people off voting.
We in Scotland have taken a good approach to the administration of votes. We can all criticise one another's campaigning and techniques to motivate people to vote in a particular way, but most people, whatever part of the country they come from, would say that the process seems to work pretty well at an administrative level. Nevertheless, having endured at the most recent Scottish Parliament elections the longest count in Scotland—the vote counters were still counting early on Friday morning and later in the day—I think that a move to e-counting can only be positive, as long as the technology can be made to work.
The minister said that he would reflect on the comments that the Electoral Commission made. It is perhaps a little too easy to let him away with that. The comments that the Electoral Commission made about the security of postal voting and the need for individual registration are fundamental. I know that much of the concern that was expressed at the general election was overblown and whipped up; there was a certain hysteria at one point about the lack of security of postal votes. Nevertheless, serious issues were raised by the Electoral Commission which, let us not forget, gets a significant amount of taxpayers' money—I think that it gets about £25 million per year. To set up a body to advise the Government and then ignore it does not seem to be a particularly clever way of operating, although I accept that the Executive is no different from the Westminster Government in that regard.
The Electoral Commission said that the Executive's proposed approach
"gives no guarantees of improvements in security for postal voters ahead of the next Scottish Parliament and local government elections."
I presume that there is still the possibility that another campaign of fear could be whipped up about the security of postal voting in Scotland. The commission also makes the valid point that the Executive's rationale for not going down the route of individual registration was the need to reflect on the lessons that might be learned. As the commission says, in Northern Ireland—where there have perhaps been more problems than in most areas of the country—a significant amount of work on registration has been done. The minister should at least explain why he thinks that further evidence is needed in Scotland and why the experience from Northern Ireland cannot be transferred. If the Northern Irish show best practice and have learned from difficult circumstances, we ought to be able to use their experience to inform what we are doing here.
I get the impression that the bill is before us at the moment because of the single transferable vote. Normally—given the Executive's recent record—this type of bill would be dealt with through a Sewel motion or at the same time as UK legislation. It is another example of why STV is causing a lot of problems in Scotland. Although that particular battle has been lost, I reiterate that STV is fundamentally the wrong system for local government in Scotland. I am sure that many members of the Executive parties would agree but perhaps would not want to say so. STV is of course fundamentally the wrong system for rural areas, where the local connections that are strong under the existing system will be broken. Although the battle has been lost, I have to say that STV might have more impact on the turnout at the next local elections in Scotland than any of the measures in the bill.
I do not doubt that there is potential in the book of Scottish connections, which is in a different part of this mixed bag of a bill, and let us hope that it is harnessed, but I wonder what rigour has gone into costing the book and assessing what the likely take-up will be, to ensure that Registers of Scotland does not take on an extra burden that might not bring a great deal of benefit. I know that there has been almost universal support for the book of Scottish connections and I hope that it works well, but we need to be careful about its implementation to ensure that Registers of Scotland is not given a task that provides no great benefit to the Scottish nation.
There is not a great deal more to say on the bill, as it is pretty non-contentious. We need to hear detailed responses from the minister to the many points that the committee raised in its good, wide-ranging report.
It is fitting that we are discussing the bill today when 23 million people in England could vote in the local government elections. How many of that massive number of people go through the polling booths is another matter but, aside from any other considerations, that is why the bill is important. It brings into the headlights the issues that surround elections in the United Kingdom.
As several members have said, one issue that has been more prominent than everyone in the Parliament would like is electoral fraud, particularly the misuse of postal votes. The scandals involving postal vote fraud have resulted in the UK election process being compared to that of a banana republic. That is extremely damaging to our democratic process. As Bruce Crawford indicated, the Electoral Commission would like to see personal identifiers being used nationally, not only on a pilot basis. Greater costs might be incurred in setting up such a registration scheme, but it would bring a big benefit to democracy.
We must remember that only by helping to secure the electoral system through the introduction of such safeguards can people have more confidence in it. Like other members, I attended a working demonstration of how electronic voting works. Like Bristow Muldoon, I believe that I have seen the future of electoral counts. Too many of us have endured hours of peering over shoulders and arguing about whether voting papers should be counted face up or face down. I am prepared to give way to a magic machine that reads faster than the human eye and which should introduce great accuracy and speed into what has always been a lengthy and labour-intensive process. I assure Mr Davidson that the level of security that can be achieved by the machine is impressive. The issue of sampling has been raised and it is still to be addressed, but I am sure that the software can be developed and it should be developed.
