Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2524, in the name of Andy Kerr, on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, and one amendment to the motion. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
As usual, a great deal of hard work has been done, not least by the Local Government Committee in its detailed consideration of the bill. I thank that committee, Parliament and the many organisations and individuals who have made a valuable contribution at the different stages of the bill.
The bill has three main provisions: a four-year mandate for councillors; council elections to coincide with ordinary elections of the Scottish Parliament, which will cancel the planned 2002 elections for councils; and provision for ministers to approve pilot schemes to modernise the administration of council elections.
The four-year mandate for councillors is part of the process of providing councils with much greater stability and better planning horizons for the decision-making and policy work that they undertake. The last reorganisation of local government brought in a three-year term. It is widely regarded that that was an error, which we are seeking to correct in order to provide greater stability.
The second main provision in the bill is to make council elections coincide with ordinary Scottish Parliament elections. Although many reservations were expressed in advance of the coincident elections that were held in 1999, the exercise was judged a considerable success in retrospect. In 1999 a significant improvement in votes cast for councillors was achieved. The average turnout, which was in the 40 per cent range between 1975 and 1995, increased to almost 60 per cent in 1999. That increase in the vote for councillors is a considerable achievement, which is at the root of this second proposal.
The proposal helps to give mutual legitimacy to councils and to the Parliament on the question of turnout. In future, no one will be able to say that any tier of local democracy is less legitimate in terms of turnout than would have been the case had the bill not introduced that change. In our view, holding coincident elections strengthens the legitimacy of the local democratic mandate.
The third main provision in the bill is for ministers to be given powers to approve pilot schemes that have been designed to modernise the voting experience and assist with improved turnout. Every member of the Scottish Parliament—and of any Parliament—must be concerned about the decline in voter turnout for all elections. I trust that we can all support anything that will make the voting experience more modern and allow more people to participate.
I have described the main provisions in the bill, which were well rehearsed at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and through wider public consultation. They were also well rehearsed in the stage 1 debate and during committee consideration. As I have indicated throughout the course of the bill, we have lodged amendments that, with the help of committee input, have improved the bill considerably.
The Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill is about strengthening local government and the local democratic mandate of councils, and giving councils a stable climate in which to develop, improve and modernise their services.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill be passed.
I thank the Presiding Officer for selecting amendment S1M-2524.1. I hope that the selection of Scottish Socialist Party amendments is not just for Christmas, but will be considered throughout the year.
We have had a short bill with a short period of scrutiny. We had a short stage 1 debate and the stage 2 analysis was short. We will probably have a short stage 3 debate as well. Nonetheless, I feel that it is vital that an amendment has been lodged and put before the chamber, because the bill is primarily about democracy. Effectively, 129 of us are being asked to decide to increase the democratic mandate that was conferred on councillors in 1999, when they were voted into office for a three-year period.
I do not think that anyone is opposed to four-year terms of office for councillors—I have not heard anyone voicing opposition to that change. However, I am opposed to introducing a four-year term of office midstream. The only people who are equipped and qualified to confer a mandate upon councillors are the electorate—not 129 members of the Scottish Parliament. It is on that ground that although I do not wish to oppose a four-year term, I wish to oppose the introduction of that term at this stage, by adding an extra year to the democratic mandate of councillors.
Throughout stages 1 and 2, we were told that the aim of the bill was to improve democracy. It was hoped that if the elections for the Scottish Parliament and the local elections were held on the same day, there would be a higher turnout. Evidence was given in the stage 1 debate that there was a higher turnout for the local elections in 1999 than in the previous elections and it was suggested that, therefore, we should support the measure in question.
However, recognition that turnout at the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections was 11 per cent down on the 1997 Westminster elections was missed out, as was the fact that the turnout for the Westminster elections in June this year was the lowest since adult suffrage was introduced in this country. In other words, what we have is a problem of disengagement from the public in relation to politics generally. That will not be resolved by trying to roll all the elections into one and having one big election, rather than allowing proper accountability and scrutiny of the performance of local government.
A number of councillors might be rather worried just now because they think that they will be damaged by the shenanigans of the Scottish Parliament in relation to 2003. They have no responsibility for that big hole in the ground that is supposed to become the Holyrood building. If that continues at the same rate at which it is going now, it will cost us £1 million for every year that we have not had a Parliament. We lost the Parliament 292 years ago and it looks as if it is going to cost £292 million to build a new Parliament. Councillors have nothing to do with that decision, but all levels of politics have been soiled by the shenanigans around that decision.
