Plenary, 22 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 22, 2001

Official Report 537KB pdf

---

Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1

Good morning. The first item of business is—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry not to have given you notice of this point of order. A notice has been issued to members of the press regarding a visit to the chamber this afternoon by Mr Iain Duncan Smith. The final item in that notice reads:

"1515-1540: Mr Duncan Smith will be available for media interviews in the Black and White corridor".

Who gave permission for that to happen? Why was that permission given? Are reciprocal rights being granted to members of the Parliament to be interviewed in the lobby of the House of Commons? Has anybody, perhaps in the Conservative party, told Mr Duncan Smith that he will be a distraction from another event in the chamber this afternoon? I cannot imagine that many people will wish to address him.

As you rightly said, Mr Russell, you did not give me advance notice of that point of order. I will reflect and consult on it and come back to the chamber with a response as early as possible.

As I was saying, the first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2307, in the name of Angus MacKay, on the general principles of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill.

The bill is short but important for Scottish local government. It is a significant measure in providing stability for councils to do their job and in developing and strengthening local democracy throughout Scotland.

As members know, a three-month consultation period began at the end of March. There were more than 80 responses to the consultation, and all but one of Scotland's councils responded. The consultation responses show strong support for the measures in the bill.

The bill has three main provisions. The first is a four-year mandate for councillors. The second relates to council elections being rescheduled to coincide with ordinary elections of the Scottish Parliament and cancels the planned 2002 council elections. The third main element is a provision for ministers to approve pilot schemes for the modernisation of the administration of council elections. I will consider each of those measures in turn.

The four-year mandate for councillors is part of a process of trying to provide greater stability and better planning horizons for councils. It fits well with other measures that we have taken for more budgetary stability, such as introducing three-year budgets and, in turn, councils setting three-year council tax levels. Those provide the stability and greater planning horizons that everybody in local government has sought for many years.

The reorganisation of local government in 1995 shortened the term of councillors to three years. That is widely regarded as a mistake. It does not provide sufficient time for councils to plan properly, to develop policy properly or to deliver the service improvements that they and many others want. The proposal for a four-year mandate was widely supported in the consultation that we held earlier this year and the Local Government Committee supported it. I believe that that support was cross-party. We believe that the measure is sensible and look forward to the Parliament supporting it.

The second main provision is to make council elections coincide with ordinary elections of the Scottish Parliament. I stress the word "ordinary". I will explain more about that shortly. Coincident elections took place with the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections. Despite the reservations that many had in advance of that exercise, it was judged a considerable success. We want to consolidate that success and build on it for the future. The 1999 elections achieved a significant improvement in the number of votes cast for councillors, from an average of somewhere in the region of 40 per cent during 1975 to 1995 to an average of almost 60 per cent throughout Scotland in 1999.

Does the minister concede that the increase in votes cast at the local authority election was not because of greater voter interest in that election, but reflected the fact that voters happened to be in the polling booths for other purposes and so filled in the extra ballot paper?

I am not sure that we can get into the mind of every voter in Scotland. The fact is that significantly more votes were cast for councillors in 1999 than in the recent past. That must improve the democratic legitimacy of councils. I will return later to Scottish Parliament elections taking place on the same day as council elections and the same number of people casting votes in the parliamentary election.

Given the logic of his argument, does the minister agree that if, in 2003, there is a lower turnout across Scotland—although I hope that there will not be—he will have to accept that in many respects the turnout in local elections has been dragged down?

No. I hope, like others in the chamber, that there will be an increased vote for all levels of democratic elections. However, the important point is the coinciding of the parliamentary and local government elections. I will come back later—and in my summing-up speech—to the points that have been raised.

The increase in voting figures for council elections is a considerable achievement, which should not be underestimated. That achievement is at the root of the proposal for coincident elections, turnout at which will give mutual legitimacy to councils and Parliament and will enhance the prospect of mutual respect between the tiers of government. Coincident elections will also help to achieve the parity of esteem between the tiers of government that people seek and will strengthen the legitimacy of local government and the local democratic mandate. The measure also has the clear support of Scottish councils—two out of three support it—and is supported by the Local Government Committee, albeit on a division.

I am sorry that the Opposition parties do not feel able to support the measure. In my summing-up speech, I will pick up any points that they raise. There is still time for them to come on board and support this sensible measure and I invite them to do so.

The bill provides for a ministerial power to coincide council elections with extraordinary elections of the Parliament, but in limited circumstances. We have changed the proposal since the consultation and after discussions with the Local Government Committee. Concerns were expressed that the original power to ministers was too widely drawn. The bill has been changed to ensure that ministerial power is available only for a limited period, when elections are so close together as to make it sensible to combine them.

The bill defines a relevant period for that purpose. It begins on 11 March, which is the date by which councils must set their budgets, and runs to the normal date for a Scottish Parliament election or to the date of a Scottish Parliament election as varied by the Presiding Officer within his limited powers in that respect.

The third main provision in the bill is for ministers to be given power to approve pilot schemes that are designed to modernise the voting experience and assist with improving turnout. There are also powers to roll out successful pilots to other councils in Scotland, if it is shown that they will bring benefit throughout the system. The provision is new and is a response to points raised during the consultation period. It gives ministers similar powers to those in England and Wales and we believe that it is a sensible measure.

I believe that councils in England in Wales can experiment with holding elections on different days, in particular Saturdays, but I presume that that will not be possible under the bill. Does the minister think that that might operate against his intention to maximise local government election turnout?

The scope of the bill empowers ministers to consider any proposal that local authorities produce. I am not clear that the bill will rule out the possibility that Mr Tosh mentioned—we might be free to consider it. If that is the position, I am happy to investigate the matter further. Perhaps Mr Tosh will expand on his point during the debate.

I do not understand. The minister seems to be holding out the possibility that, in some council areas, there could be a vote in the Scottish Parliament election on a Thursday and a vote in a local authority election on the following Saturday. The minister's position seems to be anomalous.

I thought that the member was talking about by-elections, for which such experiments have been conducted in parts of England and Wales. We expect a number of councils to experiment with pilots, principally in by-elections. They will not be prevented from experimenting with coincidence with the Scottish Parliament election, although in that case there would be a clear problem and the minister would take that into account in considering such schemes.

The current procedures for voting are not the most modern of consumer experiences. As members have experienced, one can wander into a draughty village hall anywhere in Scotland and find a person sitting behind a trestle-table doing their knitting or reading a favourite novel while waiting for voters to arrive. One's name is then scored off a list—usually with a ruler and pencil—the ballot paper is stamped with an ancient machine and one walks into an upturned orange box. The system is so trusting that the pencil that one uses to cast the vote is tied to the wall. After leaving the ballot booth, one moves to the ballot box, which probably has not been painted since 1945, casts one's vote and leaves the hall.

That is not the most exciting of modern consumer experiences, which is why we want councils to be able to improve the administration of elections. As Murray Tosh indicated, in England and Wales there have been experiments with postal voting, new electronic means of casting votes, weekend voting and mobile polling stations. We are monitoring the results of those experiments. We do not want to limit the suggestions for pilot projects that councils may want to make to us. I am grateful to the Local Government Committee for its support for this new element of the bill.

I have outlined the main provisions of the bill. At a meeting of the Local Government Committee, Iain Smith helpfully pointed out a lack of clarity in relation to the bill's effect on the procedures that are to be followed when a vacancy occurs within six months of the date of an ordinary local election. At stage 2, we propose to introduce a provision that would make the application of the law very clear in that regard.

Once again, the Parliament's procedures for pre-legislative scrutiny have shown their worth. They have improved the bill significantly. The Local Government Committee's scrutiny of the bill has assisted the process greatly and I am grateful to the committee for its support for the bill. I am sure that the committee will continue its good work at stage 2.

The bill is about strengthening local government and the local mandate of councils. It is about giving councils a stable climate within which to develop, improve and modernise their services. It is part of our continuing commitment to local government, which is a key partner in delivering for the people of Scotland. I commend the general principles of the bill to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill.

