Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4368, in the name of George Lyon, that the Parliament agrees that the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I am sure that this debate will be reasonably concise as I believe that decision time will be brought forward this afternoon.
The Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill is an important piece of legislation that modernises and improves two important functions of local authorities. Since its introduction in December, we have debated its key points and I think that we have made a number of important improvements as we have proceeded. I put on the record my thanks to the Local Government and Transport Committee for its contribution to the process and its broad support for the overall principles of the bill. We had productive discussions about the provisions in the bill and those discussions highlighted the importance of both of the subject areas.
The key principles of the bill remain. Part 1 is about electoral administration. It aims to enhance the security and improve the efficiency of the administration of elections. It also aims to improve the accessibility of the electoral process to make it easier for people to vote. 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.
In part 1, we will make several important changes to electoral law that will help to ensure clarity and consistency. Many of the changes that we are making are technical, but they are vital in helping to ensure that combined Scottish Parliament and local government elections run smoothly.
We are introducing several important provisions that reflect the changes to electoral law that will be made by the United Kingdom Electoral Administration Bill. Those measures include the introduction of performance standards, which will be an important aid in sharing best practice among returning officers and in ensuring consistency in the administration of elections.
We are also introducing provisions that will allow accredited observers access to key stages in the electoral process, which will improve the transparency of elections. We will improve the security of elections by introducing a specific offence of fraudulently applying for a postal or proxy vote and by introducing personal identifiers for absent votes.
Part 1 also includes several provisions that will help to improve the accessibility of elections by, for example, clarifying the election documents that should be provided in other languages or formats. All such provisions should be seen in the context of the wider changes that are taking place for May 2007, when the introduction of the single transferable vote system will herald a significant transformation in the exercise of local democracy.
The new multimember wards are being put in place. The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has published final proposals for 22 local authorities. Ministers have said that they have decided on 13 and the first order was made on 19 June. A further 12 orders will follow in the next week and we still aim to have the whole process completed by the autumn.
The minister will be aware that I lodged at stage 2 an amendment to guarantee that electoral boundaries would be in place by a given date. If I remember correctly, the minister said that he aimed to have them in place by October or November. Will he categorically guarantee that the deadline of October or November for the formation of boundaries will be met? If it is not met, what is plan B?
As I said just a minute ago, we have decided on 13 areas and the first order has been made. A further 12 orders will follow in the next week. We are on track to meet our target of completing the process by October or November this year.
Our recent announcement that e-counting will go ahead at the parliamentary and local government elections next year is an important step in modernising our electoral processes and the move is broadly welcomed among all the political parties. It will change the way in which counts are conducted but I restate that the level of information that is available to candidates, parties and agents will not reduce.
The Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the Scottish Parliament count will continue to be held overnight. E-counting will make it possible to announce the local government results on the Friday after the Thursday poll.
I appreciate the minister's confirmation of his point in the stage 1 debate that the amount of information that is available will not diminish through e-counting. Will he set out in more detail what information we will be likely to receive? For example, will political parties or registered candidates be able to obtain a vote total for every ballot box through the e-counting system, or do ministers still await a decision on that?
I cannot give Mr Swinney that detailed information at present, but I assure him that once we have the detailed regulations that will implement e-counting, consultation and discussions will be widespread and we will listen to views from political parties. This is an important cross-party issue in the Parliament, in which we share an interest. Access to information is important in providing confidence in how the new system will work. I give the assurance that consultation will take place and that we will try to seek agreement on the issue.
The Electoral Commission circulated to all of us information about the bill introducing personal identifiers for absent voters. It also raised the issue of all voters using identifiers. Does the Executive have a response to that for the Electoral Commission?
Our position is that we will adopt what is happening down south, where personal identifiers are being adopted for postal voting. It is important to remember that registration is a reserved issue and is for the UK Government to deal with.
The bulk of the provisions in part 2 of the bill have been universally welcomed because they are customer focused and are about enhancing local service delivery for the public. The only dissenting voice has been that of Mr McLetchie, but even he, I am sure, welcomes almost all the provisions in part 2.
During this morning's debate, he again raised the difficulty that he has with the provision that will allow third parties to be notified of events electronically. I did not get a chance to respond with a factual point when he observed that the bill does not mention electronic notification. The fact is that section 34(4), by inserting new section 39A(6) into the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965, will allow the registrar general to determine the means by which notifications will be given. That power will enable the registrar general to introduce electronic notification.
By way of correction, I point out that I asked this morning why electronic notification will not be made mandatory under the provisions of the bill. I did not dispute—indeed, in response to a point made by Mr Crawford, I acknowledged—that electronic notification would be an option under the system that the minister is introducing.
It is important to put on record that the power is included in the bill. It will be for the registrar general to introduce electronic notification and it is his intention to do so.
David McLetchie's substantive argument is that electronic notification is pointless because businesses such as insurance companies do not currently handle electronically the other aspects of winding up a deceased person's estate. As that still needs to be done in writing, Mr McLetchie has argued that it will be of little, if any, help to provide the proof of death electronically. However, Mr McLetchie is wrong to assume that that will never change and that the paper-based systems that insurance companies currently operate will never be superseded. Indeed, many insurance companies currently do business with their customers online.
