Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 52A—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate, and the agreed groupings of amendments.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division. The period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, the voting period will be one minute for the first division after a debate, and all other divisions will be 30 seconds.
The Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business has taken his seat, so we will begin.
Section 6—Access to election documents: supplementary
Group 1 is minor amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 4 and 9 to 11.
Amendments 1, 4 and 9 to 11 are technical amendments. Section 26(2) applies the definitions of terms in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to the same terms when they are used in part 1 of the bill. Section 50(2) applies definitions of terms in the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 to the same terms when they are used in part 2 of the bill. We took that approach to achieve consistency. In light of that approach, however, two definitions in the bill are unnecessary and a reliance on the definition of some terms would not produce the right result. The amendments will therefore make the necessary adjustments.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Section 24—Translations etc of certain documents
We move to group 2. Amendment 12, in the name of Maureen Watt, is grouped with amendments 13 to 15.
Amendments 12 to 15 would add consistency to the bill's provisions on the supply of explanatory documents. Although the bill provides for sufficient information in different formats to be available to people who vote in person in polling stations, it does not extend the provision of such information to postal voters.
As politicians know, there has been a marked increase in postal voting in recent years as political parties have realised that voters do not just dash to the polling station every time an election takes place. Many more people work away from home than used to and they understand the benefits of postal voting. All members should want to include as many people as possible in the democratic process but, currently, many of the most vulnerable and marginalised people feel excluded from the process to such an extent that they do not go to polling stations to vote.
My amendments would extend the provision of documents that assist in voting to people who opt to vote by post. I am sure that members agree that if more relevant supporting information were provided with ballot papers—which people could peruse at home, in their own time and at their own pace—the democratic process would be enhanced. Such an outcome could be achieved simply by adding to the application for a postal vote a box that people could tick if they want extra assistance. By enshrining such an approach in the bill, we would enhance the credibility of politicians and the political process.
I am pleased that the Electoral Commission has given its full backing to amendments 12 to 15. In the light of that, I hope that the minister will be encouraged to agree to them.
I move amendment 12.
Section 24(2) of the LEARS bill replicates provisions in the United Kingdom Electoral Administration Bill and provides for returning officers and their staff to display or give to voters election documents that are required by legislation. Documents may be provided in Braille, in languages other than English, through graphical or audio representations, or by other means.
The United Kingdom bill also amends parliamentary election rules to allow returning officers to issue, on request, alternative formats of the directions and guidance that are currently sent to postal voters with their ballot papers. The alternative formats are translations into languages other than English or versions in Braille, graphical or audio formats, and other formats. We propose to make equivalent changes to the Scottish local government election rules. As with other changes to the rules, they will be dealt with in secondary legislation rather than in the bill, to allow for flexibility in fine-tuning procedures.
Amendment 12 would not alter the fact that sections 24(2) and 24(2A) apply only to documents that are required or authorised under the 1983 act. Amendment 12 is an unnecessary clarification, as it would not apply to documents that are not already covered by those provisions. I therefore ask Maureen Watt, with the assurance that I have given her, to withdraw amendment 12.
We understand the purpose behind amendments 13 to 15 and we support ways of making the voting process easier and more accessible to a wider range of voters. However, in practice, amendment 13 would mean that all guidance that was given to postal voters—not just the direction and guidance that are required by statute—would have to be provided in alternative formats where necessary. That potentially would place a burden on individuals and groups that do not have the means to comply with such a requirement. In addition, it would mean inconsistent practice at elections in Scotland, as the requirement would apply only to local government elections.
The bill is concerned with the provision of information for voters that is required by statute rather than a wider range of information about local government elections, which may be provided to voters by a number of sources. We are already committed to providing the information that is required by statute in different formats for both postal voters and voters who cast their votes at polling stations. I hope that, with that reassurance, Maureen Watt will not move amendments 13 to 15.
I thank the minister for his remarks. Given that he has made it quite clear that the information will be in the supporting documentation, I seek to withdraw amendment 12.
Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 13 to 15 not moved.
After section 24A
Group 3 is on the power to make regulations as to the preparation of special lists and records and so on. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
The proposed new section provides a power to make regulations on the procedures for drawing up special lists and records in connection with the conduct of local government elections. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that ministers have a power to make provisions for the procedure to be followed in preparing special lists relating to absent voting. Regulations that are made under the power will be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure.
I move amendment 2.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Section 25—Miscellaneous amendments
Group 4 is on the content of orders under section 3(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 3 is a technical amendment that has been lodged as a consequence of comments that were made by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. Its purpose is to make it clear that not every order that is made under section 3(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 must include provisions of the kind that are set out in section 3(2) of the act, which deals with the calculation of votes using the single transferable vote system. If an order that is made under section 3(1) of the 2004 act does not include provisions for the calculation of votes, it will be subject to the negative procedure; if it does, it will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I move amendment 3.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 26—Interpretation of Part 1
Amendment 4 moved—[George Lyon]—and agreed to.