Central to this bill is the assertion by ministers that only increased turnout in local government elections will increase democratic accountability, even if that increase is artificially manufactured. That is why the Executive claims that we need to synchronise the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections, which would mean postponing the 2002 elections.

If 100 per cent turnout conferred on local government complete democratic accountability, we would not today be discussing a bill to synchronise elections. Instead, we would be discussing a bill that would make it compulsory for every adult over the age of 18 to vote. We are not doing that, and I do not argue that we should.

The experience of 1999, when the Scottish Parliament elections were held on the same day as the local government elections, was that local government issues were not discussed. Indeed, all the Scottish Office propaganda material ignored the fact that local government elections were taking place.

Keir Bloomer, chief executive of Clackmannanshire Council, told the Local Government Committee:

"Local government is an important part of the constitutional framework. The existence of separate elected bodies with their own democratic mandates at national and local levels is a critical component of any pluralist society."

The SNP is committed to the objective of increasing voter turnout at local government elections. To ensure higher voter turnout, it is important that local government should be seen as relevant to the people whom it serves. The idea that artificially manufacturing turnout confers legitimacy is grossly misguided.

After a year of consultation, Kerley concluded:

"higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government".

What we need is an examination of the record of local councils and councillors and whether they have delivered for their communities. With synchronised elections, those issues will not be examined.

Nobody in this chamber or beyond can reasonably argue that local council matters will even surface when Scottish Parliament elections are taking place. People can vote differently in Scottish Parliament and local government elections. They did so in 1999 and they will do so again. Their decisions in such elections would be taken without a full debate on or examination of local issues.

The bill shows how little esteem Labour has for local government in Scotland. Local government is not an extension of central Government. It is not there simply to implement the policies that are dictated by the Government of the day. It has a responsibility to be relevant and to serve the people of particular local areas.

We cannot begin to talk about relevance and legitimacy unless we deal with the one-party states that besmirch much of Scotland. What is missing, of course, is proportional representation for local government elections. PR for local government would ensure that every vote counted. It is obscene and, frankly, Stalinist for one party to gain 94 per cent of the seats on the basis of only 46 per cent of the vote. That system will continue unless we create the open, transparent and accountable Scotland that some of us aspire to. That can be realised only through PR, which would ensure that every vote counts and that the electorate gets the council that it votes for. However, the bill is not about PR or about conferring legitimacy.

Tricia Marwick makes an interesting point. She seems to be saying that the use of PR leads to greater voter turnout, but what about the European elections? Would she care to comment on that?

Scotland is only one constituency.

Thank you, Kenneth. The problem with the European elections is that people do not think that they are relevant. The fact that Scotland is only one constituency led to the low turnout more than anything else did. The problem is not PR, but the manufactured way in which the elections came about.

Is it not the case that the real reason for the low turnout in the European elections was the fact that supporters in the Westminster Parliament of the first-past-the-post system introduced the closed-list system for the European elections, to put off voters deliberately? That is what the Westminster Parliament meant to do in the first place.

I can add nothing to John McAllion's comments other than to agree with them entirely.

As I said, the bill is not about PR or about conferring legitimacy. It will not make local government more accountable and the SNP will oppose it at decision time.

I have quoted McIntosh and Kerley on many occasions in the past few days. I make no apology for doing so again, because the minister said that the bill has wide support when, in fact, that is not the case.

McIntosh and Kerley recently examined local government. McIntosh said:

"We recommend … that the local government elections should be timed to take place at the mid-point of the Parliament."

Kerley said:

"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."

The events of recent weeks have thrown into question the democratic legitimacy and practices that surround some of the worst examples of Labour fiefdoms. In many areas, there is a perception that matters are unclear. There should be an examination of the quango-council-Labour party network. Now, more than ever, there is a desperate urgency for matters to be clarified and made open and transparent.

I turn briefly to the measures in the bill that have found our support. We support four-year terms for councillors and the pilot voting schemes. However, it must be noted that the pilot schemes that may be trialled, to which the minister referred, will be trialled only for local government elections. They will not be trialled for the Scottish Parliament elections that are to take place on the same day. In other words, people might be able to go to their supermarket to vote for their local councillor, but they will still have to find a polling station to vote in the Scottish Parliament election.

Ridiculous.

I think I heard "Nonsense" from behind me. [Laughter.] They were referring to the nonsense that the Executive is proposing.

I have said that the SNP opposes the bill. An imperative has been placed on every MSP and on all elected members of Scottish councils to engage in the debate, to explain and to do everything in our power to encourage increased voter participation. The bill is not the way to do that, and no one in the chamber should pretend that it is.

The Scottish Executive's decision to postpone the next council elections to 2003, so that they coincide with the next Scottish Parliament elections, is an affront to democracy. The Scottish Tories can support four-year terms and the piloting of innovations to improve turnout in local elections, but we must oppose the principles of the bill, because of the plans to synchronise elections.

Labour and the Lib Dems want to smother the council elections under the cover of darkness—that is, the Scottish Parliament election—to prevent light from shining on their appalling record of failure in councils throughout the nation.

Will the member give way?

Go on.

I will give way in a moment—let me get a bit further into my speech.

To evidence my point, we need only reflect on the three council seats that the Scottish Tories have won from the Executive parties during the past two months.

How can local issues be highlighted and councils made more accountable if local government elections are treated as a mere sideshow to the Scottish Parliament elections? The McIntosh commission and the Kerley working group agreed that local government elections needed to be held separately if council matters were to get proper prominence. McIntosh and Kerley recommended four-year terms for the very good reason that that would help councils to plan ahead and deliver policy priorities more effectively. Such a measure can play its part in ensuring efficient financial planning and give a reasonable time over which the electorate can judge an Administration's actions. McIntosh also said that the elections should be midway between Scottish Parliament elections to give local issues independent prominence.

Let us look at the history of the bill. The Government set up the McIntosh commission to look in detail at electoral issues. The report of the McIntosh commission concluded:

"We do not however think that local government elections should be held at the same time as the parliamentary elections: although that might produce a higher turnout, it does also mean that the local elections would tend always to be held under the shadow, as it were, of the parliamentary election and that national issues will dominate local elections even more than they tend to do whenever those elections are held. The result is to weaken the democratic mandate of local government … We recommend therefore that the local government elections should be timed to take place at the mid-point of the Parliament."

In the Executive's response to the report of the McIntosh commission, the Executive noted that the issue would be further complicated by the views of the Kerley working group, which would need to be carefully considered. The Executive even acknowledged that

"parties campaigning in a national election tend to have little time or resources to spare for a distinct local campaign."

By implication, the Executive conceded that the elections should be held on separate days.

So what did Kerley say? In paragraph 100, Kerley states:

"the higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government: it would not bring additional voters to the polls because of their involvement in local government issues. In fact, coincident elections"—

I think he means coinciding—

"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."

Even though Kerley argued for and McIntosh recommended separate elections, the Scottish Executive has ignored its own advice. Why did the Executive set up those supposedly high-powered committees—at vast expense—if it was simply going to ignore such a crucial recommendation?

I thank the member for giving way. I am pleased that he has referred to the recommendations of both those eminent committees. Does his party agree with their other recommendations on PR?

Like other people, we are setting out a timetable to discuss the issue.

It seems that the Executive's initial view, which tended towards separate elections, changed only when Labour councillors, who favour hiding their poor performance, argued for larger turnouts from combined polls. Despite what the minister said, the results of the consultation on the bill give no more than lukewarm support for combined elections. In the main, the support for combined elections comes from councils in which the Executive parties have a majority. No wonder the public are cynical about politicians.

If the minister was truly concerned about local government, he would scrap the plans and continue to hold council elections at a separate time, so that the real issues and choices that face electors could be properly aired and debated. The only people to benefit from synchronised elections will be Labour and Lib Dem councillors. As with quangos, the Scottish Executive is putting cronyism in local government before democracy. We will oppose the bill.

Before we talk about the detail of the bill, let us be clear what the bill is about. The bill is about changing the timing of elections. Its primary purpose is to bring in a four-year term for local government, which is what the whole of Scotland wants.