That makes clear the point that the Parliament was wrong when it voted to have the Parliament building in Edinburgh. The Parliament building should have been in Glasgow, Scotland's most populated city, in the first place. That, of course, was always the demand of that great Clydeside socialist, John MacLean, and deserves to have been taken up by our Parliament.
Councillors have nothing to do with the fiasco that developed around the resignation of the First Minister. In particular, they have nothing to do with the situation that has developed since then in relation to a pension scheme that has caused great disconcert throughout Scotland. I have to say that, Presiding Officer, because it is relevant.
Mr Sheridan, you are moving way off the subject. Will you close, please.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I disagree that I am going way off the subject.
I make the point that we were told that having the elections for local council on the same day as those for the Scottish Parliament would improve voter turnout. I am arguing, quite clearly, that a number of factors could work against voter turnout, because people are appalled by what the Parliament has or has not been doing. That is relevant to today's debate. I hope that the Parliament will rescue itself from some of the decisions that have been made and that we ensure that we do not operate a pension scheme, after 13 months, of £700 a week for certain individuals.
I ask you to close, Mr Sheridan. You are a minute and a half over your time.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, I thought I had an eight-minute period. Is that not the case?
No, I am afraid that you are down for four minutes, Mr Sheridan. I ask you to wind up, please.
With the greatest respect, Presiding Officer, it would have been helpful if you had informed me of that before I started. Normally when we move amendments, we get eight minutes to speak. I apologise for going over time. I will move on quickly. I will not mention the problem with salaries and how that will bring down turnout at the elections.
It is interesting that the argument that was used at stage 1 for four-year terms was that we wanted to move away from the ridiculous decision that the Tories took to introduce three-year terms. The argument was that we wanted to normalise ourselves with the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe has four-year terms, so why do we not have four-year terms? I agree 100 per cent with that argument.
What the Minister for Finance and Public Services and the Executive have to grapple with is the fact that the rest of Europe also has proportional representation. Why do we get only one part of the deal? If we are going to get four-year electoral terms, why are we not getting PR as well? There is no reason for that.
Will you close now please, Mr Sheridan.
There is no reason why PR should not be introduced for May 2003. If it is not introduced for May 2003, the Liberal Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
I move amendment S1M-2524.1, to leave out from "agrees" and insert:
"does not agree that the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill be passed because it believes that it is important for the health of local government that local elections be held separately from those for the Parliament and further believes that local government elections should next be held in 2002 since currently elected councillors have no democratic mandate after then."
Although the bill contains a number of sensible proposals for piloting projects that try to encourage greater electoral participation, any good intention is completely undermined by the main principle of the bill—to hold council elections on the same day as parliamentary elections. The SNP opposed the bill at stage 1 and will oppose it at 5 o'clock today.
I turn briefly to Tommy Sheridan's amendment and say that I am not particularly in favour of reasoned amendments. I believe that someone who is opposed to the bill should simply vote against the Executive motion. As a result, Tommy's amendment is unnecessary and the SNP will not be supporting it.
The Executive believes that the bill will increase the turnout at local elections. That is no doubt true, as parliamentary elections currently attract larger turnouts. However, such turnouts will not confer any additional democratic legitimacy on local government. Confronted with an additional ballot paper in the polling booth, most people will simply fill it in not out of an interest in the affairs or the remit of local government, but because that is the most obvious thing to do with another ballot paper in the polling booth.
The serious flaw in the Executive's argument is its naive suggestion that an artificially inflated turnout provides an increased mandate for local government. It is quite clear that the reverse is true, and that will have a cost in the form of a democratic loss for the very local authorities for whom the bill is intended. The local agenda will be overshadowed and overtaken by the coverage of national elections. No member of this chamber could seriously argue that local authority issues will even surface, far less be given a decent hearing, in the press mêlée of the parliamentary election campaign. Councillors will not be able to make their case for election or re-election as they will be completely displaced from the agenda by MSPs seeking to make their case.
I make no apologies for returning to the Kerley report, although I know that members will find that uncomfortable. The report says:
"However, the higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government … In fact, coincident elections would tend to reduce the electorate's focus on local government issues. Conversely, separate elections would ensure that local government issues are at the heart of local government elections: this seems to us an essential part of democracy and democratic renewal."