Section 34—Indexing of registers and provision of registration information
Group 5 is on the notice of registration events to third parties. Amendment 5, in the name of David McLetchie, is grouped with amendments 6 to 8.
The purpose of amendment 5 is to remove the provision dealing with the notification of registration events to third parties. Amendments 6 to 8 are consequential to amendment 5.
In its stage 1 report, the Local Government and Transport Committee stated that it was
"not persuaded that the private sector notification provisions in the Bill would add value for the customer using the service."
It invited further explanation from the minister in advance of stage 2. At that stage, it was suggested that the rationale for the provision was that it would provide a means for secure notification of an event, such as a death, by a registrar to a bank or insurance company, thereby reducing the possibilities of fraud and forgery. The Executive was asked to provide evidence as to the level of fraud or forgery arising from the falsification of death certificates and other certificates, but it conspicuously failed to do so.
This is another classic example of the Executive proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist. It is a bit like the ban on fur farming. Why does the Executive insist on solving problems that do not exist? Because it is a heck of a lot easier than solving problems that do exist.
We were told that the service would be of value in facilitating the administration of estates, especially in relation to bank accounts with relatively small credit balances and insurance policies from which the policy proceeds are relatively small, but that is simply not true. As I said in the debate on the same amendments at stage 2, that view arises from a confusion on the part of the Executive between, on the one hand, the process of notification of a death and, on the other hand, the establishment of entitlement on the part of the executors or beneficiaries of a deceased person's estate. The two are not one and the same.
Conventionally, an executor or next of kin—with or without the assistance of a solicitor—will notify a bank or insurance company of the deceased's death by providing an extract death certificate. At the same time, they will obtain from the bank or insurance company the appropriate claim forms for completion by those who are entitled—legally or beneficially—to the assets. In the case of very small estates, it may be possible to dispense with a grant of confirmation in favour of an executor; in the case of large estates, however, that will always be necessary. All of that requires direct correspondence and contact between the bank or insurance company and the executor or beneficiary. That will be required whether the bank or insurance company is notified of a death directly by the registrar or, as at present, by conventional means.
The proposed service will save nothing in time or administrative expense. It will be of little or no value for the simple reason that notification of itself establishes nothing. I speak from 30 years' experience of administering the estates of deceased persons in Scotland. Not all of them were Tories, although it sometimes feels like it.
Why, then, does the Executive insist on this singularly useless service being provided to members of the public at the expense of the public? The answer lies in another provision in the bill, which requires registrars to provide a free abbreviated death certificate to an applicant. At the moment, full extract death certificates are not provided free of charge: they cost £8.50 each. The provision of a free abbreviated version that can fulfil many of the same purposes will result in a loss of revenue to registrars—a concern that was expressed by several councils in their written submissions on the bill. However, the proposed third-party notification service is one for which a fee will be charged, which has yet to be specified. Accordingly, it is one means by which registrars could recoup the revenue that they will otherwise lose.
We should be mindful that members of the public who are not familiar with the processes that are required to establish entitlement to funds on a death will buy into the service believing that it will achieve far more than it will. In other words, the public will be conned into buying a service of dubious benefit to replace the loss of revenue to registrar services that councils run. We should not pass laws on that basis.
Nothing that the Executive said at stages 1 and 2 made a convincing case for the provision. I will be surprised if the minister's comments are any more enlightening or persuasive than they were at those earlier stages, but I await them with interest.
I move amendment 5.
I am delighted that Mr McLetchie declared his interest of many years in the matter.
Amendments 5 to 8 revisit an issue that was discussed in detail at stages 1 and 2; it comes as no surprise that it should re-emerge at stage 3. The amendments seek to remove the provisions that would allow third parties to be notified of events electronically at the customer's request as an alternative to the use of paper extracts.
Will the minister please tell me where in the bill it says that it is mandatory for that notification to be made by electronic means?
I said that it was an alternative that the customer could use. I was clarifying that.
No, no. Where does it say in the bill that the registrar must provide the service electronically?
I am saying that the service—
It does not.
Order. Members must speak through the chair.
I am saying that the service will be an alternative that the customer will have to request. That is clear. At stage 2, Mr McLetchie sought to make a similar amendment, for which there was no support. Indeed, when we consulted on the matter, the Law Society of Scotland agreed that the proposal would be useful. On the other hand, Mr McLetchie takes the view that the new optional service would serve no purpose in dealing with insurance companies because executors would still have to correspond with the deceased's insurance company. However, as I explained during the debate at stage 2, the executor is not always the family solicitor and the provision does not apply only to the insured.