Will the member give way?

Not yet. Give me some time to get started.

When the Conservatives attempted to destroy local government with their reforms, they reduced the term of Scottish local government to three years. Nobody understood why they did that. Even the Conservatives do not now understand why they did that. It is important that we get back to the four-year term. I would be interested to hear how the Conservatives and the SNP, who say that they would prefer a four-year term with elections at the mid-point between Scottish Parliament elections, propose to do that.

May I reply to that?

Mr Harding will have time to reply in his summing-up.

Do the Conservatives want another three-year term for Scottish local government before it can move on to a four-year cycle? Or, like us, do they want to move Scottish local government to a four-year cycle right away?

The biggest controversy in the bill is to do with the timing of elections, which is the main point of debate.

If Mr Smith is saying that the most important feature of the bill is the four-year cycle, he will surely accept that elections do not have to be coincident.

I am about to discuss the timing. I have said that the most important thing is to move to a four-year cycle; we now have to discuss when the elections will take place. They have to take place at some point—they must either coincide with Scottish Parliament elections or not coincide with them. The arguments are not clear-cut. The matter is not simple. We cannot say that one idea or the other is definitely right. There has to be a balanced discussion.

McIntosh took his evidence before we had even had the experience of the 1999 elections. Much has changed since then. In evidence, the Local Government Committee heard that, of the 25 councils that responded to the second consultation on the issue, 21 now support coincident elections. That is different from the situation when McIntosh took his evidence in 1998.

Tricia Marwick claimed that local government would not feature if elections were coincident; she felt that local government would be ignored, but no one has presented any evidence to justify that claim. The committee heard no evidence to back it up.

Does Iain Smith agree that, in the 1999 joint elections, the propaganda issued by the Scottish Office did not even mention the local government elections? How much more evidence does he need?

That is not evidence that electors did not take account of local factors when voting in the local government elections. There is clear evidence that people voted differently in the different elections that took place at the same time.

In written evidence on the draft bill to the Local Government Committee, John Curtice wrote:

"According to the 1999 Scottish Parliamentary Election Study/Scottish Social Attitudes survey, 28% of those who turned out in 1999 voted for a candidate of a different party in the local election than the one they supported with their first vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election."

A total of 28 per cent—more than one in four voters—voted differently in the local elections from how they voted in the Scottish Parliament elections. That does not suggest to me that people were not taking account of local factors.

Does the member agree that the results in 1999 in Morayshire and Perthshire indicated exactly what he is suggesting, and that that is precisely why the SNP opposes the bill?

Mr Stone has anticipated my next point. If we consider the evidence in many areas, we see that electors did indeed take account of local factors. They kicked out of office councils that they considered to be bad—such as those in Perth and Kinross and in Moray—but voted differently in the Scottish Parliament elections. There is also significant evidence from local elections in England and Wales, which quite often coincide with UK general elections, that people vote differently in the two elections and take account of local factors.

Another point is this: if local government elections had been held mid-term, they would have coincided with the UK general election. The chances are that that would happen often, because the UK elections now tend to be on a four-year cycle, even though they do not have to be.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry—I am in injury time.

It is important to bear in mind the fact that it does not really matter whether local elections are at the same time as the general election or at a different time, because national coverage of local elections is abysmal at any time. Local elections do not get the coverage they deserve. It is local campaigning that makes a difference to results in local elections. In local elections, our party will continue to campaign vigorously on local issues, irrespective of whether the elections coincide or not. Other parties may choose to do things differently, but our party believes strongly in fighting local elections.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am just about to finish.

I welcome the changes that were made to the draft bill in relation to extraordinary general elections. An important point, which justifies the limited power that remains for ministers to coincide elections within a strict period, is that evidence suggests that when local elections are held shortly after a general election, the turnout is extremely low. That was the experience in 1992 when the district council elections were held one month after the general election.

I welcome the proposed pilot schemes. It is important that we examine the rules for Scottish local government elections to try to ensure that, wherever possible, they are exactly the same as the rules for Scottish Parliament elections. Several issues need to be addressed, such as bringing the local elections into line with the Representation of the People Act 2000, which affects the Scottish Parliament elections. We need to work with the Scotland Office to ensure that, if the experiments and pilots for local elections are positive, it will consider allowing such pilots for the Scottish Parliament elections. Tricia Marwick's comments on that point are most valid.

We move to open debate.

As members know, the Local Government Committee is the lead committee on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. Our scrutiny has been wide-ranging—consultations have been held with local councils, returning officers and others. The committee heard from several witnesses and received what appeared to be mountains of written evidence.

There was unanimous support for an extension to a four-year term for councils. There was also support for the pilot schemes, albeit with some serious reservations. However, the committee had to put to a vote the question on synchronised elections—a rare event for the Local Government Committee. There were considerable differences of opinion and powerful arguments were made both for and against synchronising elections. Some of the arguments in favour, such as evidence of a high turnout, have already been noted. The arguments against synchronising elections include the possibility that the electorate would vote on national rather than local issues, and that the level of interest in local issues would be lost, which would contribute to, rather than alleviate, a democratic deficit. However, there was also conflicting evidence to suggest that no matter when local elections are held, a certain number of people will vote on national issues anyway.

I cannot agree with those people who say that the Executive's bill is an attempt to hide local government's record and to save the Executive from embarrassing local election results before we go to the polls for the Scottish Parliament elections. That is absolute nonsense and is not what the bill is all about. I am prepared to shout from the rooftops about the good practice in local government and to engage with those councils that are perhaps a little slower in modernising their practices and procedures. All the councils have signed up to the modernising government agenda—some of them are doing it more quickly than others.

We had 18 years of a Tory Government that was totally opposed to delivery of services at local level. In 1995, the Tories reorganised local government and, because of the success of bodies such as Strathclyde Regional Council, which filled the Tories with fear, they resorted to some gerrymandering, which in the end did them no good whatsoever.

We are dealing with a mature electorate who can make two clear judgments on the same day. As Iain Smith said, there is evidence from the 1999 elections to prove that. To say that the electors are not capable of that distinction is sheer arrogance. However, I agree with Tricia Marwick that we must be sure that all the information that is given to electors reminds them that they have three votes, not two. That point was made very clear in the committee's scrutiny and we will continue to pursue it.

The provision that relates to extraordinary elections should not have been in the bill in the way that it was. The minister has addressed that.

On the flow of information, does the member agree that by 2007 there should also be clear information on the three different voting systems that will be applied?

Electors should be given all the information that they need. There is no doubt that there was a grave error in the run-up to the 1999 elections, when people were told that there were two votes rather than three.

We must examine ways and means of encouraging higher voter turnout. We should do everything in our power to encourage voting at all elections. A more productive approach might be to examine the way that legislatures and councils relate and involve voters every day, rather than just on polling day. However, that is not for this bill, and neither is PR. This is a bill about administration, not systems.

I have a question for the minister, which has been asked already. If we have a pilot scheme to allow voting for a council election to take place in, for example, Safeway, we must not then ask those who wish to vote in the Scottish Parliament election on the same day to go to their local school. That would be absolute nonsense.

Another problem is that the next elections in 2003 will take place on a bank holiday weekend. Most vote counters are bank workers. With my trade union hat on, if I had to work on a holiday, I would fight for double time. That is fair enough. If there is a significant extra cost to councils, the Executive should pay that cost, given that this is an Executive bill. The other question that has to be answered is when the votes will be counted. Again, that may mean extra work.

The Local Government Committee has been assured that all the administrative difficulties can be overcome, but I am sure that there will be amendments at stage 2. In the meantime, I support the bill and I urge Parliament to support its general principles.

If members keep to four minutes, I will be able to get everyone in.

This afternoon we will be asked to rubber-stamp our new First Minister—a First Minister given a shoo-in with the help of his friends in the Liberal Democrats, and for what? A promise to make progress on progress on PR. If the Liberal Democrats were serious, they would have had PR included in the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. What price democracy?