I see from press reports that the Executive parties are consulting on all the Kerley recommendations. It is a pity that they did not take note of his comments on coincident elections.
The situation faces further confusion in 2003 with the prospect of a referendum on the euro being held on the same day as other elections. It is absurd for three totally different agendas to be considered in the same election campaign. Will national politics and personalities, the on-going question of the euro or local councillors and other municipal matters head the list of press priorities? As for the national agenda, local government will be relegated to the back burner and the gas simply turned off. This bill will diminish the local agenda and undermine local democracy; it is corrosive to the democratic legitimacy of our councils.
I want to address one further point to the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition. The logical time for local government elections is the midpoint of the Scottish Parliament session. If the Liberal Democrats are so confident that they will deliver PR for local government elections, why on earth are they supporting this bill, which could delay the implementation of PR until 2007 when it could reasonably be introduced for elections in 2005?
I see that Mr Rumbles is rumbling.
I have listened carefully to Tricia Marwick's remarks. Is she telling the Parliament that the electorate is too stupid to understand the difference in electing a constituency MSP, a regional list MSP and local councillors? In my constituency, the electorate voted for me as constituency MSP and for a Conservative, unfortunately, as the regional list MSP, and a third of the electorate voted for independence. The electorate has a rich vein of understanding about what it is voting for. Does she really believe that the electorate is stupid?
Mr Rumbles tempts me too far by inviting me to comment on the people who elected him. I am sure that those who did so will reconsider their position for the next election.
I have no doubt about the intelligence of the electorate in Scotland—it is very sophisticated. However, that is not the issue. The question is whether real issues that affect local government will be examined under the system proposed by the bill. That is not going to happen.
If the Liberal Democrats also support the Kerley recommendation of PR for local government elections based on the single transferable vote system, they should oppose the bill. It will mean two different elections with two different PR systems, one for the Scottish Parliament and one for councils in 2007. Such a position is illogical. The SNP will oppose the bill, as it has already done, and I invite Liberal Democrat MSPs to do so as well.
When this matter was first debated, I described the bill as an affront to democracy. I firmly adhere to the same view today. We must be quite frank. This bill is not about improving the quality of local government services or the democratic principle, but about maintaining Labour's Tammany Hall fiefdoms despite its appalling record of failure in Scottish local government.
It is quite ridiculous for the minister to pretend this morning that the bill is being passed for anything other than Labour's electoral advantage. It is also massively hypocritical for him to pretend that he is not trying to secure the massive Labour majorities on councils in the west of Scotland, with all the damaging effects that such majorities have had on local government and its services.
If elections are held on the same day, electors will have great difficulty in separating out the performance of individual councillors, their local authority and the parties in the Scottish Parliament. Although we certainly take much comfort in the knowledge that the coalition will soon be exposed for the appalling failure that it is, councillors will suffer the effects of that when local government elections are eventually held.
What is clear is the total illogicality of the Liberal Democrat position on this issue. The Liberal Democrats have for a long time advanced their well-established and well-articulated arguments for PR in local government elections. However, in the course of Jim Wallace's negotiations with Jack McConnell during the week—the maybe-sometime-never talk about talks—did it occur to neither man that the easiest way of introducing PR in local government would be to ensure that local government elections took place either next year or in four years' time? Surely four years is sufficient time for the coalition to get its act together. The fact is that PR in local government is a pipe dream. It will never happen, because Labour councillors throughout the country will simply not agree to it. Indeed, many Labour MSPs will not agree to it.
The matter comes down to this: Labour hopes to maintain its dominance in Scottish local government, and the bill is a smokescreen to disguise and protect ineffective councils, useless councillors and those whose record of service to their communities will not stand any serious scrutiny.
Although it is true that Labour fiefdoms still exist despite the fact that local government elections have until now been held on a different day, the argument that the two elections should be held on the same day is bogus unless one supports PR. Does Bill Aitken support PR?
If it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that any proposed PR system would be more democratic and effective than the present one, I would be prepared to consider the arguments. Unfortunately, that has not been demonstrated at all. As members on all sides of the chamber could point out, the fact is that the most important aspect of local government—
Will the member give way?
Not until I finish this point.
The contribution that a local councillor makes to his community is an important factor. Kenneth Gibson, for one, was an effective local councillor. If PR was introduced, the link with the constituency member would be lost. That would be very damaging.