We should remember that the less well-off who have to deal with family bereavement and the winding up of small estates are likely to benefit from the provisions. The proposals provide for a new, optional service that is expected to be convenient for the customer, significantly cheaper for the customer than acquiring the paper extract and beneficial for businesses that want to move away from expensive, labour-intensive paper-based systems. It will be for the customer to decide whether the service is of use to them, and we should not deny them that choice. It seems strange that Mr McLetchie and his party say that we should seek to deny customers the choice of what type of system to use and how they correspond on the matter, so I ask that Mr McLetchie withdraw amendment 5 and not move amendments 6 to 8.
I asked the minister twice where in the bill it states that notification that a registrar gives must be made by electronic means but, on both occasions, he declined to answer. The reason for that is that the bill does not require the registrar to provide the service by electronic means, as there is nothing to do with electronic communication in the bill.
Proposed new section 39A(6) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 states:
"For the purpose of subsection (1) above",
which is the provision with which we are concerned,
"notice shall be given—
(a) in such form as may be prescribed".
Is it not entirely possible that the Executive might prescribe on the issue of the electronic format?
Of course it is, but the minister makes great play of the idea that the bill will, of itself, provide for electronic communication of the information. I am simply pointing out that that is not mandatory but a possibility. That goes to the heart of the matter.
The minister said in his reply that the provisions will benefit the less well-off. That is complete and utter nonsense that betrays a total lack of understanding of the administration of estates. It also ignores the fact that, as has been said many times in the Parliament on debates on new technology, the less well-off have the least access to modern means of electronic communication. It is a curious inversion that that is now called upon in aid of the bill's provisions.
We are not debating whether we are for or against electronic communication. We are not debating the less well-off and the better-off. Nor are we debating whether people should administer estates by going to the bank or insurance company themselves or by consulting a solicitor and using their services to do so. We are debating whether there is utility in a single, tiny aspect of the administration process being communicated directly by the registrar for a fee as opposed to being done as part of a package of administrative measures by the applicant, a family member or the solicitor whom they have engaged.
We must bear in mind the fact that, if somebody is to establish entitlement to funds or assets, not only will they have to certify that a person is dead, but they will have to complete a claim form to establish beneficial or legal entitlement and, for larger estates, that will have to be accompanied by a certificate of confirmation. At present, none of those claim forms or confirmation documents can be transmitted electronically from one place to the other. That is the fact of the matter. We are introducing a step that will be of no avail to people who administer estates and will save them no money at all because it is only a tiny part of a process that the Scottish Executive clearly fails to understand.
We are told that the provision will lead to efficiency gains for insurance companies and banks. It will not, because, before an insurance company that is told electronically that Mr X is dead will pay out the policy proceeds, it will still have to get the claim forms and confirmation certificates from the deceased person's executors and relatives. Those documents have to be matched up before a bank or insurance company makes any payment to the person who is entitled to it, so there will be no efficiency gain at all.
I have no doubt in predicting that, when people in a distressed state go to a registrar's office to register the death of a family member, they will be told that the registrar can notify the banks and advise the insurance companies and that it will save them time and money, but they will be sadly disappointed. Those people will not understand the processes of ingathering and administering an estate—not unnaturally, because of the emotional situation in which they find themselves—and they will be conned into buying something that they do not need. If the whole process—applying for and exhibiting confirmation, completing claim forms and paying proceeds directly to bank accounts—could be conducted electronically and that was feasible for the commissary service, the insurance companies and all the banks, the proposal would make sense. However, standing on its own, it certainly does not.
I do not want to take on Mr McLetchie on all the legal aspects that he is going into, but does he accept that the first certificate allows the body to be released so that relatives can bury the person? All the other things that he is talking about to do with winding up estates can be done later. There are situations in which people do not have any money to hand to get the death certificate in the first place.
Maureen Watt is rather confusing the situation. The process of obtaining a death certificate for the purposes of conducting a funeral service is completely different from the measure that is under discussion. The process for dealing with a funeral is that, having registered a death, the relative gets a medical certificate from the registrar, obtains a doctor's certificate and takes those to the undertaker. There is no suggestion in any of the measures that the minister has proposed that there will be electronic communication of that, so we are talking about two completely different processes.
Today, we heard from the minister no more sensible explanation of the justification for the provision than we heard at stages 1 and 2. The Executive has been scratching around to find a justification for the measure but, one by one, its justifications have been knocked down at stages 1, 2 and 3.
I commend my amendment 5 to the Parliament.
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. As I intimated earlier, there will be a five-minute suspension while the division bell is sounded.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 62, Abstentions 18.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.
Section 42—Civil partnership procedure: miscellaneous amendments
Amendment 8 not moved.
Section 47—Keeping of central register for health and local authority purposes
Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[George Lyon]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—