This morning, we are being asked to vote on synchronised elections for local government. That would undermine local government, and greatly diminish the local issues at the heart of our local government democracy. Once again, the bill will be pushed through with the help of Labour's little helpers, the Liberal Democrats.

Can Sandra White tell us in which years the next two sets of Scottish local government elections would take place, under her proposals?

Certainly. I was going to clarify that. We would do the same as the Welsh Assembly, and put back the local government elections to 2004 or else hold them in 2002. Does that satisfy Hugh Henry? We certainly would not synchronise local government elections with the Scottish Parliament elections—a proposal that is being desperately pushed through with the help of Labour's Liberal Democrat helpers. I wonder what they got this time. Perhaps it was a new ministerial car.

Let us examine the policies in the bill. The bill proposes a four-year term for councils. That is fine; we agree with the four-year term. As the Deputy Minister for Finance and Local Government said, we need a four-year term to plan ahead and sustain local government. That is vital and welcome.

Pilot schemes to examine new and innovative ways of getting people—particularly disabled people and the disadvantaged—to polling stations have been mentioned. We welcome that. Capability Scotland's briefing paper outlined the need for access for all. But do we need elections to be held on the same day? No, we do not. Many members have mentioned that in their speeches.

Many statistics have been bandied about. Iain Smith mentioned raising the voter turnout figures. In response, I say that the Welsh Assembly has put back local government elections to 2004 to prevent them clashing with the Welsh Assembly elections. Iain Smith should note that.

As I said, we do not need the elections to be held on the same day. As has been said many times, there is a great danger that local government elections will be swamped by national issues. That would not be good for local democracy.

Trish Godman referred to the counting of votes, with which there is a problem. Will counts be done simultaneously? Will they be done on the same day or on different days? Who will do the counting? Will counters be paid overtime? Will we have counter fatigue? We do not know. The minister must answer those questions and answer them quickly.

People will go along to polling stations and have PR for one election, no PR for another, and half-and-half PR for the Scottish Parliament elections. That must be examined. People will wonder what is going on. They may go to the supermarket to vote, but they will have to go somewhere else to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections. That is not clear enough for those people who wish to vote. It will be confusing for everyone.

The Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill will introduce synchronised elections, allegedly with the aim of increasing voter turnout. I do not think that turnout will increase. The best way to increase turnout is to have good government, not to undermine local government.

Presiding Officer, I should read my party's instructions more carefully—I thought that I was closing the debate. That means that my speech, which was prepared in three minutes, might not be as fluent as I would wish. I will do my best—I know that Alasdair Morgan always appreciates that.

As Keith Harding said, we accept parts of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. We have reflected on the issue of three-year terms as opposed to four-year terms and we accept that the three-year term was an error of judgment. The restoration of the original four-year term is therefore an improvement on existing practice. We are happy to support that.

Given that, at times, we are quite a radical party, we are perfectly content to consider the issue of experimenting with pilot schemes for elections. Clearly, there have been legitimate concerns about the turnout for all elections. It is appropriate for us to experiment with voting in different places, in different manners and on different days. Earlier, I was a bit startled by the minister's indication that the pilot schemes would extend only to local government by-elections. Presumably, however, there is an intention that if positive lessons are learned from that, they might be applied in other areas.

However, from the point of view of experimentation and building quickly on the results of that experimentation, it might have been better if we had not had synchronisation of local authority elections. It is clear that, under the intentions of the bill, it will not be possible for a council that experiments successfully with Saturday voting in by-elections to move to Saturday voting as a general principle. In some respects, therefore, the synchronisation of the two elections undermines the scope for experimentation and pilot studies in electoral practice, which is a considerable pity.

I sympathise with the minister's point about enhancing the mandate of local authorities by increasing turnout. Increased turnout is clearly a positive thing. I am not sure that I agree that there is such a thing as an unnaturally enhanced turnout; increased turnout has to be good, however it might happen.

I come from a local authority background; I was a councillor for Kyle and Carrick. During my time there, and subsequently in South Ayrshire, as Dr Murray will know, the area typically had a relatively high turnout in local authority elections. It was normal to find wards where the turnout in local council elections exceeded 50 per cent, and not at all unusual for some wards to exceed 60 per cent, because there was a high level of interest in local activity. Dr Murray is pointing out that she was elected on more than 60 per cent of the vote—I do not know that she got more than 60 per cent of the vote, but there was 60 per cent turnout in her ward.

High turnout is a positive thing—it is something that I find quite natural and it does not worry me politically. From a partisan point of view, we do not regard high turnout in local elections as a disadvantage. Indeed, in the last South Ayrshire Council elections—when there was a relatively higher turnout at the coincident elections—my party advanced from four seats out of 25 to 13 seats out of 30. We are happy to think that the higher turnout brought out more of our vote on that occasion.

It is possible to get high turnout in local authority elections by vigorously contesting the elections on local issues. With all due respect, I am not talking about Perth and Kinross Council and Moray Council—I do not think that the circumstances of those councils are necessarily analogous to those of central Scotland. Their elections are heavily influenced by independent candidates and strongly local issues and not by the sort of partisan politics that are prevalent in the central belt.

The fact that turnout in some areas is low while turnout in other areas is high might be a reflection on the way in which we have all conducted politics in some areas. In the course of the study, it would have been interesting if the Executive could have identified some of the reasons for that.

Is turnout lower in some areas because people think that the result is a foregone conclusion and that there is little point in voting? Does the member agree that, if we introduced proportional representation, people would have a real chance to have a say and therefore turnout would increase?

I accept that there is an argument to be put on that. I find it surprising that the Liberal Democrats' enthusiasm for proportional representation apparently extends until 2007, when they could—if they did not support the bill—introduce a 2005 deadline. If local authority elections were to be held in 2005, the Liberal Democrats would have time to implement the cast-iron guarantee that I understand that they have received from Jack McConnell. I am glad to see mirth from Labour members, because they understand better what is likely to happen.

Does Murray Tosh realise, in his enthusiasm, that if the Conservatives changed their mind on proportional representation, an absolute majority in the Parliament would support PR?

I am afraid that we Conservatives are still too excited about the recent local authority by-election in Aberdeenshire, which we managed to turn largely into a referendum on the local MSP and where we won a seat from the Liberal Democrats, which took away the majority on Aberdeenshire Council.

Go on, Murray.

I risk saying something more personal than I have already, so I had better move on.

My difficulty with the bill stems from my experience of vigorous local elections, which are desirable. I regret the absence of such elections in many local authority areas. I am worried that the bill will, in effect, nationalise local elections, because it will make it much harder to focus on local issues. That is unhealthy for our local democracy.

I thought that we could run with the Kerley and McIntosh proposals and find out the effect of properly timetabled and staggered elections over a reasonable period. The Executive has rushed to judgment on an issue that might have been dealt with better from experience than from the genuine motivation behind the bill—the calculation that parties in power do rather better if they avoid mid-term local elections and have them held on the same day as that on which they hope to win a parliamentary election. That rather undermines our democracy, despite some of the good intentions that the minister evinced. We will oppose the bill.

Before I leave the chair, I will comment on the point of order that Michael Russell raised at the start of today's proceedings, about Iain Duncan Smith's visit to Parliament today.

I have made inquiries. The press notice was issued by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. It does not refer to a press conference, but says that Mr Duncan Smith will be available to speak to the media in the black and white corridor. That is in line with arrangements that have been made for other distinguished visitors to the VIP gallery—especially those who are doing live interviews. Arrangements have been made through the usual channels to ensure that the visit will not interfere with the timing of another event later today.

Mr Russell also talked about reciprocal links with Westminster. We have the openness of the black and white corridor, and Westminster has St Stephen's green. Any Scots leader who goes to Westminster can appear on St Stephen's green too. I hope that that is clear.

On a point of order.

I feared that this would happen.

Will you offer Mr Russell guidance about the continued attendance in the chamber of a member who raises a point of order and expects an answer?

Yes. I shall give Mr Russell a slight slap in that respect.

I thank the Scottish Parliament information centre for its research paper on the bill, which is informative, particularly about the pilots that have been undertaken in England. We can continue to discuss those further.