It has occurred to me that if the counting can be done by a computer, why on earth could the computer not produce a box sample? Parties would therefore not be required to do any sampling. The sample could be provided by ward code or some other means. That would solve the problem.
I agree with Mr Crawford. Those of us who saw the sampling came to the same conclusion. We could just take a percentage sample out of the computer, provided that—as Bristow Muldoon said—there is no danger of anyone being identified in very small box counts.
The bill makes other changes. One issue that has not been discussed is accessibility. As I have had physically to help some people into polling stations, I believe that not only is the move to easier access to be welcomed but it must be given a mighty shove to ensure that being disabled does not prevent anyone from taking part in the democratic process. Capability Scotland has expressed its concerns on the issue. Its evidence indicates that Scotland is lagging behind other countries in ensuring that easier physical access, tactile voting and aids such as large-print ballot papers are available. That is not good and the issue must be addressed.
On the registration part of the bill, the breaking down of barriers within the registration service and the decision to move towards coterminous boundaries with local authorities are both welcome initiatives. Although there are merits in the face-to-face registration system, we must acknowledge the shift in technology and welcome the proposal that will allow online registration, especially if it does not remove the local link.
I will say a special word on the book of Scottish connections. Apart from the Irish and the Jewish diaspora, few nationalities have travelled as widely or as enthusiastically as the Scots. We might not have realised it, but the Scots have provided the world with fresh talent for the past two centuries—we are now trying to get talent back in. On a recent visit to Costa Rica, I met a guy by the name of Pablo Macdonald. I do not know whether he or his family will make use of the book of Scottish connections, but I believe that it is a good idea and that many Scots who hanker after their homeland will use it.
Cash-strapped local authorities have expressed concerns about the cost of implementing the bill and about a possible loss of income because of it. However, the paramount feature of the bill is that it will provide more accessible and user-friendly services for registration and electoral administration. I commend the bill and recommend that it go forward to stage 2.
We should welcome the bill in general, but particularly part 1, which deals with electoral processes, as an opportunity to increase public confidence in the electoral process. I want to comment on a series of practical issues in part 1.
Section 2 deals with performance standards, which I welcome. Capability Scotland's "Polls Apart 4 Scotland" report raises challenges that need urgent resolution regarding access to the electoral processes for voters with special needs. Those challenges could be addressed under section 2 or other sections. I ask whether it is likely in future that the performance standards will have an influence on, say, the allocation of funds for elections to different returning officers in different areas.
Section 5 concerns the contravention of regulations governing access to post-election documentation. Again, I agree with the provisions in principle, but I hope that a genuine human error will not result in excessive punishment. Such an error might involve a presiding officer at a polling station omitting, at the end of a long day, to parcel up for collection a single copy of the marked electoral register.
Section 7 will allow observers to attend local government elections with the agreement of the returning officer. Such agreement should not be unreasonably withheld. I note that the Electoral Commission favours unfettered access for observers to all electoral processes. However, logistical problems could arise from that and I will cite two possible examples. First, postal votes are currently issued in non-public offices, but if we were to have a great deal of public access to that process, there would be logistical implications. Secondly, a combined count in the city of Glasgow can currently involve the presence of 2,000 accredited persons. Under the bill, that number would be added to by the presence of observers. The issue is straightforward: how would we fit them all in? Surely it could not be done on a first-come, first-served basis. Similarly, section 8 will allow organisations to send observers at every stage. Might that lead in polling stations to a conflict with the voters' right to secrecy?
Section 19 deals with the piloting of the use of personal identifiers. There is no doubt of their potential value in preventing electoral fraud. Again, I note that the Electoral Commission questions the need for further pilots and wants full individual registration through another bill in another place. However, the 2007 local government elections will involve, as we have heard, the use of the new STV system alongside the Holyrood constituency and list counts, and the use of a new, untested electronic counting system. I know that there have been dry runs, but I would have preferred to see a new counting system being used in actual electoral conditions. Do we really want to impose on the new arrangements and the current arrangements a pilot on personal identifiers? Could a less fraught time not be selected for a pilot? Mind you, I guess that every election is a fraught time for some of us.
Section 20 deals with the issue of tendered votes—for example, when someone turns up at a polling station to vote in person but finds that they have been marked down as an absent voter. An earlier section of the bill already makes it possible for such errors to be corrected. However, if voters who are correctly marked as absent persist in arguing that they did not apply for a postal vote, a plethora of pink so-called tendered ballot papers may fly around, adding to potential confusion.