I thank the member for his praise, which is always welcome. First, does he accept the fact that his argument does not hold for an STV system, in which people compete not only on a party basis but with each other? Secondly, PR enhances turnout. For example, this week at the Portuguese council elections, which used PR, there was a 65 per cent turnout—higher than that at the UK general election.
Mr Gibson will be aware that that result was perhaps distorted slightly by the very high turnout in Portimao north, where the performance of the local councillor obviously encouraged people to turn out in greater numbers. It has not yet been demonstrated that, if proportional representation was introduced for local government elections, it would improve not only local democracy, but the level of service that a councillor gives to his constituency.
In conclusion, what Mr Sheridan said in support of his amendment made a great deal of sense. We will not support the passage of the bill.
I do not intend to take up much of the Parliament's time. All that we have heard this morning is a repeat of the debate that we had at stage 1. The arguments against the bill were not convincing then and they are not convincing now.
Bill Aitken told us that the main reason why the Conservatives will not support the bill is that they have no confidence that they will win any elections in Scotland—at least, that is effectively what, in a moment of truth, he said. He claimed that the whole purpose of the bill was to enhance Labour fiefdoms, as Labour-controlled councils would be re-elected on the back of Labour's re-election in the Scottish Parliament. I have no great confidence in that prediction. The Liberal Democrats will make gains in 2003, not the Labour party. The Conservatives have no confidence that they will make any gains in 2003—Bill Aitken was accurate in that prediction.
Is the member not aware that, in his constituency, at a local by-election for Fife Council, the Liberal candidate lost to the Conservative candidate? Does that not augur well for future elections?
That is a rather pathetic argument. In by-elections since the general election, the Liberal Democrats have polled more votes than any other party in Scotland has and significantly more than the Conservatives have. We are winning seats from Labour and the SNP, so we are not too worried about the situation. The Conservatives have the St Andrews Central seat on loan; we will win it back in 2003.
Can Iain Smith tell us how many seats the Liberal Democrats have won since the general election?
On the day of the general election, we won the seat in mid-Kinross, as Kenny Gibson may recollect.
Tricia Marwick continues to make the same arguments against the bill. She seems to suggest that the electorate cannot distinguish between the performance of local councillors and local councils and the performance of the Scottish Parliament. There is no evidence to back that argument up. Indeed, there is significant evidence that people make different voting decisions in local and national elections that are held on the same day. In England and Wales, local government and general elections are almost always held on the same day; the evidence shows that people there vote differently in the local government elections. The evidence from the 1999 elections in Scotland also shows that people voted differently in the different ballots. The differential between the Scottish Parliament election results and the local government election results was about 17 per cent. Indeed, the figure was higher in certain areas. For example, in Perth and Kinross and in Moray, the electorate were capable of throwing out inefficient, unacceptable SNP councils while continuing to support local SNP members of Parliament, who did quite well.
Will Iain Smith give way?
I do not want to take up any more time. The member in mid-Kinross was well defeated in the by-election.
Tommy Sheridan's speech was especially disappointing. He could have commented usefully on why he thinks that the bill is unacceptable for local government. Instead, he gave a party-political rant against the Scottish Parliament. That was not a helpful contribution to the debate.
The Liberal Democrats support the bill. It will help to enhance the role of local government. When we fight the elections, people will be able to distinguish between what the Scottish Parliament is doing and what local authorities are doing. The Liberal Democrats said that we would make progress on electoral reform; a commitment to that progress has now been secured. A white paper will be published by Easter and legislative proposals will be issued by the end of the summer. PR for local government elections will be in place by 2007.
I have said it before, but it is worth saying again: we seem to be passing legislation at break-neck speed. That is the experience of the Local Government Committee. I find the rush to legislate slightly worrying, especially given the ominous absence of a review system. That issue needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, the bill makes good sense. It is important that we change the timing of local government elections, as that will, I hope, at least increase the turnout.
The bill has some deficiencies, but ministers and Executive officials have shown good sense in their response to the committee's concerns. It is good to know that, at a time when many observers are expressing concern over what they call passive or weak Parliaments, ministers are listening to some committees. I am pleased to say that the Local Government Committee is one of those. The amendments that were lodged by Keith Harding have been accepted. However, I agree with Tricia Marwick and Bill Aitken that the language in one of them is appalling. It is not acceptable to say "a particular class" in this day and age. I am sorry that I did not spot that phrase sooner. Had I done so, the amendment would not have got off the starting block.