As members have said, the bill concerns the timing and administration of elections. It does not deal with voting systems. The minister and others have listed the bill's aims, so I will not spend time on those. As has been said, discussion in the Local Government Committee centred on whether elections for local government and for the Scottish Parliament should be synchronised or, if the elections were to be held at alternative times, whether there should be mid-term elections for local government, which have been mostly suggested. I will return to that.

Other discussion has concerned how to ease the administration of the two elections by harmonising election procedures—by aligning legislation, for example—and by deciding on the best way of counting and declaring the results of two elections. The general feeling that I picked up is that, in most areas, that would be done over two days.

I turn now to the evidence. What does the Scottish Executive and local government consultation show? First, there is agreement about the four-year term for local council elections. Secondly, although the Local Government Committee could not reach consensus on the question of synchronised polls, the committee received feedback that 19 out of 25 councils and 18 out of 21 returning officers supported synchronised elections.

The Local Government Committee recognised that strong arguments existed on both sides. Points were made by Keith Harding about McIntosh and mid-term elections. However, as Iain Smith said, and others told us, we also recognised that things have moved on since the McIntosh report.

Keith Harding made a point about Kerley, but I understand that, on balance, Kerley was for synchronised elections. The minister mentioned that, because of increased turnout, synchronised elections would strengthen councils' democratic legitimacy and the evidence for that is clear. Against that view is the great concern, which is the SNP's main argument, that local government issues would be overwhelmed by coverage of parliamentary elections and would become secondary to Scottish Parliament election issues.

It is important that we do not lose sight of one of the statements that was made by Keir Bloomer of Clackmannanshire Council, who made the case for mid-term elections. He also said that the bigger issue was that

"the elected bodies are somehow out of touch with the needs of ordinary people and that politics is failing to address the issues that concern people."

Murray Tosh spoke about issues that are more important than just whether elections should be held on the same day. We have to address those bigger issues.

Another issue that was raised during the committee's discussions was the administration of elections. The minister reported that a working group of Scottish Executive and Scotland Office officials had been set up to examine all aspects of election administration, including publicity. That issue was one of our main concerns, and I quote:

"the Committee would wish to receive more detailed assurances from the Deputy Minister that specific action will be taken to ensure that the electorate receives sufficient information to make voters aware that local government elections are being held on the same day as the Scottish Parliamentary elections."

That is, that three votes are to be cast and not two, as was indicated in the 1999 election, and that message must go out loud and clear. Better publicity is required.

The convener of the Local Government Committee mentioned pilots. Voter confusion may become an issue if the pilots are held for local government elections but not for Scottish Parliament elections. That point was well made. Who will pay for the pilots? The committee is looking for more information on that question.

The member should wind up.

The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers made a point about finance:

"Notwithstanding the current requirement placed on councils to support the administration of elections, consideration should be given to the sizeable drain on councils' finances caused by the cost of staff time over and above the B4 limits."

SOLACE also mentioned the need to provide better facilities at counts and, as I have said, remuneration for staff.

The Equal Opportunities Committee was keen that we include in our report the point about improving accessibility for certain excluded groups. We supported that request. The Equal Opportunities Committee also raised the need for disability awareness training.

The member must now come to a close.

Specific sub-groups must be looked at. We must not simply look at an increase in overall numbers when we examine the question of voter turnout.

I understand what the minister wants to achieve, which is larger turnout for council elections. However, I have serious reservations about the means of achieving that goal. A large turnout tends to benefit the party in power, or the one that is most likely to succeed nationally. On the morning after the count for the Scottish Parliament elections, I was at Paisley town hall at the count for the local government elections. A local Labour convener remarked to me that that was exactly what was anticipated as a result of having coincident elections.

There will, of course, be a day when the SNP will be the top political party and coincident elections will work against the Opposition parties of the day. We should worry about the precedents that we set, because sometimes they come back to haunt us. From that point of view alone, separate elections are a good idea.

In council wards, candidates try to focus public attention on their solutions to housing, social tenants, green belt issues, proposed school closures, holes in the road, lack of police and the siting of dog litter bins. All those issues are of great day-to-day importance to the ordinary people of the country who are trying to get a fair deal and live a decent life, but the local issues are completely overshadowed by national elections and the razzmatazz that goes with them. High-cost advertising, the fevered press speculation of election time and head-to-head television debates all take up public attention.

On Mr Campbell's point about the possibility of parliamentary elections dominating local issues, what does he advocate should happen in a year when a general election coincides with council elections? Would he propose to cancel the council elections?

Council elections traditionally take place on a slightly different date to the general election. A general election is a moveable feast in the United Kingdom. It would be perfectly feasible to structure local authority elections in mid-term for Scottish parliamentary elections. As for the UK elections, in the fullness of time we will not be indulging in those.

Although voters are perfectly capable of distinguishing between their local and national loyalties, which may or may not be the same, the coincidence of national elections with council elections makes the council candidates' task much harder. It is difficult enough for some parties, such as those of our colleagues on the Tory and Lib Dem benches, to find sufficient candidates for council elections without them being forced to compete with, and be almost wholly swamped by, national politics.

For genuinely independent candidates—I do not know many of those, because they do not operate in the west of Scotland—the situation is even worse, because they lack the compensatory elements of joint planning and mutual support of council and national campaigns that are available to political parties. However, the major difficulty lies in information overload—real or imagined—for voters. How often in an election campaign have we heard people complaining that they see politicians only at election time and that they are sick of politics and television? A candidate may be campaigning for their council election, but get zapped with the national election campaign. People are sick of having leaflets put through the door and will not take leaflets on the street because they have had it up to here with two elections.

Separate elections would diminish the overload and encourage the electorate to take a more informed view and focus in a more relaxed way on separate sets of issues. Together with the other suggested measures, they would encourage fuller participation in the democratic process.

When I was first elected to Ross and Cromarty District Council in 1986, it was on a 33 per cent turnout, which was not great. Some would say that it was an awful thing that I ever appeared at all. However, in subsequent elections I managed to sweat it up to about 53 per cent. Despite what Murray Tosh said, in general the turnout for local authority elections in Scotland is deplorable. If anyone tries to defend that as an example of democracy working, they are up a gum tree.

What the SNP is really saying is that it is scared of a high turnout. We saw what happened with the high turnouts in Morayshire and Perth and Kinross. Make no mistake colleagues, that is the agenda on the SNP benches. They are feart. They do not like a proper battle. Quite frankly, anyone who says that a high turnout is not a good thing is barking—the higher the better. As Murray Tosh said, by whichever means we get there, high turnout is a good thing.

We should not get carried away with ourselves. We are talking about a turnout in 1999 of 59 per cent. Does the member accept that, compared with elections in Europe, that is not a high turnout?

It is a whole lot better than turnouts that we have seen in previous years for local authority elections. I have to tell Mr Sheridan that there has been some talk about the independents. In the Highlands, the high turnout was widely welcomed by councillors and candidates alike. The independents did not suffer at all. Nor, for that matter, did the nationalists. It was democracy speaking. I just want to underline that point.

Murray Tosh more or less agreed with what the Lib Dems and Labour are saying in the bill, but he had to say what he said for party political reasons, which I accept. Really, Murray ought to take the plunge and cross over to us. He would have a very happy home here.

I am sure that I would have a happy home wherever I was. I am clearly making the point that I believe in local elections and local government and I want high turnout. However, I believe that local authority elections should, as far as possible, be influenced by and dominated by local issues and local considerations. Most experience to date suggests that we do not get that if we swamp the local authority elections with other parliamentary elections.

That is absolute rubbish and Mr Tosh knows it. It is an insult to the electorate, who are far more intelligent than many members give them credit for. The very fact that people cast their three votes in three different directions—which they most certainly did in the Highlands—shows that they think very carefully. I bet that when Murray Tosh was canvassing in 1999 as a candidate for the Scottish Parliament, he was asked more often on the doorstep about dog litter bins and holes in the pavement than he was about national issues. That is certainly what we tend to get up our way.

What did they campaign on?

Those issues.

Those are their national issues.