During this debate, we have heard a number of partisan concerns to do with the bill—or rather, concerns that people think are to do with the bill, such as counting systems, voting systems and all the rest of it. Of course, returning officers and others have expressed a number of technical concerns. However, this bill offers an opportunity to improve public confidence in the electoral process. Is that not much needed?
We move to the winding-up speeches.
It always appears that the length of time that we get to speak in debates in the Parliament is in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject. Usually, we get three or four minutes to contribute to debates on crime, health or education, but six minutes to fill on matters such as local electoral administration and registration services. Not for one minute am I arguing that the bill is not worthy of discussion; I am merely bemoaning the fact that I have been given the opportunity to speak for longer than normal on a subject that the Local Government and Transport Committee found very little to disagree over, and to do so after everyone else has outlined the issues that did arise.
John Swinney spoke about the impact of decoupling, as did David Davidson. The fact that they spoke for so long about an issue that is not covered by the bill in any way is perhaps an indication of how much filling was being done.
Wait till he hears the closing speeches! [Laughter.]
John Swinney was concerned about the fact that national issues impact on local elections if the two types of election take place on the same day. It is worth pointing out that local elections are taking place today in England, without any other type of election, but the media are discussing only national issues. The idea that decoupling will somehow help to focus attention on local issues is stretching it a wee bit.
David Davidson gave the impression that the electoral system in Scotland is generally more like that in Harare than that in Hamilton. I wonder whether he will reflect on that. To suggest that the system in Scotland has to be corrected because of the issue that he brought to our attention was, again, more about filling in time than about addressing a genuine concern.
The fact that few areas of contention emerged during the committee's deliberations would suggest that the LEARS bill is a good one that has widespread support—not only among committee members but among those whom we consulted. That indeed was the case. The general principles of the bill are very sound. However, as others such as Bruce Crawford, David Davidson and Bristow Muldoon have said, that is not to say that nothing in the bill caused concern. Parts of it certainly did.
Clearly, it is good that we have been given the opportunity to make the electoral system much more accessible and convenient for voters and at the same time improve the security of the voting process. Bruce Crawford was right to raise concerns over the potential for fraud. The issue is vital and we would like to hear from the minister about the Electoral Commission's advice.
David Davidson spoke about the mechanism for counting electronically. Having seen the process last week, and having had the opportunity when considering previous bills to go to Ireland to see how the system there works, I would say that what we are doing is not being done in a vacuum. Such systems are operating daily. The system works in other countries and has been shown to work in pilots here. I do not think that we need have the concerns that David Davidson has over the mechanism. However, that is not to say that other concerns—as have been raised by other committee members—do not arise over issues such as personal identifiers, the potential for fraud, and the practicalities of postal voting.
Other committee members and I concluded that the bill contained much of merit, but we also felt that much more detail was needed to allow us to remain confident that the bill's intentions would result in the desired improvements. For example, introducing performance standards for returning officers in the administration of local government elections may be one of those issues that everyone sees value in, but it will be no more than motherhood-and-apple-pie rhetoric if the standards are not defined and monitored effectively.
I appreciate that the Executive believes that the introduction of performance standards for election officials—both returning officers and electoral registration officers—is important in order to secure more consistency in the way in which elections are administered and I understand that the Electoral Administration Bill that is currently being considered in the United Kingdom Parliament contains a clause that proposes that the Electoral Commission be given the power to develop and set standards, but we in the Scottish Parliament have to be involved in that process and be convinced that what the Electoral Commission comes up with will do what it says on the tin when it is applied in Scotland. Others have mentioned that, especially in relation to e-counting, we need to see the detail of the proposals if we are to have confidence in the standard of the system that will be introduced.
As Charlie Gordon pointed out, allowing independent observers at a local government election seems to be a good thing in principle, but what will be their purpose and what will we do with their observations? How will we assess them and what status will their comments have? Information on those points from the minister would be welcome, especially in relation to the issues of logistics that were raised by Charlie Gordon.
Equally, who could argue against improving the process for disabled voters and those whose first language is not English? It is self-evidently beneficial to have explanatory electoral materials translated into alternative languages and to provide more assistance for postal voters. We are obliged under the Scotland Act 1998 to ensure equality of opportunity, so we are bound to address issues of the accessibility of the voting process. However, we need to be confident that disabled groups such as Capability Scotland will find that the new system meets their aspirations and delivers more than token gestures.