I am still sceptical about the pilot schemes, but I acknowledge the need to tackle the disturbing decline in the turnout at both local and national elections. Of the 25 councils that responded to the Local Government Committee, 19 agreed that we should have synchronised elections.
However, the problem of voter disaffection, which is allied to people's perceptions of politicians and Governments, is deeper than any concerns about the place or the time at which the electorate are asked to vote. Mike Rumbles is right to say that voters are not stupid. Clear evidence was presented to the committee that, in 1999, people voted differently in the Scottish Parliament election from how they voted in the local government election. They are more than capable of doing that again.
One area needs to be cleared up. The pilot studies will have to include voting for the Scottish Parliament as well. We cannot have people voting in Safeway in local elections and then having to go to the local school to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections. I ask the minister to clarify how far that idea has been progressed. I also ask him to keep the Local Government Committee abreast of councils' interest in the pilot studies, what those studies entail and their results, which we await with interest.
Evidence that we have received from witnesses and councils suggests that the bill will be welcomed. I am sure that the administration problems that have been highlighted will be dealt with appropriately by returning officers and chief executives. Such problems include deciding when to count the votes, the fact that the count will take place over a holiday weekend and the need for publicity to advertise the fact that, as in the previous election, there will be three votes rather than two.
It is our task to ensure that we pass legislation that affects constituents' lives more directly. Our goal is to persuade electors of the genuine worth of the Parliament and of our contribution in making it work. If we can do that, people will be encouraged to come out and vote. I urge members to support the bill.
It is important that the local government ballot dominates local government elections. The difficulty in holding two elections on the same day is that the focus would depend on the perceived electoral chances of the political parties in specific contests. For example, if the seat were a marginal parliamentary seat, one would expect at least one of the parties to put more emphasis on the parliamentary issues to the detriment of local issues. In the same situation, a party with no chance of winning the parliamentary seat might put more effort into the local election. That would cause a distortion of approach across Scotland.
In the previous debate on the subject, Iain Smith talked about the Liberal Democrats continuing to campaign on local issues. Perhaps he could clarify what local issues the Liberal Democrats campaigned on in Ayrshire, where the party contested none of the 92 seats.
There are great differences in the way in which people vote in different elections that are held on the same day. However, that is often because different political parties contest different elections. As was mentioned in our previous debate on the subject, in 1999 the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives both failed to contest half the seats and Labour failed to contest 262 of them. That demonstrates the fact that the range of candidates in local elections is often completely different from that in other elections.
Iain Smith said that he did not want this debate to rehash previous debates—although he went on to rehash what he had said previously—so I will raise a new issue: voter registration. Tommy Sheridan mentioned automatic registration, which is an important issue that the Executive should consider. However, there should also be automatic deregistration. Of the 608 registered voters in the Tarfside Oval multistorey flats in Pollok, only 118 voted in the Westminster election. However, further examination showed that, although only four of the flats have no registered voters, 66 of them were empty before the election. In some two or three-roomed flats, five surnames are registered. Particularly in areas where there is a high turnover of residents, percentage turnout is often far higher than the archaic registration system suggests that it is. We should address that.
Civic education must also be addressed. Furthermore, when examining anomalous voting patterns, we should remember that tactical voting might have a part to play.
I support a lot of what Trish Godman said and agree that the minister has a duty to clarify some issues. In the previous debate on the subject, the minister said:
"if Scottish Parliament and local government elections are to take place on the same day, the same rules should apply to both sets of elections".
The SNP agrees with that. The minister continued:
"The Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that, in relation to future Scottish Parliament elections, it would be sensible to legislate for pilots and provisions similar to those that we are discussing today. The Electoral Commission, together with the Scottish Executive and others, is considering the matter. The issue is not a matter for this Parliament".—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; c 4089.]
I hope that, in summing up, the minister will clarify when the matter will be discussed so that there is some coherence on the issue of pilot schemes. The last thing that we want is to have to wait many years between the successful implementation of the pilots for local government elections and their implementation for Scottish Parliament elections. As has been said, that would make a nonsense of the elections, as people would have to vote in two different places.
We think that the elections should be kept separate because we want electors to be able to vote on the records of individual councillors, not just on party-political issues. As the Presiding Officer is indicating that I should wind up, I will do so.