I know that this is an exciting debate, but Mr Gibson and Mr Tosh should calm themselves.

Access for disabled people has been mentioned. We all know that, for disabled people, the present situation is not acceptable. We have all seen people who use crutches or a wheelchair trying to get into some of our voting booths. It ain't great. For people who have visual impairments, it is not easy. I have heard people in the booth shouting out, "Which one do I vote for?" "You vote for Jamie Stone," I hope people say, but they do not always say that.

There is still a lot of confusion about postal votes and proxy votes and getting the form in on time. We should look again at those issues. I welcome proposals to modernise voting, but we must not have voting in a supermarket for a council by-election and voting somewhere else for the Scottish Parliament election. That is ridiculous. We must synchronise timing, methods and places of voting.

I wish to speak in favour of the bill. I believe that it reflects the unanimous support of political parties and local authorities for an extension of council terms from three to four years. It meets the McIntosh committee's recommendation that a four-year term would allow councils

"sufficient time to plan effectively, to take measured decisions, to have an effective role in community planning and"—

most important—

"to permit the public to reach a considered judgement upon their performance."

I do not think that anyone in the chamber would quarrel with that, and nor should they.

I acknowledge the fact that Tory and SNP colleagues have concerns about the coincidental nature of local and Scottish Parliament elections that the bill proposes. As someone who has about 14 years' experience as an elected member at local government level, I do not share those concerns.

Agreement obviously could not be reached on the synchronisation of polls. There is a worry that that would lead to local issues being submerged beneath national concerns. As someone who has fought and won five local government contests, I believe that national politics always impinges to some extent on local elections. That is inescapable. Unlike Tricia Marwick, Keith Harding and Colin Campbell, I do not believe that local concerns are ignored. It is my experience that the local and the national are inextricably linked in the minds of most electors, whether the elections are separate or, as is proposed in the bill, coincidental.

I am comforted by the inescapable evidence culled from the 1999 elections. One reason why I support the proposed change is that, as Jamie Stone said, after years of decline in voter turnout, from 1974 to 1999, the trend has been reversed. That can only be a good thing. Although 44.9 per cent of electors cast their votes in 1995, the figure rose to 58.5 per cent in 1999. To say that that is bad for democracy is unacceptable—the opposite is the case. However, Tommy Sheridan is right to say that turnout is not high enough. All parties must try by all possible means to ensure that the decline in voting is reversed; that should be the aim of all members.

Bill Butler wants to increase turnout. Could that be achieved by introducing proportional representation? That would ensure that every council ward is likely to be contested in Scotland. At the previous elections, 59 wards had only one candidate.

I will answer Kenneth Gibson's question, although the bill is about administration rather than electoral systems. There is evidence of low turnout and high turnout both in PR elections and in first-past-the-post elections. That is an interesting debate and is still to be had. I will fight my corner in my party on the question, as will others. The process will continue and we will make progress towards electoral reform, as the coalition has agreed.

Some say that voters cannot distinguish between elections when they cast their votes—that is a worry. Professor John Curtice gave useful evidence to the Local Government Committee. He said:

"According to survey data, 28 per cent of people voted differently in the local elections from how they voted in the Scottish Parliament election, so voters do not necessarily vote in the same way in local elections as they do in parliamentary elections.—[Official Report, Local Government Committee, 8 May 2001; c 1897.]

The bill will help rather than hinder the drive towards broader voter participation and is therefore worthy of support by all parties.

Councillors who were elected in May 1999 were elected for a three-year term and were given a three-year rather than a four-year democratic mandate. It is anti-democratic to propose to change that.

There are all sorts of joint boards in which cosy deals—particularly between the Executive parties—have been entered into. The chairmen of those boards have rotated after 18 months. Those deals have had to be unpicked and changed as a result of the bill. Such arrangements are fundamentally undemocratic.

Hugh Henry said that, if there are to be mid-term Scottish council elections rather than council elections that coincide with Scottish Parliament elections, we need to find a mechanism for that. That is a perfectly legitimate point and the problem is not insurmountable. We can deal with that for the future rather than retrospectively change the mandate of councillors who were elected for three years.

We seem to have skated over the technical problems that arose at the May 1999 elections. The Local Government Committee has considered those problems and will undoubtedly continue to do so. The problem does not simply relate to whether people were aware that they had three votes or knew which boxes they were supposed to put their votes in; there was the shambles of the count. The fact that the count for the local authority elections was put off until the next day indicated to the local authority councillors that they were much less important. It suggested that we did not need to know the local election results; we needed to know the Scottish Parliament election results. There was a shambles throughout Scotland that day and I am not confident that we will not see such a shambles again if we continue to hold local and national elections at the same time. Local council elections are devalued by being held at the same time as Scottish Parliament elections.

Some say that local elections are held nationally anyway and that 28 per cent of people voted differently in the local and national elections. However, there is a range of candidates under different labels at local elections as opposed to at national elections. It is not surprising that there are different outcomes, particularly in the area where Jamie Stone used to be a councillor and is now an MSP. The number of independents standing in parliamentary elections is not significant. We have not unpicked the 28 per cent to find out whether the votes for independents in local elections contributed significantly to that figure. Elections in rural areas are not primarily fought on party-political grounds.

There is a range of issues. There is a fundamentally undemocratic approach. If someone has been given a mandate, they should adhere to that mandate. There might be technical problems in making the change. No one is suggesting that we should retain the three-year arrangement in perpetuity. If we have to have two elections at three-year intervals in order to get a mid-term arrangement, so be it. We do not have to have the election at the mid-point—

Will the member give way?

The member is winding up.

The local coverage that was given to the elections in 1999 bore no relation to local council issues. In my area, what was going to happen at Holyrood was covered. In 1999, there was no proper public debate about the stewardship of councillors, in terms of their individual wards and the parties that were running local councils. If we have joint elections permanently, such debate will be totally subsumed. That is anti-democratic.

A number of comments have been made, particularly by the minister, about pilot schemes for elections. I cannot resist the temptation of suggesting that the Labour party should examine those schemes and have some internal elections. I am sure that that would be good for democracy.

The problem with the bill is that it has the new Labour imprint; it is unfortunate that it appears to have the new Liberal imprint as well. I am not surprised that none of the new Labour members has referred to the policy memorandum, which makes a remarkable statement. It says:

"From the voter's perspective, combining Parliamentary and local government elections will result in being asked to vote less frequently and therefore will have a positive impact on voter attitudes."

So there we have it: if we ask people to vote less frequently, they will be more positively inclined towards elections. Obviously, that is what the Scottish Labour party has tried when choosing its past three leaders. The problem is that, rather than having any positive impact, that approach has resulted in the loss of about 30,000 members.

Is Tommy Sheridan arguing that a mandate of 44.9 per cent, as in 1995, is better than a mandate of 59.8 per cent?

Not at all. I am arguing, as I hope we all are, that we should try to improve voter turnout at all elections. I am against the big bang theory that says that we should just have one big election, but that is what we are moving towards. Indeed, recent stories in the press make me think that, if new Labour gets its way, we will have just one newspaper.

If we want to renew democracy, we need positive proposals. Where is the proposal for allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote? Where is the proposal for automatic voter registration? Where is the proposal for guaranteed transport to the polling station for the elderly and infirm? Where is the proposal for mandatory hustings in every electoral ward? Indeed, where is the proposal for proportional representation? One of the factors that led to the higher turnout in 1999 has been missed, even though it was one of the most significant features of the election: proportional representation made people believe that their vote counted. That is what is required.

Does the member agree that turnout for the Scottish Parliament election was lower than the turnout for the 2001 Westminster election? That is a fact.

The fact is that people thought that the 1999 election was more relevant to them and felt that they had the extra choice. They knew that, because their votes counted, it would be better to use them.

Trish Godman did not mention the reports that the Liberal Democrats have, with much gnashing of teeth and banging on desks, squeezed out of Labour the assurance that, by 2007, there will be PR in local government elections. If what we are being told is true, three different electoral systems will be used on the one day. It is not one big vote that is going to renew democracy in those elections; it is one big vote done in three different ways.