The new provision will give the registration service the flexibility to play its part. I make no apology for ensuring that the public sector leads the way in offering services electronically. It is bizarre to argue that, because the whole process is currently not available electronically, we should refuse to allow the registrar general to modernise the system to meet the challenges of the future.
I turn now to the other proposals, to which I think no one takes exception. The bill will adjust registration boundaries and opening times to make them more convenient for customers. It will permit the registration of births and deaths at any registration office in Scotland. It will allow online registration and the electronic notification of registered events to Government departments and local authorities. It will also open up opportunities for local authorities to provide family history search centres by providing electronic access to the whole public genealogical database of Scotland's people. That will be important in helping to develop that strand of our tourism industry.
On registration offices, what is the Government's attitude to maintaining the network of registration offices, especially in some of the more isolated rural areas, where convenience of access can be an issue for members of the public, or does it seek to encourage local authorities and other parties to concentrate registration on a more limited number of sites? Does the Government have a view in principle on that point?
Clearly, local authorities are the independent bodies that will take the decisions on those matters. However, I can give Mr Swinney the assurance that some of the measures in the bill will open up opportunities for local registration offices. For instance, once offices have access to the public genealogical database, local people and individuals who are over here on holiday who want to find out more information about their family history will not need to travel to Edinburgh but will be able to conduct searches from their local registration office. The bill will provide some exciting opportunities that might help to sustain some of the more fragile registration offices. I hope that that is indeed what happens.
Finally, the bill will make it more convenient for couples to have their marriage or civil partnership on a vessel in Scottish territorial waters. Registrars will not be compelled to travel on a particular vessel; it will be open to them to turn down that opportunity, if it is not suitable. However, other registrars will be able to meet the couple's request.
We are also establishing a book of Scottish connections, which the committee welcomed and which has the potential to generate tourism and economic growth.
All those measures combine to make a worthwhile set of improvements to these two important local authority functions.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish National Party. Members who were privileged enough to be elected to the Parliament in 1999 may recall that the first debate following devolution, on 2 July that year, was on the report submitted by the McIntosh commission on the relationship between local government and the new Scottish Parliament. I was a member of the commission and was pleased with what we presented to the Parliament, which included a proposal that we move to proportional representation for local government elections.
I sat in the gallery listening to the debate and was pleased that the Executive and the Parliament subsequently decided to ask Richard Kerley and his committee, of which I was also a member, to recommend a system of proportional representation. I am pleased that Parliament adopted many of the recommendations of the Kerley committee, including the adoption of STV for local council elections. I am amazed again to find myself heavily involved in the process. That is probably why the Scottish National Party has asked me to open on its behalf today.
The bill that we are about to pass effectively dots the i's and crosses the t's of a long seven-year process, but it is important that we give the green light to local authority returning officers as soon as possible, as the elections are looming ever closer.
Does the member think that it is a great pity that, although the Executive has accepted many proposals, it did not accept the proposal that local government and Scottish Parliament elections should not take place on the same day?
I certainly do. I intend to say something about that later in my speech.
I am glad that the minister has again given Bruce Crawford the assurance that the boundaries for multimember wards will be finalised by the end of October.
Before the debate, I read the Official Reports of proceedings on the bill, so I know that many aspects of it have been given a thorough airing—presumably, because they are close to politicians' hearts. There is no one touchier than a politician at a polling station or, even worse, at the count. I hope that the new, clear policy and guidelines that are contained in the bill will allow electoral returning officers and their staff to say when we query them at polling stations or at the count that we made the rules and that Westminster cannot be blamed.
Of course, as usual, we are not free from Westminster's influence. A similar bill is going through that place at the moment, and we have had to watch it closely at all stages of this bill. I am pleased that Westminster has given the go-ahead to e-counting and, I hope, has simplified the ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament elections. As my colleague Tricia Marwick said, we are committed to the principle of separating Scottish Parliament and local government elections. They should be on separate days, and the issues surrounding them and the personalities involved should be considered separately. However, we will have to wait until after May next year to do that job.
We welcome measures to encourage participation in the voting process, to tighten up on electoral fraud, to pilot the use of personal identifiers and, at the same time, to help people with particular needs by providing supporting documentation in a form that meets those needs. SNP members will keep a close watch to ensure that the introduction of performance standards leads to standardisation of the way in which elections and counting are run and that the current wide variation across the country disappears. We also hope that part 2 of the bill will achieve what it says on the tin and will improve and update the registration service in Scotland.
I offer my thanks to the clerks of the Local Government and Transport Committee. As a new member, I have probably leaned on them more heavily than other members have. I also thank other members of the committee for their work. The Scottish National Party welcomes the bill, as far as it goes, and will support it at decision time.
This bill was the first bill I saw from start to finish as a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, of which I have thoroughly enjoyed being a member. It was a pleasure to work with the members and the minister during the bill's passage. I make no apologies for—I hope—enlivening and somewhat extending this morning's debate, given the ample time that is available. I hope that, as a result of my modest contribution, members are now better informed about the process of the administration of estates in Scotland.