The issue is much too important for political will to fail. We must be sure that what is proposed will overcome the practical and resource difficulties that will surely be encountered when delivering the much-sought-after improvements in accessibility.
The Local Government and Transport Committee rightly called for more information to be provided to justify the charges for certificates of birth, marriage and death. However, there was no difficulty in agreeing that the current 230 districts, which are based on traditional registration district boundaries, should be replaced and brought into line with council areas. That will do away with a lot of traditions, but this is one occasion on which the preservation of traditions cannot be defended.
As I have said, this is a good bill with much to commend it. I hope that the Scottish Executive will provide Parliament with the additional details that will enable us to be confident that it will deliver on all that it promises.
It is a measure of the degree of consensus and support for the provisions of the bill on the management and conduct of local government elections that much of the discussion today has been to do with matters that Charlie Gordon rightly characterised as being of peripheral concern or, indeed, of a partisan or point-scoring nature. Let me be no exception to that general rule.
I reiterate the point that, given the additional burdens that are being imposed on returning officers and local authority staff as a result of the bill, we would do them a considerable favour by holding the elections for the Scottish Parliament and for our councils separately next year. That is a measure that the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supported in the consultation exercise that was undertaken for a bill that was proposed by my successful colleague David Mundell, who is now a member in another place.
I notice that this is the second time today that the Conservatives have agreed with COSLA on a matter of policy. Is this a new approach by the Conservatives to support for local government?
Indeed, it shows a transformation in attitudes on the part of COSLA, which has finally seen the light and, after years of abusing the Conservative Government and the Conservative party, is now in whole-hearted accord with us. Of course, many people in the Labour Government have seen the light and have adopted many measures that were first proposed by the Conservative party and that is a practice that is not unknown among members of the Scottish Executive. It is well seen that, although we might not be winning the elections, we are certainly winning the arguments hands down.
In all seriousness, I think that there is a case for separating next year's elections. It would be helpful in terms of administration. Further, the single transferable vote system might be one with which all Liberal Democrats are intimately familiar, having absorbed it with their mother's milk from birth as an article of faith but, beyond those few political anoraks, it excites relatively little interest in the electorate at large.
A major public education campaign is required to inform people not just how to vote but about the implications of their vote for the total outcome. No doubt part of such an education process will be undertaken in typically non-partisan fashion by the parties themselves, but there is a significant role for the Scottish Executive as part of a public information campaign. If the minister and the Executive will not change their minds about holding different elections on the same day, it is incumbent on them to spell out the details of the public education campaign, so that we can judge its adequacy and ensure that, as far as possible, people cast their votes in the manner that will achieve the outcome that they intend to achieve.
Bristow Muldoon said that in Northern Ireland different electoral systems have been operated on the same day for council and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, but it is worth observing that the percentage of spoiled papers in those elections was significantly higher than the percentage to which we are accustomed in elections in Scotland—
Does David McLetchie have the figures?
Yes, I do. Members must bear with me while my assistant, Mr Davidson, finds the figures in the brief. I think that the figure is around five times higher—
Ten times higher.
The figure is 10 times higher than it is in Scotland. The matter should be of genuine concern to us all. No one should be deprived of their vote because they do not understand how they should cast their vote. For instance, if a voter simply puts "X" instead of "1" on an STV ballot paper for a council election, will that be counted as a single preference for one party, with no transfer? Perhaps the minister will respond to that question in his closing speech, but I ask it because I suspect that that would not be permitted—[Interruption.] As some former members of the Scottish Parliament are aware, I am quite good at accumulating crosses on ballot papers and I hope to do so in 2007. The point is worth clarifying, not because we want people to vote incorrectly but because I suspect that it is likely to be the most common mistake on STV ballot papers. Advance clarification might save a great deal of argument and controversy at the count.
John Swinney made the most important point in the debate about different elections being held on the same day, when he asked about the desirability of improving the accountability of all levels of government in Scotland by holding separate elections. It is interesting that in today's council elections in England, the Prime Minister is pleading for voters to make their decision on the record of Labour councils—a record that does not cut much ice in Scotland—and clearly sees the benefit of differentiating the record of local councils from that of his increasingly shambolic Government.