I assume that Mr Rumbles wants to tell us about the deal.

Not at all.

Mr Sheridan is underestimating the intelligence of the voters. In my constituency, people voted Liberal Democrat for their local MSP, Conservative on the list and in many cases for independent councillors. The electorate are not stupid; they can cope with different systems.

Absolutely. They can cope with different systems and different elections. We want local government elections that are dominated by local government issues. We want the main issue to be the record of the achievements, or underachievements, of local authorities. The idea that gathering all the elections together in one big vote is good for democracy is nonsense. We must improve local government democracy by ensuring that people are aware of local government issues. We should give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and enable people to vote in different places, for example. Those improvements do not require synchronised voting. It is from that point of view that I believe the bill does not deserve to be supported.

I will deal with an issue that Bill Butler mentioned briefly but that no other members have discussed. The assumption is that, if local elections are held midway through a parliamentary term, the electors will focus on local issues and vote accordingly. Experience shows that that is not true.

Members who took part in the local elections in 1982, which coincided with the Falklands campaign, will know that Conservative support increased daily because of the popularity of Mrs Thatcher, jingoism and all that, which had nothing to do with the local council.

The English have had repeated experience of council elections being held midway through a parliamentary term when the Government—whether the Prime Minister was Mr Wilson, Mr Callaghan or Mrs Thatcher—has been deeply unpopular and a raft of competent councillors from the Government party have been knocked out because the people voted on national issues. Whether we like it or not, national issues are the main points in many voters' minds. If the only election that is taking place is a local election, the way that voters can express their disgust with Mrs Thatcher or whomever—it may be Mr Blair in the future—is to vote down the people of the same party in the local election.

Experience has shown that, when the two elections are held together, people are more able to distinguish between them. In Moray and in Perth and Kinross there were, for various reasons, very unpopular local councils. The councillors were driven out in large numbers but the MSP from the same party did quite well. People can distinguish between the elections.

In Edinburgh South, the Liberal Democrats came third in the parliamentary election, but won the local election. From the votes cast, we won five of the 10 wards. People are capable of distinguishing between the two elections; they are more capable of doing so when they can cast their national vote on national issues in the national election and are then free to consider whether to vote for the nice man or woman who is the local councillor or for a group that has a good idea about dealing with lampposts or whatever.

Contrary to the received wisdom—which many in my party share, along with McIntosh, Kerley and others—that synchronised elections reduce interest in the local government content, I think that they encourage greater interest.

Can we assume from those comments that Donald Gorrie no longer agrees that

"The council elections should be midway between the Scottish Parliament elections"?

That was the statement that Mr Gorrie made to the McIntosh committee before it made a decision on the matter. Perhaps he could enlighten us on that, as it seems to be hypocrisy run wild.

I learn from experience.

Ah!

Well, if the Tories do not learn from experience, they are a unique force in politics. They oppose a Parliament and a voting system that are the only reasons for their being here at all. I have never met such an issue in my life.

The Executive must give serious attention to the publicity for the local elections and ensure that there is every opportunity for those elections to be covered by the local and national media. That was badly done in the past but, where there is a fair playing field, local activity by councillors and candidates can encourage concentration on the local issues.

I do not know what happens in other parties but, in the Liberal Democrats, candidates for Parliament and for councils talk to each other. They can share leaflets and campaign jointly on the issues that are national and local. The arguments against having local elections on the same day as Scottish Parliament elections are misplaced although, I am sure, strongly felt. We should support the bill.

The minister said in his opening speech:

"The bill is short but important for Scottish local government."

It is certainly short. It is also important, but the degree of importance that the Executive has attached to it is conditioned more by Labour's electoral chances than by any democratic principle.

Aspects of the bill have some merit. The four-year term is one. However, as my colleagues Keith Harding and Murray Tosh have pointed out, that, too, has more to do with Labour's electoral chances than with any democratic principle. Labour is running scared on the basis of recent by-election results.

We must consider various ways in which to make our voting system friendlier. When the minister gave his rather doleful description of polling in the north of Scotland, one could almost feel the mirk and the chill descending from the hills. Although the situation in Glasgow, for example, is less daunting, polling there is hardly the social occasion of the year, I fully concede. There is therefore some merit in considering ways in which we can make voting easier.

However, some of the suggestions that have been made do not have much credibility. The supermarket, the bookie's and the pub have been suggested. What next? We could be voting by phone, but one of the Labour members would have to be reminded that she could do so only once. There might be concern about that, too.

Of course, some important issues have been raised. Tricia Marwick was the first to say—correctly—that there is a danger that local issues will become subsumed by the national political climate of the time. That is regrettable. However, it is not correct to say, as Bill Butler did, that the situation is inescapable. As the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated, there are differences in electors' political views at national elections and at local elections. That is good and should be encouraged. Those involved in local government should be able to stand in splendid isolation and should be accountable to their electorate on the basis of their personal record and commitment to their constituencies—those are important principles of democracy.

It is surprising indeed that the Labour party should simply fly in the face of the recommendations made by Kerley and McIntosh on the timing of elections. Of course, political expediency has to a great extent overruled principle. That creates the ideal climate for the machine politician to flourish. At a time when the Labour party is increasingly becoming the subject of accusations of cronyism and is attempting to maintain an unsatisfactory and unacceptable status quo, it is regrettable that it should seek to create such a climate. Local government is very important.

There are also practical difficulties in holding coinciding elections. The counts last year, despite the best efforts of those involved, were a shambles in many areas. People from Edinburgh will have a particular recollection of that. We must examine the system in much greater detail.

It is indeed unfortunate that the Labour party and its happy little helpers—the Liberal Democrats—should be seeking to introduce a measure that goes against principles that they have expounded time and again. This is not a good day for democracy.

The bill is a missed opportunity. As McIntosh suggested, local government elections should be held at the mid-point between Scottish Parliament elections, with the current three-year cycle changing to a four-year one from 2005. Elections scheduled for next year should go ahead to ensure that voters have an opportunity to vote not on national issues, but on local ones.

We understand that the majority of councils have said that they want a delay to the elections that are due to be held in 2003, but turkeys do not necessarily want an early Christmas and, of course, most of those councils are Lib-Lab local authorities.

Tricia Marwick mentioned that, in 1999, Scottish voters were told of the two Scottish parliamentary ballots but not of the council ballots. Indeed, this year the farce was intensified, as Scottish voters heard from television adverts that there were going to be council elections this year, whereas in fact the adverts were referring to English council elections. That shows how abysmal advice to the public has been; it also shows how important it is that we in Scotland have control over broadcasting in this country.

The consultation on the bill was announced in a reply to a written question—before that question had been published—on the day of the Anniesland by-election and after that day's close of parliamentary business. I do not believe that the consultation has been as genuine, open and alive as the minister said it was in evidence to the Local Government Committee.

One issue that has not been talked about—although Tommy Sheridan touched on it—is the habit of voting. In many countries in Europe—in fact, in almost all countries in Europe—people vote more frequently than people in this country do. They also have greater turnouts and PR. There is a habit of voting whereby people get used to voting every year or every second year. However, if we put all our eggs into one basket and have an election once in a blue moon, people are turned off by voting and do not believe that their votes count.

The member will be aware that a large number of English local authorities have elections in a third of their electoral wards each year. The evidence from those areas is that turnout is falling even more dramatically than it is in Scotland—it is down to less than 20 per cent in some places.

Perhaps PR is the solution, so it is regrettable that Iain Smith's party distances itself from that.

I take issue with paragraph 22 of the Local Government Committee's 14th report in 2001, which states:

"while the McIntosh report favoured mid-term elections, the Kerley report, on balance, called for local government elections to be held on the same day as those for the Scottish Parliament."

Sylvia Jackson reiterated that point. In fact, the Kerley report did nothing of the sort. Paragraph 100 of the Kerley report, which Tricia Marwick referred to, states:

"higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government: it would not bring additional voters to the polls because of their involvement in local government issues. 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."