It is not only because we are approaching Christmas that, on this occasion, I am giving some support to Tommy Sheridan; I do so on the basis of his amendment, which everyone in the chamber should consider carefully. The amendment says that it is
"important for the health of local government that local elections be held separately".
On that point, Tommy Sheridan is absolutely right. Local government is important to the lives of everyone who lives in Scotland. Local authorities implement policies and manage huge resources. It is wrong that we should hide local government elections behind the Scottish Parliament elections.
Trish Godman suggested that holding the elections on the same day encourages a greater turnout, but I do not believe that to be the case. Local government elections should be fought on the issues and councillors should stand up and argue their case in their own right and not under the auspices of MSPs.
Tommy Sheridan talked about the proposal to extend councillors' terms of office for another year. That would be absolutely wrong. People in South Ayrshire are crying out for a change of local government and they will get that at the next local government elections. South Ayrshire Council will be the first Tory-controlled council in Scotland for a good few years. That will be welcome.
This is not a party-political debate. Every one of us recognises the role that councillors are expected to play. Councillors should be judged on how well they play that role and their election should not be masked by Scottish Parliament elections.
It is a pity that the neanderthals in the Conservative party and the SNP are opposing the bill, which is intended to enhance local government, increase voter turnout and reconnect the voter.
Will the member take an intervention?
I should be given a chance to get started.
Trish Godman brought to our attention the fact that, in the consultation exercise, 19 of the 25 councils support the bill. There is a great deal of humbug on the SNP and Tory benches as we draw close to Christmas. Tricia Marwick gave us a great deal of humbug about trusting the people. However, I believe that the SNP does not trust the people; it believes that people do not understand the system and are unable to operate it properly. The SNP's humbug on that point is quite amazing.
I normally expect humbug to come from the Conservative benches and I was not disappointed today.
Is Mr Rumbles saying that, before 1999, when the Liberal Democrats opposed holding joint elections, they were expressing contempt for the electorate? Was that humbug? Does he agree with Keir Bloomer, the chief executive of Clackmannanshhire Council, who said in a submission to the Local Government Committee that
"The existence of separate elected bodies with their own democratic mandates at national and local levels is a critical component of any pluralist society"?
I have always believed that increased voter turnout is extremely important. The bill will help in that regard.
I want to add to Mr Gibson's point. Keir Bloomer also said that there was a bigger issue, which relates to involving the local populations in local democracy.
I absolutely agree with Sylvia Jackson's point.
I would like to get back to the Conservatives—
We do not want Mr Rumbles.
The Liberal Democrats south of the border have just accepted 17 defectors from the Conservative party, but I would draw the line at accepting Brian Monteith.
We heard a great deal of humbug from Bill Aitken. If the Conservatives want to increase voter turnout and improve the connection between the voters and the people for whom they are voting, they should support electoral reform in the form of proportional representation for local government. In particular, they should support the single transferable vote system, which, more than anything else, reconnects the voter to the people whom they are electing because it enables the voter to choose the candidates from within the parties rather than having simply to choose the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP or even the SSP. That gives greater choice to the voter and I am astounded that the Conservatives—especially Brian Monteith—oppose giving individuals greater choice.
I am particularly pleased that the Executive is making progress on electoral reform, as outlined in the partnership agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party and in the programme for government. I look forward to continued progress being made and believe that it is inconceivable that the system that we currently have for local government elections will remain the same after 2003.
Mike Rumbles has a cheek to talk about humbug. He must be the biggest humbug in the Liberal Democrats. I expected the rattling of chains from the Ghost of Christmas Past, but he did not get as far as that.
I will make a few quick points. I thank the minister for listening to some of the concerns that were expressed when he came to the Local Government Committee and for taking on board the point about public access and access for the disabled.
The member is being too nice.
I am told that I am being too nice. Even though we could not all agree that the two elections should be held on the one day, I thank the minister for listening to the committee.
Four-year terms have been mentioned. Everyone wants a four-year term for local councillors. Most people also want a decent wage and a pension scheme for councillors, but the bill does not cover those things. A four-year term is an excellent idea, but the local elections should not be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections.
Mike Rumbles and others raised the question of the voters not being discerning. That is not the issue. The voters are discerning. The fact is that local government issues will be swamped under all the media attention that is given to the national issues that are debated in the Scottish Parliament elections. That was one of the main concerns that came across from councillors and other witnesses.