As the minister rightly said, this is a bill that—despite my amendment—we support. Indeed, I would say that we support around 99 per cent of its provisions, which is why we voted for it after the stage 1 debate and will vote for it after this stage 3 debate.
Voting for Executive bills at stage 1 and stage 3 is not an unusual thing for the Conservative party to do. Indeed, contrary to what the First Minister said this morning in a classic piece of distortion and misrepresentation in relation to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, the Conservatives, the SNP, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all voted for the bill at the end of stage 1 on 10 March 2004. Further, on 17 June 2004, at the end of stage 3, the Conservatives, the SNP, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all voted for the bill again. The only parties that voted against the measure were the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party.
Will the member give way?
No, sorry.
I would like to think that the First Minister misled Parliament on that point inadvertently this morning, but we all know that he has perpetrated that falsehood on a number of occasions, so I am delighted to take this opportunity to set the record straight. I would like to think that the First Minister would come to the Parliament and apologise for misleading it, but I will not hold my breath.
I would be happy to hear Mr McLetchie explain how he links that piece of rhetoric to the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill. It seemed to have more to do with First Minister's question time than it did with the piece of legislation that is before us.
It relates to honesty in debate, putting the record straight and ensuring that the record of the Parliament reflects the decisions that we take. As the minister heard me say, I was observing that the Conservatives supported the Executive at stage 1 of this bill and will do so at stage 3, just as we did at stage 1 and stage 3 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which we were discussing this morning.
I hope that Mr McLetchie will not leave the matter there. He has corrected the parliamentary record, but I hope that he will maintain an insistence that the First Minister gets on his feet at some stage and apologises for misleading Parliament, which is something that his code of conduct prevents him from doing.
I would like to think that the First Minister will do the honourable thing. I will certainly encourage him to do so.
It is somewhat ironic that we are discussing a bill about the efficient conduct of local elections when next year we will be doing our damnedest to ensure that impediments are placed in the way of that efficient conduct by the absurdity of having the elections for the Scottish Parliament and our local councils on the same day, a point to which Maureen Watt quite correctly alluded.
Of course, that assumes that we will have any councils left to elect after Mr McCabe has finished with them. If we are to believe the reports in The Scotsman this morning, that might not be the case. I suspect that, like Baldrick, Mr McCabe has a cunning plan on behalf of Labour members to sabotage the single transferable vote by the expedient of abolishing the councils of Scotland.
Introducing a new voting system for local government elections on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections take place is a sure-fire recipe for confusion.
Now that the Liberal Democrats have fulfilled the aspiration of anoraks throughout the ages, why are they not proudly displaying the holy grail of STV in public by giving council elections in Scotland their day in the sun? Instead, those elections will be hidden in the shadows cast by elections to this Parliament. Are they so ashamed of the measure that it must be introduced surreptitiously and with as little fanfare as possible? More important, it will leave the poor voting public so bemused and confused that they will, I suspect, stay at home in even greater numbers.
If we seek the efficient administration of elections in Scotland, the elections must be held on different days. Indeed, local democracy deserves as much. I hope that we will have an opportunity to correct that matter in future but, in the meantime—as with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill—I have much pleasure in intimating our support for the bill at stage 3.
I find it disappointing that Mr McLetchie spent so much of his time making cheap attacks on the First Minister in his absence. If he had wanted to make such points, he would have been far better following the usual procedure and raising a point of order when the First Minister was present.
In making clear my support for the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill, I want to thank Martin Verity and the clerks and members of the Local Government and Transport Committee. I thank the clerks in particular for their usual helpful and professional support to members in their consideration of the bill.
I believe that so far the debate reflects the consensus on the bill. Indeed, only a small number of amendments were lodged at stage 3, and only one issue was taken to a vote. However, that does not mean that the measures in the bill are unimportant. First and foremost, the bill goes to the heart of our democracy by updating the legislation governing the administration of local government elections in Scotland. However, as other members have pointed out, it must be seen together with the UK Electoral Administration Bill, which seeks to modernise electoral administration rules for parliamentary elections, including the Scottish Parliament elections.
The Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Bill also sets out powers to introduce performance standards for returning officers that mirror the Electoral Commission's proposals for the UK bill and provides greater clarity and certainty on access to election documents. I rarely agree with Mr Swinney but, on that latter point, he was right to say that once electronic counting is introduced, we should have no less access to election documents than we have at the moment. Although we must respect the privacy and secrecy of the ballot box, we must ensure that political parties receive information on general voting behaviour similar to that achieved by sampling.
Other provisions in the bill include the introduction of observers at elections, which brings the UK into line with international practice; new electoral offences and the strengthening of existing offences to deter electoral fraud; the introduction of personal identifiers to improve security of absent voting; and the piloting of candidates' photographs on ballot papers. I will leave it to individual candidates to judge whether that will be a factor in their success; however, it is a worthy way of finding out whether we can make the electoral system even more accessible.
Members have suggested that local government elections should not be held on the same day as Scottish Parliament elections. However, in the stage 1 debate, I cited examples of voters' ability to differentiate between political parties and issues in local and parliamentary elections held in the same area on the same day. Members who believe that the voters of Scotland are unable to do so simply underestimate them.