The report was produced by an all-party working group, the majority of whose members were, I understand, Labour party or former Labour party members. Liberal members did not dissent from that view so I wonder what has changed their minds since the report was published.

The bill is not about strengthening local government, as Peter Peacock claimed. He should have been honest: it is about strengthening the Liberal and Labour parties in local government. The Labour and Liberal parties have undergone a road-to-Damascus change in attitude on the issue. I remember, as will Tommy Sheridan and Bill Aitken, that all parties in Glasgow City Council supported holding elections on separate days. The change came about because the Labour party thinks it can gain an advantage.

That scion of the Labour movement and well-known conviction politician, Peter Peacock, has contempt for Labour and Liberal voters. He obviously believes that they are not committed to local government and are less likely to get out of their scratchers to vote—which disadvantages the electoral prospects of the coalition parties—unless council elections are tagged on to parliamentary elections. I do not share the contempt shown by Peter Peacock and the Liberal and Labour parties towards Labour and Liberal voters, who I believe are just as likely to come out to vote regardless of when the election is held. People are more likely to vote if the negative, victory-of-fear-over-hope style of the 1999 campaign is not repeated.

Of course, when the Liberals made their submission to the McIntosh commission, they did not advocate waiting until the experience of the 1999 elections. I wonder what other recommendations of the McIntosh commission, apart from those relating to PR, they have distanced themselves from. I say to Donald Gorrie that, if he intends to wind up for the Liberal Democrats in a debate as important as this one, it would help if he turned up for more than 10 minutes of that debate.

A number of important issues have been touched on. Sandra White talked about improving access for disabled people.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether I heard the member correctly, but I point out that I have been in the chamber throughout the debate.

So speaks the invisible man. None of us managed to see him.

Colin Campbell argued that mid-term elections, rather than coincident local government and Scottish Parliament elections, would maximise turnout. We agree with him.

I am sorry that my old sparring partner Frank McAveety was unable to attend this morning's debate.

Are you sure that he is not here?

No doubt he is busy pledging himself in turn to each of this afternoon's candidates for the office of First Minister.

This has been a useful and, for the most part, interesting debate. I am grateful to members for the strong support that they have expressed for at least two of the major principles of the bill, the first of which is the four-year term of office for councillors. Murray Tosh recognised that it was a mistake to introduce the current three-year term, and I am glad that we are in a position to rectify that.

I am also grateful to members for their support for the pilot schemes that are proposed and for the principle that we should be able to experiment with how elections are conducted in order to encourage greater participation in the electoral process.

A number of members—Iain Smith, Trish Godman, Tricia Marwick and Murray Tosh—suggested that, 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 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, but no doubt in due course provisions can be enacted that will address the concerns that members have raised. The point that Murray Tosh made about elections over a longer period can also be addressed in that context.

I accept that there is a difference of view on the merits of coincident elections. As Iain Smith said, we need to make a balanced judgment about what best serves local democracy. The Executive is clearly of the view that local democracy is best served by coincident local government and Scottish Parliament elections. A number of members referred to the McIntosh commission's recommendation that there should be mid-term elections. However, the McIntosh commission took its evidence prior to the experience of the 1999 elections. As Donald Gorrie said, we should all learn from that experience. Before the 1999 elections, I had reservations about coincident elections. However, the evidence suggests that the practice was a great success and that it resulted in increased turnout. We want to build on that success in the way that I have described.

I want to deal with a number of other points that members made. Keith Harding and Tricia Marwick suggested that, if there were coincident local government and Scottish Parliament elections, local government elections would be swamped by national issues. Trish Godman raised the same issue, but in a different sense. I do not agree that local government elections will become a sideshow if they are held at the same time as Scottish Parliament elections. Far from local issues being hidden from the electorate, on a day when the turnout will be higher than would otherwise be the case, more people will have a chance to vote on their council's performance.

As Donald Gorrie and Bill Butler pointed out, all the evidence suggests that local elections are used by political parties and by commentators to pass judgments on national, rather than local, issues. That is an indisputable fact. Leaflets that I suspect all political parties have produced for local elections have referred to national issues. Commentators and parties invite members of the public to cast their votes as part of a referendum on the Government of the day.

Before I give way to Murray Tosh, I should point out that he himself revealed the problem. He illustrated what happened recently in Aberdeenshire, where the Conservative party sought to turn the local election into what he described as a referendum on the local MSP. That proves the point that local elections are often about national issues, rather than local issues.

I confess that my jibe at Mr Rumbles was somewhat facetious. It turns out that he was not the local MSP after all.

I understand absolutely, and accept, that many electors often see local elections as an opportunity to pass a verdict on national politics and politicians. Nevertheless, in purely local elections, it is far easier to focus on local issues, personalities and records and to get voters to treat those local issues as determining factors that will at least influence the way in which they cast their votes.

I simply do not agree with Murray Tosh and I do not think that the evidence supports his point of view. Members of all political parties have hijacked local issues in order to pass judgment on national issues. The merit of holding elections on the same day is that the issues cannot be hijacked to the same extent. In those circumstances, people will know that they will have three votes for two elections. They will be able to distinguish between those issues that are truly attributable to the national politicians and to cast their votes accordingly. Equally, they will be able to attribute those issues that are down to local politicians and again cast their vote accordingly. The bill provides people with an opportunity to separate out and judge better the two tiers of government, rather than hiding one tier within the other. A number of members have said that the bill is an advance on the status quo. Voters demonstrate time and again that they can make those distinctions and vote in different ways. Bill Butler indicated that about 28 per cent of people did so at the previous election.

Surely people have to make different choices. In the most recent local government elections, there was no SNP candidate in 165 wards, no Labour candidate in 262 wards, no Conservative candidate in 499 wards and no Liberal Democrat candidate in 612 wards. Surely there must be a difference in the percentages between parliamentary and local government election simply because political parties do not contest all the wards.

Kenneth Gibson's point has some validity. Nonetheless, he did not disprove my argument. The researchers' evidence is that people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the democratically elected tiers of government in elections that are held on the same day and of casting their votes accordingly.

The second argument that members made—Tricia Marwick introduced it—is that somehow turnout for local elections is made artificially high if those elections are held on the same day as parliamentary elections. I do not accept that argument. It is a fact that a higher turnout is achieved in those circumstances, but what is the alternative? Do we really want to stick to holding council and parliamentary elections on different days? All the evidence shows that the turnout for council elections would be lower than the turnout for parliamentary elections if those elections were held on a different day. How would that serve local democracy?

People—perhaps even MSPs—would say that the Parliament is more legitimate because parliamentary elections attracted a higher turnout than the council elections did. That does not serve local democracy at all and it does not make councils more legitimate. That is why the Labour party and I, in partnership with our Liberal Democrat colleagues, are committed to making the measure work. We believe that it is the right step to take to improve quality and legitimacy.

A number of members, including Tricia Marwick, Trish Godman, Sylvia Jackson and Donald Gorrie, rightly pointed to the difficulty that was encountered with the publicity about the 1999 election. I both understand and support that point. We must improve co-ordination between the Scotland Office and the Executive on that important issue in order to ensure that, come the next election, people are clearly informed about which elections are taking place and how many votes they have in the Scottish Parliament election and in the council election. The Executive is working with the Scotland Office, the Electoral Commission and returning officers to plan much more effectively for the future and to overcome that problem. I want our advertising to make it clear that people will have three votes in two elections. I am committed to making that happen and I have instructed our officials to ensure that they argue that point of view within the working groups.

I want briefly to touch on other points that members raised during the debate. The administrative issue of counting votes was raised. I advise Sandra White and Brian Adam that the system worked in 1999, although there were undoubtedly teething problems. The returning officers and the staff involved have learned from those problems and are confident that they can undertake the counts more effectively in future. I have complete confidence in their ability to do so. I do not think that the issue is particularly worrying.

It is time for me to conclude. As Bill Aitken and I indicated, the bill is short but significant. It is designed to strengthen local government, to give it more stability to do its job and, above all, to strengthen its democratic legitimacy. The bill is part of the Administration's commitment to local government, which is a key partner in delivering for Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament.