Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. I make the usual announcement about procedures. First, we will deal with the amendments to the bill. We will then move to the debate on the motion to pass the bill.
Members should have SP Bill 38A, as amended at stage 2, and the marshalled list of amendments, which lists the only two amendments that have been lodged. I have selected both for debate. Members should also have the groupings list, which I have agreed.
The two amendments will be debated in a single group. The electronic voting system will be used for any divisions and I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division after the debate on the amendments.
Section 4—Pilot schemes for local elections
I call on Peter Peacock to speak to and move amendment 1, which is grouped with amendment 2.
The coalition had a Christmas party last night, so I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 quietly.
Amendment 2 has been lodged as a result of issues that Keith Harding raised in amendments at stage 2. We undertook to lodge an amendment at stage 3 that meets the terms of Mr Harding's amendments and does not artificially constrain ministers as to what can be approved in the pilot schemes under the bill.
Amendment 2 makes it clear that the bill will allow pilot schemes to make special provision for wheelchair access, appropriate aids for the blind, voter information, signage polling cards and ballot papers in languages other than English, transport to polling stations, talking machines that explain procedures to the blind at polling venues and a much wider range of provisions that are well beyond the original scope of Mr Harding's amendments.
I am grateful to Keith Harding for raising those points at stage 2 through his amendments. They prompted us to check the provisions of section 4 of the bill to ensure that they are broad enough to let local authorities draw up schemes that will tackle innovative and wide-ranging issues. Mr Harding is not in the chamber, but I know that he agrees that the revised provisions of section 4 meet and go beyond the intentions of his amendments.
Amendment 1 introduces a consequential drafting change.
I move amendment 1.
Not many members have indicated that they want to speak. Those who wish to contribute should press their request-to-speak buttons.
I call on Patricia Marwick.
Presiding Officer, you have given me my Sunday name again.
I welcome the amendments. As the minister said, Keith Harding lodged amendments at stage 2 and I supported those. The minister has accepted the spirit of the amendments and the SNP will give its support. The minds of the local authorities and the returning officers will be focused on the need to encourage and increase accessibility for young and elderly people and people from ethnic minorities.
However, I deeply regret the wording of amendment 2. I am sure that there are good legal and technical reasons for referring to
"persons of a particular class"
and "any class of persons", but that grates on me and on a great number of people. I accept the amendments and that there might be a legal reason for such definitions in this instance, but I sincerely hope that this is the last time that amendments come before the Parliament that mention classes of people.
As the minister said, amendment 2 was lodged as a result of amendments that were proposed by Keith Harding at stage 2. Mr Harding is not with us today but, on his behalf, I thank the minister for his constructive and helpful response. Amendment 2 is useful and will be of democratic benefit to many disadvantaged people in Scotland. I hope that that will be reflected in an increased interest in local government.
We, too, take issue with the wording of amendment 2. As Tricia Marwick said, using terms such as "class" or "particular class" grates. The wording could be much happier. I would like to think that, at some stage—possibly when there is an amendment to the act—some remedial action might be taken. However, the amendment is good and adds to the quality of the bill.
I take the point that members have made. I thank them for supporting the amendment, which was lodged in the proper spirit of co-operation between the parties to improve the bill.
Members mentioned the terms used in amendment 2. The form of words is employed in legislation on a virtually universal basis where the intention is to ensure that powers conferred by the legislation are sufficiently wide to allow tailor-made provisions to be created to meet the needs of particular categories of people. If a different word such as "group" were used, the courts might conclude, given the departure from the more usual expression, that a different and possibly narrower result was intended. I am sure that all members agree that that would be a highly undesirable outcome. Nonetheless, the parliamentary draftsmen will no doubt reflect carefully on members' comments for the future.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.