Does the member agree that, in elections, council issues are submerged in the national issues that are covered in the media and in the literature that goes out to voters? Because of that, the two elections should be held on separate days.
I do not agree. Experience shows that council elections have often been used as a means of protesting against whoever happens to be the party of Government, if that party is unpopular. During the 1980s, when the Conservative Government was deeply unpopular in Scotland, the party lost councillor after councillor. That was a protest against the actions of central Government. If local government elections were switched to a different day from parliamentary elections, there would still be the danger of national politics dominating local elections.
At the most recent Scottish elections, there were examples of people voting for one party in the parliamentary elections and for another party in the local authority elections. I can think of a couple of examples in which the results were different.
The bill's provisions on registration services include modernising the registration of births, deaths and marriages—by introducing information technology, for example. People will have greater flexibility to register births and deaths at the registration office most convenient for them. There is also a provision that allows the registration service to inform third parties of deaths directly. That is perhaps the one remaining area of contention, as indicated by Mr McLetchie's amendments earlier today.
There will also be the introduction of a book of Scottish connections. That is a positive measure, which will allow people around the world who have connections with Scotland to register or record births, deaths and marriages in Scotland. That will help people to trace their family or to get in touch with family members they have lost touch with.
The bill usefully modernises electoral administration rules and registration services and it has the broad backing of Parliament. Therefore, I commend the bill to Parliament and urge members to support it at decision time.
As we have heard, the bill aims to modernise the administration of local elections, improve access for everyone and enhance the security of the ballot. Those are good aims. The bill will improve and modernise the whole electoral process. It contains a number of very welcome provisions.
I listened carefully this morning to David McLetchie's arguments in favour of his amendments to part 2 of the bill. I was not a member of the committee that dealt with the bill, but I was unconvinced by his arguments. Registrars being able to inform third parties by electronic mail must be a helpful innovation. That issue was addressed this morning.
I want to turn to some of the comments that were made by the minister, Mr Lyon, and to focus on the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. I wrote to Tom McCabe yesterday on this very issue, although he has probably not yet received the letter. As the local MSP, I have been approached by the Birse Community Trust. I must bring to members' attention the declaration in the register of members' interests: I am currently the patron of the Birse Community Trust. The trust is in Aberdeenshire and it represents only 625 people in what is a tremendous area. Representations have been made to the minister by the Finzean community council, the Finzean community association, the Birse and Ballogie community council, the Ballogie community association, the Birse area community association and the Birse Community Trust—those are six public organisations representing 625 people— to review the recommendation of the Boundary Commission for Scotland on this one small area.
Scottish ministers have been to the Birse community on a number of occasions to examine it as an example of community involvement. They have acknowledged the exceptional level of community development and engagement. All six of the public bodies feel that that engagement could be put at risk by decoupling the community from its local focus on the village of Aboyne. I am a resident of the area, but I did not raise the issue until the community itself had raised it with me and asked for my assistance in raising it in Parliament. I therefore take this opportunity to ask whether the minister will consider changing the boundaries so that the community is in ward 15 instead of ward 16. That would solve the problem.
I am afraid that there has been little or no consultation by the Electoral Commission or Aberdeenshire Council on the proposal. As far as I know, the proposal is not supported by anybody in the Birse community. I hope that the minister will consider the representations that the six bodies that I mentioned have made. As I said, they represent just over 600 people, so their suggestion would not alter the overall levels in wards, given the parameters of other wards. I have taken the opportunity to raise that important local issue. It would be a poor show if we could not bring issues to the attention of the minister when something has gone wrong. I hope that the minister will consider the matter carefully.
To return to the bill, the partnership agreement for the coalition Government contained a commitment to reform of our voting arrangements to make it easier for people to participate in the democratic process. The bill is all about connecting with people. We do not want to do anything that disconnects us from people. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats support the bill.
Bristow Muldoon, in response to my colleague who raised the question whether local government elections should be decoupled from the Scottish Parliament elections, suggested for some reason that we should not do that because the Tories suffered many defeats in local government elections. Perhaps Bristow Muldoon should reflect on the fact that, in the 19 local authority by-elections in Scotland in the past 12 months, there have been nine Scottish National Party victories. In a recent by-election in West Dunbartonshire, the SNP achieved a 20 per cent swing from Labour. The average swing from Labour to the SNP in those by-elections was more than 9 per cent, which would give us the 20 extra seats that we require in the Scottish Parliament elections next year. To follow through Bristow Muldoon's rationale, perhaps he should consider postponing the local government elections.
The point that I made was not simply about the Conservatives in the 1980s; it was that local authority elections are often dominated by national issues. However, I remind Mr Crawford that, in the most recent by-election in my neck of the woods, in Livingston, the SNP was thrashed resoundingly.
The SNP got the percentage swing that it requires to take power in the Parliament, so I do not worry too much about that.
I will return to the matter at hand. During stage 1 and through amendments at stage 2, I raised the matter of the formatting of the register of electors. The serious point that I was making was about inconsistency in the formatting of the register, not only between electoral registration officers—EROs—but in individual systems. During stage 2, the minister stated:
"The electoral register, and its format and appearance, are reserved matters that we cannot deal with in the Scottish Parliament."
That is a pity, but never mind—that is the situation. The minister continued:
"However, the Scotland Office has advised that, as part of the consultation on the co-ordinated online record of electors … the UK Government has asked for opinions on the format of the registers".—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 30 May 2006; c 3788.]
I accept that point and I must obviously accept that the issue is reserved; it might be plain daft, but the situation that we are in is that the Scottish Parliament does not have powers over technical matters that relate to the electoral register. I see that the minister is moving his head in an affirmative manner. I am glad that I have his support on that.
I will provide the minister with some specific examples that he might find useful in dealing with the issue. I have tried to find out about the sort of difficulties that are created. In a recent by-election in Kilmarnock, the ERO spelled the word "Kilmarnock" in three different ways—sometimes with a zero instead of an "o"; and sometimes with the "i" and "r" missing. Members might not think that that is important, but it is when information technology is involved. Computer systems cannot pick up such errors, which can make things difficult for political parties. In South Lanarkshire, the ERO provided the 2006 register using the Scottish Parliament boundaries and then proceeded to send monthly updates using Westminster boundaries. As we might imagine, such inconsistencies can create difficulties for local authorities.
Even missing punctuation marks or punctuation marks that should not be there can cause problems for IT systems. Perhaps most seriously, some EROs have provided data in comma-separated variables format and some have provided it in XML format. All EROs were supposed to provide the files in XML format by 1 December 2005, but they have not managed to achieve that target. On the face of it, those might seem to be small matters, but in terms of oiling the wheels of democracy they are important for political parties.
The matter of personal identifiers has been raised by the minister. I note from the briefing that we have received that the Electoral Commission welcomes, as we do, the provisions to introduce personal identifiers for new absent voters, but we must also pick up on the Electoral Commission's point about personal identifiers for all voters. That is a position that the Scottish National Party supports. Such a provision would bring surety, assurance and confidence to the system.
In that regard, I would like the minister to deal specifically with the amendments that were tabled on Tuesday by the House of Lords to introduce personal identifiers for all as part of the UK Electoral Administration Bill. The UK bill is due to get royal assent at the end of June. If the House of Commons continues to obstruct the aims of the House of Lords, we may find that the Government will need to decide to accept the position of the Lords if it is to achieve its target date. In those circumstances, if the Lords were to prevail and if the bill were to be changed in that way, how would the Scottish Executive deal with the matter here? That is an important issue in the overall process. I do not usually use the House of Lords as an example of good practice, but on this occasion the Lords have got it right.
Presiding Officer, do I have any more time? There are so many things that I would like to say, but I do not know how much time I have left.
You have another five minutes if you want, Mr Crawford.
Oh no!
I am sorry, but I will chunter on in that case.
The issue of new ward boundaries has already been raised with the minister. That is an important matter that requires the guarantee that I asked for. I heard what the minister said about hoping to achieve the targets, but he did not tell us what his contingency plan will be if he does not manage to meet them. People will inevitably question whether or not the local authority elections could proceed successfully on that day.
I would like to conclude on the issue of observers at election counts. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that sought to ensure that any code of practice for observers must contain specific proposals on the degree of access that individuals would have at the counts. I welcomed the minister's response at stage 2, when he said:
"One approach to trying to ensure consistency across the piece is to use the performance standards. We will ensure that guidance on the matter is included in the guide for returning officers that will be produced before the election. That is another mechanism for trying to address the point that Mr Crawford makes. It is a fair point and I am sure that it has support across the committee."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 30 May 2006; c 3792.]
To follow on from John Swinney's intervention, I would like the minister to tell us what further assurances he can give that returning officers will in the future provide, to registered political parties and to individuals who stand at elections, data on the number of votes cast in each ballot box and the votes for each political party. I cannot for the life of me understand why we need to consult further on that. If there is an information technology system that can do it, that will avoid the political parties having to count using five-bar gates on election nights to work out what their share of the vote was in a given ballot box. There is no reason why a returning officer cannot now, at the end of the night, produce that information on paper and save everybody a lot of hassle. That might take some of the enjoyment away for those of us who are anoraks about the process, but it would nevertheless make matters a lot clearer. Importantly, it would allow political parties to know where their vote is, so that they can try to maximise turnout the next time. Maximisation of turnout at elections and ensuring that we are fully engaged in the democratic process are partly what the exercise should be about. That would put some oil on the wheels.
I thank the committee members and the clerks for their work on the bill. I am not a member of the committee and I did not experience the pleasure of speaking in the stage 1 debate, so I come late to the debate on the bill. Members might ask, "Why?" Am I just lucky? Am I seized with a sudden and passionate interest in the fine details of electoral administration? Do I perhaps have a desperate urge to declare my desire for a civil partnership at sea? Or is it the case that somewhere in the building there is a Green party colleague who now owes me a favour? I will leave members to speculate on the matter.