Will Sandra White give way?
Yes, for another bit of humbug.
What about the example of Moray? The voters there returned Margaret Ewing to the Parliament—I notice that she is sitting at the back of the chamber—but will Sandra White remind us what they did to their SNP-controlled council?
The Liberal Democrats made a point about a 7 per cent, I think, difference. I am trying to make the point that nearly every councillor who gave evidence to the Local Government Committee, whether they were from Labour-controlled councils, SNP-controlled councils or Liberal Democrat-controlled councils, was concerned about media coverage. The point was raised with the minister.
Will the member give way?
I will finish this small piece and then I will let Trish Godman intervene.
The councillors who gave evidence to the Local Government Committee were worried that, in the elections, the coverage that the media—television, radio and the newspapers—gave to the national issues that the Scottish Executive pushed forward would swamp local election issues. That is a point of fact. If Mike Rumbles reads the Official Report, he will see that many people raised that issue.
Will Sandra White give way?
I am sorry; I have only a couple of minutes.
I asked the minister to examine that point. Other members of the committee also asked him about that. It was agreed that the issue is a big problem for local government.
Will Sandra White give way?
I am sorry; I am just winding up.
The fact is that the Scottish Parliament pushes forward issues that will swamp local government issues. That is our main concern.
On different voting patterns, some people may vote in supermarkets, whereas others will have to go somewhere else. That point has been raised on a few occasions. The minister must consider that, too.
The reason why the SNP does not support the bill is that local government is for local people led by local councillors. The dual election will not give people the choice that they want. Local government elections will be swamped by national issues.
It was interesting that Mike Rumbles seemed to prefer talking to the Tories than to Sylvia Jackson. He completely ignored her, and yet the Liberal Democrats have to hang on to Labour to get anywhere in the Parliament. That should be noted.
McIntosh and Kerley both said that local government elections should be held separately from Scottish Parliament elections if council matters were to get proper prominence. That is the key to the debate. The Executive thinks that low turnout means that the electorate do not consider local issues, but the bill will reduce interest further. Why does Labour want that? It wants it because it thinks that it will give it greater political advantage.
We agree on the four-year term, because that gives councils time to plan. Mention has been made of what might happen if a different type of PR from that used in the Scottish Parliament elections is introduced for local government. That is a fair point, as the different systems could lead to considerable confusion. I wonder about the enumerators who carry out the counts. Consider what happened in Edinburgh Pentlands: hour after hour went by. That was without the complications that the bill could introduce.
We are in danger of concocting elections that are reminiscent of those in the United States, where votes are cast for the local dog catcher on the same day as votes are cast for other positions. With two sets of elections, the electorate will be submerged in even more paper and even more posters. We warn that other elections, such as for community councils, could eventually be tagged on.
The bill is a Labour plot of some magnitude. Labour wishes to give every advantage to central belt and Glasgow Labour councillors. Indeed, the bill has all the symptoms of Tammany Hall at its worst. There are many former councillors in the chamber, but I suspect that the bill could be the first stage of the total abolition of local government before the century is out. Bill Aitken referred to PR in local government. I do not believe that it will happen. The Liberal Democrats are like poodles being led along on the leads of Labour handlers. I would not be surprised if local government is almost eliminated should the Labour party remain the Administration on the Mound.
A higher turnout in the combined election could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate. Tammany Hall has arrived on the Mound. Members have been warned—particularly Labour members.
I will try to answer that modest and moderate comment in due course.
A great deal of what was said at the stage 1 debate has almost inevitably been repeated. SNP and Tory members still maintain what they consider to be principled opposition. I will pick up a number of points that members have made and respond to them as constructively as I can.
Trish Godman made a point about the terminology in the bill. As I said when I moved the motion, I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen will listen to what was said on that. She indicated that the proposal for synchronised elections has the support of the majority of councils. She cited 19 councils as wanting synchronised elections. In fact, 22 councils have indicated clear support for the synchronised elections that we propose in the bill.
Trish Godman and Kenny Gibson mentioned the need for the Scottish Parliament elections to follow similar, if not identical, rules to those for any local government elections conducted under the pilot schemes. A working group, which includes the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive and the Electoral Commission, is considering that with the firm intention of ensuring that the rules are aligned. It is also considering the point that Trish Godman and Kenny Gibson raised about the need to publicise the fact that people will have three votes on election day and not, as was publicised last time, two votes. We want to rectify that anomaly. Officials of the Executive, the Scotland Office and the Electoral Commission are working hard to sort that out.