I make a couple of observations on other provisions in the bill, on matters that I raised during discussions in the Local Government and Transport Committee. I am enjoying being a member of the committee under the excellent convenership of Bristow Muldoon, who unfortunately seems to have returned to the Labour Party after doing an excellent and sterling job for a while in the West Lothian dissident faction on a range of issues, such as tolls and local health services, on which he and I agreed.
The key points that I will make are about what services we charge for. That question is at the heart of the discussion about whether free abbreviated death certificates should be provided to people, which is a measure of the bill, and about other services and certificates for which people are charged.
The Parliament has had many discussions about what aspects of public services it is valid to charge for. The discussion about whether a free abbreviated death certificate should be provided rather than the full death certificate, for which a charge is made, is mirrored in our debates about whether we should have prescription charges, eye test charges, dental check-up costs, tolls and fees for higher education. Those are significant issues that we should not dismiss lightly.
I have a final point about the committee's report. It was suggested that one way in which registrar services might recoup some of the revenue that they will lose by issuing free extract death certificates would be by charging people for notifying third parties, such as insurance companies and banks, of deaths. The justification for that measure was that it would eliminate fraud or forgery, but we have heard no evidence of widespread fraud involving the forgery of death certificates. If the minister has such evidence, I would be grateful if he presented it in his winding-up speech.
People will be charged for the provision of a notification that I know from my professional experience as a solicitor will be of little legal utility to them and will merely replicate a cost that they will have to incur as part of the administration of an estate. The difference between the notification of a death and the establishment of entitlement to the proceeds of an insurance policy or a bank account is clear. The bill confuses the two elements and thinks that the job can be done with one notification, whereas it cannot.
We will support the bill.
I might have misheard a sedentary suggestion by Charlie Gordon that I might use my closing speech to waffle. I remind members that the only member who has confessed to open waffling in the chamber is the First Minister. I do not intend to take a leaf out of his book.
I will begin with material points about the bill, because I should refer at least to some parts of the bill before I indulge myself as other members have. The minister made the important point that the decision has yet to be made on the number of counting centres around the country. Like me, he represents a rural community. I think that he understands the importance of resolving matters as close to the local authority or constituency area as possible and I hope that the Government's thinking reflects that.
My colleague Bruce Crawford raised the practice of ballot-box sampling, on which other members have commented widely. I hope that the minister will reassure us that, if we go down the route of e-counting, the quantity of information that is available to political parties will be no less than it is currently and that opportunities to gain that information will be no fewer. That reassurance is important.
Charlie Gordon talked about the scrutiny of postal votes. Of all the contents of the bill, the issue that causes most unease is the integrity of the postal voting system. I have almost no issues with the rest of the system, but a question mark hangs over public confidence in that, although I have no evidence of question marks over its delivery.
Michael McMahon rather glibly dismissed my argument for split elections to enable us to debate properly the issues that are relevant to each institution. Just because the United Kingdom Labour Government has got itself into a most awful set of circumstances in the past nine days, rather than the past nine years—or perhaps it is both—that should not stop us believing that it is important that our local authorities can present their message to their electorate and that we can present our message to our electorate.
As Mr Davidson mentioned, there seems to be the most ferocious amount of intimidation in the areas of rural Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire where he has stood for election in the past. I can only presume that Mr Rumbles has been behaving in the usual fashion around the polling stations of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. I can tell Mr Davidson that no amount of intimidation will persuade the people of Scotland to vote for the Conservative party in its current, or any future, form.
I point out that the activity that was referred to might have been associated with Mr Swinney's absent leader from Westminster.
That is an allegation that I am sure Mr Davidson will have all the evidence to substantiate, and I look forward to seeing him being destroyed on that point in the years to come.
Michael McMahon made a point about the counting system working well in other countries. We should take a leaf out of their book. He mentioned the Republic of Ireland, and I thought that he was on the verge of making a compelling argument for Scottish independence. In Ireland, the system is working effectively and well. We in this country should take a leaf out of its book.
In drawing to a close my remarks in support of the bill, I stress the importance of reflecting on the most recent election contest in Scotland and its relevance to the contents of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill. There are a couple of important omissions from the bill. No offence is created for campaign impersonation, which the Conservatives would have been found guilty of in the Moray by-election. I have never in my life seen a campaign that was so devoted to suggesting that it was not for the Conservative party but for the Scottish National Party. The Conservatives have found a neat way of attacking a party for years and then trying to replicate its entire approach in winning an election.
The Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business, too, might like to reflect on the impending reference to the Electoral Commission of his party's campaign for trying to deceive the electorate of Moray into believing some of the nonsense that the Liberal Democrats presented. I hope that the minister will add some late provisions to the bill to make it complete and something that we can support in its entirety.
This has been a good-natured debate, with some undercurrents of the recent political battles in Moray surfacing in some of the later speeches. I will deal with some of the factual issues that have been raised.
Among the fundamental issues that members from parties across the chamber have raised are confidence and the security of the vote, especially in relation to postal voting. As John Swinney admitted, there is no evidence of fraud, but there are concerns about the security of postal voting, which have been reflected in some speeches. We in the Scottish Executive also have serious concerns about the issue. We understand that changes in that regard are being considered for the Westminster bill and we recognise that it will be important to have a consistent approach. I hope that there will be some movement on that.
Bruce Crawford inquired about the timescale for the important boundaries review that is currently being undertaken. We are aiming to complete it by October or November, subject to appeals. He will be aware that there is a rolling programme and that not all the decisions will be left until the end but will be made as they come.
Another important point that Bruce Crawford raised, as did other members, was that of sampling box counts, should we move to an e-counting system. I am very aware of that issue, which has been raised with those who would provide the equipment. It is vital that political parties are able to take samples, which gives them confidence in how the vote is progressing. However, it must be recognised that, in small rural wards in particular, we must balance access to that information against going too far and revealing how individuals might have voted. We are fully aware of the issue, and it has been put back to DRS Data Services, which has been demonstrating the equipment. We hope to have an answer to the matter, which will be important in giving everyone confidence in how votes progress on the night.
David Davidson mentioned funding. As I said in evidence to the Local Government and Transport Committee, extra funding is available to meet any extra costs incurred by local authorities in introducing the new STV system. There will be significant funds to help with the educational programme, which will be important in ensuring that when voters enter the polling booth, they understand what the different elections are and how the system works.
I would like to ensure that I understand exactly what the minister is saying. Is he saying that any awareness-raising or education programme will involve explaining the voting systems to people as well as telling them about the importance of voting?
Yes—that is exactly what I am saying. It should be explained to people how the system works so that they know what will happen when they go into the polling booth. The Electoral Commission will, of course, work with us on the promotional work.
David McLetchie demonstrated that he arrived late in the committee's consideration of the bill. I confirm that around 1.4 per cent of ballot papers were spoiled in the Northern Irish elections, which is slightly higher than the figure for the equivalent elections here. I think that he was referring to higher numbers of wards in which there were particular problems in elections under STV.
Bristow Muldoon asked about amendments. A small number of Executive amendments, most of which will be technical, will be lodged at stage 2 to reflect changes to the Westminster bill.
Several issues have been raised about part 2 of the bill that I did not have time to deal with in my opening speech. The committee recognised the potential for local authorities to derive additional fee income from new services, but also expressed concern about the potential loss of fee income, which could have a detrimental effect on registration services. In particular, there was concern that providing a free, abbreviated death extract at the time of registration would reduce the demand for full death extracts. However, fears about fee income should not deter us from improving the service to customers. In today's society, in which most people have a bank or Post Office account that will need to be closed upon their death, it seems reasonable to provide free of charge, as part of the registration service—which is funded from general taxation—a simplified extract that has legal standing and will allow the next-of-kin to close the account.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am conscious that I am into my final couple of minutes.
The committee mentioned that the proposals for marriages in Scottish waters might affect the smooth running of registration services. However, I emphasise that registrars will be under no compulsion and will certainly not be expected to suspend normal service while they take on a life on the ocean wave.
I was pleased to note the committee's support for establishing a book of Scottish connections and that it recognises the potential for tourism and economic growth. The book of Scottish connections will allow people around the world to establish and strengthen their Scottish roots, which will boost ancestral tourism and help Scotland to achieve its ambition of growing tourism by 50 per cent by 2015. The committee's consideration of the proposal led to the suggestion that any clan affinity might also be recorded in the book, which would further enhance its appeal. We intend to explore that helpful suggestion with clan chiefs when they next meet in the summer.
In conclusion, I thank the Local Government and Transport Committee for all the hard work that has been undertaken to produce the stage 1 report. I look forward to working with the committee at stage 2 and ask the Parliament to back its recommendations and to support the passing at stage 1 of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill at 5 pm.