The bill is one among several that we have passed since civil partnership came in that make additional changes that will ensure that civil partnership is dealt with on the same basis as marriage. We should take the opportunity to welcome the figures that have been published today on the Executive's website, which show the strong uptake of civil partnership since it became a possibility for same-sex couples in Scotland. Civil partnership and marriage are dealt with equally in law. We should respect the equal value of both to society. I hope that members join me in that sentiment.
On the electoral administration part of the bill, I am sure that I am not the only member who has experienced errors in the local electoral system. An election was held a few months after I had moved home. I had written to confirm my new address and had phoned to check that I was on the electoral register, but I turned up at the ballot station only to find that I had to take two bus rides to the other side of the city to vote in my old polling area. It is welcome that under the bill we will be able to correct such errors nearer elections.
Many people would be surprised that there are not already performance standards, as there seem to be such standards for everything else in life—I was certainly surprised that no such standards existed. However, I hope that electoral registration officers do not find themselves dominated—as so many people are—by the need continually to monitor and assess their work against standards. In some parts of public life that has become almost an obsession to the point of damaging the effectiveness of the work itself. Clearly, we want a decent level of service in all parts of the country. I am sure that that is what we will get.
I listened with interest to the debate on David McLetchie's amendments this morning. As I have come so late to the debate I do not want to express a view on the precise detail, but I was surprised by George Lyon's repeated use during the discussion of the word "customer" in relation to what I think are voters or citizens. It sounds a little strange and, perhaps, almost Orwellian to think of ourselves as customers in relation to the democratic process.
I clarify that I was talking about individuals who contact the registrar to request information to allow them to deal with a death. That part of the bill has nothing to do with the voting process.
I am grateful to George Lyon for intervening, if only to help me use up some of the time in my speech.
My final point is a little more serious. It follows points that George Lyon made about the introduction of the STV system. There has been a bit of banter between the parties in the debate about the merits of STV and the details of the multimember wards. I will make a general point about the multimember wards that will be introduced. I cannot be the only member who has had comment from many people about the impact that they expect STV to have on local government next year. Whether we expect a huge, dramatic and immediate impact at next year's election—there might be a dramatic impact in some parts of the country, but not all—the major change that it will introduce for us all is multimember wards. That will be a new experience for local politicians. The big challenge for us, as active senior members of our political parties, is to ensure that while competition and vigorous debates on the arguments continue, we encourage the party members who have a role in those multimember wards to co-operate with their neighbours in the wards on constituency activities.
The introduction of STV gives us an opportunity to overturn some of the scepticism about local politicians who will compete opportunistically on every issue. We have an opportunity to change that perception of local politics for the better.
I hope that I have not strayed too wildly from the subject of the debate. I know that I have not strayed as far as David McLetchie, so I say to him that I am quite sure that as we pass the bill today, we will not come to regret doing so, as might members of his party when they see another election being dominated by antisocial behaviour and another raft of proposals that are as authoritarian as they are ineffective. At that point, Mr McLetchie might decide to reconsider his support for the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill that he mentioned in his speech.
I must admit that I have never really seen Bruce Crawford as an anorak. I have always considered him to be more of a hoodie.
Having endured hours peering over shoulders and arguing over whether voting papers should be counted face up or face down, I am quite prepared to give way to a magic machine that reads faster than the human eye and which should bring accuracy and speed to what has always been a lengthy and labour-intensive process. A couple of months ago, as a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, I attended a working demonstration of how electronic voting can operate. Having seen that, I firmly believe that I have seen the future of electoral counts.
As everyone here is painfully aware, the next round of elections is little more than 10 months away. Apart from any other consideration, that is why the bill that is before us today is important. It brings into the 21st century issues that surround elections in this country.
Sadly, one issue that has been more prominent than everyone here would like is electoral fraud, particularly through misuse of postal votes. As everyone knows, encouragement for postal votes came from a desire to involve more people in the process. People who were unwilling to go to a polling station, who were away at work or on holiday, and people who just preferred voting by post were added to the voting population by that system. Nowadays, about 10 per cent of the electorate uses postal votes. However, scandals involving postal-vote fraud that have resulted in comments comparing the United Kingdom's election process to that of a banana republic are extremely damaging to our democratic process. I support personal identifiers being used nationally for postal votes. Only if we secure the electoral system with that type of safeguard will people have more confidence in the process.
Something that is missing from the bill—and something that I believe is vital to democracy—is the quality of the registers. Many members will know that the registers are not as good as they should or could be, despite the introduction of rolling registers. The failings that are related to not keeping up with people because they are more mobile than they used to be are down to resources. The only hope of improving the quality of the registers is by committing more money and manpower. If I had one wish, it would be for a section in the bill to that effect.
Another part of the bill deals with accessibility to polling stations. I have had to help people into polling stations, so I believe that the move towards easier access is not only to be welcomed but has to be given a mighty shove to ensure that their being disabled does not prevent anyone from taking part in the democratic process. At an earlier stage of the bill, Capability Scotland expressed its concerns about that. Its evidence suggested that Scotland lags behind other countries in ensuring that aids such as large-print ballot papers and easy tactile voting are available; we are not up to speed on that.