Trish Godman asked for an assurance that, if the bill is approved, we will report back to the Local Government Committee on the pilots that will be run. That is our intention. We would be more than happy to do that. We want to work out which measures improve turnout and which measures do not.
Tommy Sheridan confused me with his speech. He was obviously confused, too. The fact that Phil Gallie supported him is probably great testimony to the fact that his speech was confused. Tommy Sheridan indicated that he supports a four-year term, but he opposes the bill that will create one. He also said that he is concerned about turnout, but he chooses to oppose the measure that will maintain turnout in local government elections comparable to that in the Scottish Parliament elections. He rightly indicated that there is a general concern about declining turnout. That is exactly why the bill provides for pilot schemes, which will allow us to experiment to ensure that we can increase turnout. He will oppose the bill, however, and we must leave him hanging in that confused position.
Tricia Marwick and others said that the bill would mean that local authority elections were swamped or overtaken by the Scottish Parliament election. There is no evidence for that. In fact, the evidence runs in the opposite direction. The alternative to the bill is to have local elections at the mid-term of the parliamentary session. All the evidence is that people, including members of the political parties that are represented in the chamber, increasingly seek to hijack such elections and turn them into national referenda on the Government of the day. I suspect that almost every political party has been guilty of that at some point. Political commentators make the point that, as voters in such elections have a chance to cast their vote on the Government of the day, they might avoid local issues.
My intervention does not relate to the point that the minister is making, but I am concerned to ensure that he touches on the issue that I raised about automatic registration and deregistration. Will he consider that point, as an accurate electoral register could enhance turnout?
It is clearly desirable to have the most up-to-date register possible. The points that Kenny Gibson raises are being considered by those who are responsible for those matters.
There is simply no evidence that local elections, if held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections, will be dwarfed. The opposite is the real concern: local elections are increasingly hijacked for national purposes.
The purpose of the bill is to indicate to people that they will have three votes on the day: the first-past-the-post vote and list vote for the Scottish Parliament election and a vote for a councillor. I am confident that that will happen. It will then be possible to separate out the arguments about why people should cast their votes in certain ways. What are the attributes and responsibilities of the different levels of government?
Bill Aitken and John Young were patronising about the ability of the voters to discern the difference between a first-past-the-post vote, a list vote and a local election vote. There is no evidence to support the Conservatives' patronising view that the voters will be too confused to exercise their democratic rights adequately.
As Mike Rumbles and Iain Smith said, there is an average 17 per cent differential in how people cast their vote. People might cast their vote one way in a first-past-the-post vote for the Scottish Parliament elections, a different way for the list vote and another way for the local elections. There is no difficulty in the voters' minds; they are sophisticated people and they understand the democratic process. They are more than capable of coping with the differences in the electoral system that will result from the bill. The bill will strengthen local democracy and the mandate of local councils.
The Kerley report—I refer to it a lot these days—concluded that
"higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government"
if the two sets of elections are held on the same day. Does the minister agree with Kerley?
My position is that the alternative to what we are suggesting is worse for local democracy. We could end up with a situation where MSPs are being elected by a turnout of the order of, I hope, 60 per cent while the other tier of democratically elected government in Scotland is being elected by a turnout of 30 to 40 per cent. That is evidenced by what happened between the 1970s and the 1990s.
What would that do to serve the interests of democracy in Scotland? If one tier is elected by a 60 per cent turnout and another tier is elected by a substantially lower turnout, that would allow one tier of government to say that it is more democratically legitimate than another tier of government. That will not serve the interests of democracy in Scotland. It will certainly not serve the interests of local democracy. We need strong local councils. The councils must be seen to be democratically legitimate. The bill will guarantee that and I encourage members to support it.
That concludes that item of business. Before we move on, I have two announcements to make to the chamber.
This morning, the Presiding Officers received a request from the Executive for an emergency statement to be made today on the NEC situation. We are minded to take that emergency statement exceptionally at 2 pm. A revised daily list will be published in due course.
This morning, we also received a request for an emergency question on the impact on the islands of the Caledonian MacBrayne strike. Again, we are minded to take that emergency question, which will be at 2.25 pm, after the emergency statement.