The breaking down of barriers in registration is welcome, as is the decision to move towards coterminous boundaries of local authorities. I hope that the minister does not change the boundaries before the bill becomes law. I recall having to go through a rather tortuous process in recording the births of my daughters. Any action that would make birth registration more accessible has to be welcomed. 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 local links.
One or two members mentioned the proposed book of Scottish connections. Apart from the Irish and the Jews, few nationalities have travelled as widely or as enthusiastically as the Scots. Although they did not realise it at the time, perhaps the Scots have provided the world with two centuries of fresh talent. I believe that the book of Scottish connections is a good idea and it will be used by many Scots throughout the world who hanker after the homeland. Economic and tourism benefits will arise. I look forward to it.
Local authorities have expressed concerns about loss of income. The paramount feature of the bill is that it will make registration and electoral administration more accessible and user friendly. I welcome it.
As a former member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, I congratulate it on its thoroughness in dealing with the bill. It is no fault of the committee if there are issues that the bill does not cover or provide for, because that is the responsibility of the ministers.
Although many of the speeches have been light-hearted, everyone has made serious contributions on the potential failings and risks, partly in the systems, of which we all have to be aware. Many members have raised the issues of voter fraud and identifiers. It is vital that we have a fool-proof, squeaky-clean system that is accessible, user-friendly, understandable and inclusive, and that we have fallbacks. I am not sure whether the minister is paying attention, but that is up to him. I am not sure that we have heard enough from the ministers in this short time today to justify their claims that everything will be wonderful on the day. I hope that the minister will come back to the chamber and refresh us with the updates on progress in consultation, for example, for which many have called.
We accept that the bill is a great move forward in many ways. The registration services have to be user-friendly. We have all been through the agonies of registration. I am still not sure that the Executive fully understands the technical points that my colleague David McLetchie made, but I am sure that the ministers will go away and read his words and feel a little more updated in their thinking.
I remember that Maureen Watt was involved with the McIntosh commission, to which I gave evidence, and the Kerley report. I thank her for her nice neat warm-up to the presentation of my bill proposal, to which I will come in a minute.
As David McLetchie said, we have been trying to seek to improve the bill. Even if we agree with the broad principles of it, the purpose of the Parliament is to ensure that we produce good legislation, that all the loopholes are closed and that all the details are managed.
Bristow Muldoon made the classic comment, with which I agree, that elections are at the heart of democracy. He also mentioned the book of Scottish connections, as did other members. I was still on the Local Government and Transport Committee when that proposal was discussed. Of course, the book offers tourism opportunities in addition to those connected to genealogy, our heritage and so on. Such a proposal must be a good thing.
One minute.
What Mr Rumbles said about communities that get divided by odd boundaries was right, but it is not only rural communities that get divided in that way. I echo the comments of Bruce Crawford and John Swinney about the need for transparency in each ballot box vote; we want to hear more on the subject.
I return to my proposal for a local government elections (Scotland) bill to separate local government and national elections. In addressing that proposal, Bristow Muldoon said that local government gets clouded with national issues. He failed to understand that, if the elections were to stand alone, the issues involved would be made clear. We are talking about the billions of pounds that are spent by our local councillors; they have to be seen to be accountable.
Will the member give way?
Am I in my last minute, Presiding Officer?
Yes.
I am sorry, but I cannot.
Local government has a vital place in our communities and we need to see what happens on the ground. The public deserve that, but the only way in which they will get any guarantee is if members support my bill when the opportunity arises. I look forward to attending the Local Government and Transport Committee next week to help move on the process. That said, if we are to have transparency, the bit that is missing is the separation between elections. When STV and the additional member system are run on the same day, the result is voter confusion—we need think only of Belfast and London. There is enough evidence out there for us to want to do this properly.
It is a pleasure to close for the Scottish National Party in a debate on a bill that we support.
My colleague Maureen Watt referred to her long journey on some of these issues, through her work on the McIntosh commission and the Kerley committee, which examined many of the practical issues for the local electoral arrangements that we will have in 2007. The Parliament is all the better for Maureen Watt having brought into its debates her wisdom on the way in which we can develop and strengthen the work of the local authorities.
During the debate some issues have been resolved, but others remain unresolved. The first of those unresolved issues is the practice of ballot-box sampling, which I raised with the minister earlier. The minister said in reply that there would be no diminution of the information that is made available to political parties and candidates and that there would be further consultation on the issues. I hope that the Government is keeping an open mind on the matter.
E-counting offers the opportunity for the quality of information that political parties have at their disposal as the result of elections to be significantly enhanced. For example, the proposal to ensure that a tally is published, by the vote for individual candidates, of the contents of each ballot box does not infringe the democratic process in any way. In fact, it would enhance the quality of information that is made available.
Another unresolved issue is the timescale for the conclusion of the ward boundary process. If we are to guarantee that political parties and other individual candidates have adequate time to prepare for the new electoral geography that will come into being in 2007, there is a need for some urgency on the matter. We need to ensure that the electoral arrangements are in place to do that.
I have considerable sympathy with the point that Mike Rumbles made. A relocation in boundary terms can mean that communities find themselves moved from one end of a county to another on the redrawn map—obviously, their physical location changes not at all. I have had experience of that in my constituency; the changes in the areas of Luncarty and Stanley caused enormous concern to local residents.
Maureen Watt agreed with the advantages of split elections; David Davidson and other members also addressed that point. David Davidson's proposal, which I have signed, would ensure that our election campaign took place at a different time from that of our local authority colleagues. Progress needs to be made on the proposal.
Adequate and distinctive opportunities should be given for the issues to do with the Scottish Parliament and those to do with local government to be discussed with the public. I do not doubt that members of the public can come to different decisions; of course an individual can fill in different ballot papers, depending on the election in which they are voting. The question is whether adequate air time is given to the discussion of the issues that are of importance in local authority and national election campaigns.
Part 2 of the bill provides for constructive measures that will modernise registration services. I reiterate my concern about accessibility to registration services and I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude to maximising opportunities for access. Information technology can make registration services accessible to the public in a much broader range of locations and I hope that such opportunities will be included in future arrangements. The book of Scottish connections will be a helpful addition to the notion of joined-up government and could support the development of genealogical tourism, which is significant in many communities, not least the one that I represent.
When I read this morning's edition of The Herald, I thought that the Government might rush to lodge an amendment to section 16 that would amend the ceiling on candidates' election expenses. I was shocked to read that the Conservatives spent £91,132.09 to deliver a massive 0.2 per cent increase in their vote in Moray. Was there ever a more spectacular waste of money to secure 0.2 per cent of the vote? At the end of that revealing article, the reporter simply noted:
"The Scottish Conservative Party declined to comment."
The Government missed an opportunity this afternoon to come to the rescue of the Conservative Party. It could have saved the Conservatives from wasting more money for so little gain in election campaigns and enabled the party to offset the calamitous impact on its finances of a campaign that did not prevent the election of the fine member of the Scottish Parliament for Moray, Richard Lochhead.
I support the bill.
If it costs £91,000 to buy 0.2 per cent of the vote, members should just think what it might cost to achieve a majority in the Parliament at the next election—[Interruption.] Answers on a postcard, please.
If Mr Lyon waits for a year, he will be able to calculate the figure, because there will be a Conservative majority in the Parliament.
Bill Aitken needs medical help; he is hallucinating.
I will address more serious issues that were raised in the debate. Mr McLetchie argued that local council elections should be decoupled from Scottish Parliament elections. He claimed that voters stay at home in great numbers when elections are held on the same day. That might be true of supporters of Mr McLetchie's party, but there is no evidence that the situation would change if elections were decoupled. Indeed, the evidence from the first two Scottish Parliament elections is that voters turned out in record numbers and voted in the local government elections. There is evidence that voters can clearly differentiate between elections that take place on the same day. I refute Mr McLetchie's suggestion that participation in local authority elections would increase if elections were decoupled.
Maureen Watt made an interesting point in a similar vein when she said that local elections risk being dominated by national issues. However, national issues clearly dominated the stand-alone English council elections that were held recently. We would not have had to witness the bizarre sight of David Cameron hugging huskies in the Arctic if local election campaigns had been dominated by issues of relevance to voters in Barnsley, for example.
Mike Rumbles expressed important constituency concerns, which I acknowledge, but it would be inappropriate for me to respond to his concerns in this debate. There is an appropriate way in which to respond and an appropriate time at which ministers will respond to boundary reviews, and I assure Mr Rumbles that his representations will be considered in that process.
Bruce Crawford and John Swinney raised an issue that has dominated the debate: e-counting and ballot-box information. As I said earlier, the view is shared across the Parliament that we must ensure that political parties have access to the appropriate information. The one point that I make in that regard concerns the amount of information that might be available from each area. We must ensure that we get the balance right, as there are some places—for example, small communities—where the release of the full information might compromise the integrity of the vote. Once we produce regulations on that, there must be proper consultation and feedback.
Does the minister accept the constructive suggestion that there might be a requirement for a ballot box to be of a minimum size before that level of information could be released? There is a willingness to agree some protocol in that respect, to allow more information to be released that would not compromise the integrity of the ballot.
I am happy to give the assurance that that suggestion will be considered.
As I said in my opening speech, I believe that the bill will enhance the security and improve the efficiency of the administration of elections. It is also about modernising and improving the registration service in Scotland. Scotland's electoral administrators already provide a high-quality service to the electorate and to candidates. The bill will make it easier for them consistently and efficiently to run local government elections that are transparent, accessible and secure. It will also ensure that the procedures for the elections are aligned with those for the Scottish Parliament elections, with which they are combined.
The bill contains the most significant package of improvements to the Scottish registration service for more than 40 years, and it will provide the registration service with the flexibility that it needs to continue to offer a first-class service to its customers. In particular, our genealogy service is the envy of many countries worldwide, which helps to boost genealogy tourism, and the book of Scottish connections will do much to enhance it.
The bill might not have attracted a great deal of attention or interest in its passage through Parliament, yet it is a vital piece of legislation because it introduces a substantial number of measures that will strengthen local democracy and modernise the General Register Office for Scotland to make it fit for the 21st century. I hope that Parliament will pass the bill at decision time.