Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007 (Draft)
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5454, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007 be approved.—[Ms Margaret Curran.]
The opportunity to discuss the local government election rules is welcome. They are of course important, particularly this year, because they provide the details of the administrative processes that are involved in running a local government election. The forthcoming local government elections will be different. As members know, a new system of election by the single transferable vote will be introduced and we will for the first time count votes by electronic means.
The bulk of the rules deal with administrative steps that must be taken in the run-up to the election. The rules cover issues such as the timetable that is to be followed, the procedures that govern nomination, actions that are to be taken before the poll and the procedure at the poll. Much of that is broadly similar to what happened at the 2003 elections.
The biggest changes relate to the method of voting and the method of counting the votes, which are substantially different. The new voting system is the key change. I am pleased to confirm to Parliament that we will use the weighted inclusive Gregory system, in line with the recommendations of the Local Government and Transport Committee as far back as 2004.
As members know, the ballot paper's shape was the subject of some discussion. We took the unusual step of presenting two options to the Local Government and Transport Committee. One option, in which candidates were blocked by party, was based on independent research about what would make the paper easier for the public to understand. We had a fairly full discussion at a committee meeting and the committee recommended that we retain alphabetical listing of candidates. I am disappointed that the committee could not accept the findings of the research, but I am pleased to confirm that its recommendations have been incorporated into the order.
As members would expect, preparation for the elections has involved a great deal of work. Officials have spent a considerable amount of time preparing for an entirely new set of circumstances. Further orders will be produced in the next few weeks, but for the moment I commend the order to the Parliament.
I welcome the fact that, at last, we are debating the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007. It is a pity that we did not manage to get the order before the Parliament in October, as was originally envisaged. It is a pity that it has taken this long to get to this stage.
As the minister said, two debates on the issue have been held at the Local Government and Transport Committee. Reading through the Official Report of the committee's deliberations in December, it is clear that not the best tempered of discussions took place over the design of the ballot paper. I do not want to dwell too much on the outcome of that.
Oh, go on.
Okay then. The Labour Party suffered an embarrassing reversal on the issue. I welcome the committee's decision to reject the minister's original proposals for the design of the ballot paper. That has led to common sense winning the day and to the revised proposals that are before us today. I leave the last word on this point to the Electoral Reform Society. It said, in its letter of 29 November:
"We recognise the importance of parties and the part they will play in election campaigns, but believe the ballot paper should re-affirm that candidates rather than parties stand for election."
That is an important principle, and it is one that we support.
As a matter of principle, will the member be prepared to stand simply as Bruce Crawford, with no party designation, when he stands for election in a few weeks' time?
The minister is twisting the argument that was put forward by the Electoral Reform Society.
As I am an independent member, I have a particular interest in the matter. I do not speak for anyone else, but people to whom I have spoken who want to stand as independent candidates believe that they are at a disadvantage because the only description of them on the ballot paper is their name. They are not allowed an emblem or a photograph on the ballot paper. I am interested to hear what the Scottish National Party has to say about that.
I am sure that if Margo MacDonald wants to put on the ballot form, "Margo MacDonald, the Champion of Edinburgh"—which she has obviously been in the chamber this afternoon—she can feel free to do so.
Is the minister aware of the plethora of potential differences in practice that are being considered by returning officers throughout Scotland for the holding of counts? I am told that some returning officers will scan all the papers together as soon as they are received from polling places to avoid a manual rummage of the local government boxes, process the Scottish Parliament results and then continue straight on to the local government count. Other reporting officers will scan all the papers together as soon as they are received from polling places, process the Scottish Parliament results overnight, take a break and then start to take the remainder of the local government count at some point on the Friday—probably mid-morning. For spatial and logistical reasons, yet other returning officers will scan the Scottish Parliament papers only, undertake a manual rummage of the local government boxes, count the Scottish Parliament papers overnight, take a break and then start to count the local government papers on the Friday morning. I accept the fact that it is for returning officers to make appropriate arrangements.
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I do that, presiding officer?
Very briefly.
I appreciate the points the member is making. Guidance will be offered to returning officers and we will indicate a preference that the counts follow on one from the other, wherever that is practicable. Ultimately, the decision is for the returning officer, but the guidance will encourage as much consistency in practice throughout Scotland as is possible.
If Margo MacDonald could get her photograph on the ballot paper, I would be minded to do my best, as that would add an interesting dimension to the election.
I appreciate the fact that the minister has confirmed exactly what I was going to ask—that guidance will be provided from the centre. That is comforting.
I am concerned about the potential impact of local government ballot papers for the same council ending up in different count locations. Candidates and counting agents must be able to ensure that the process is accurate. It is inevitable that some local government ballot papers will find their way into Scottish Parliament ballot boxes and be taken to a different count centre, given that some councils intend to count ballot papers for the two elections in different places. In those circumstances, how will the minister ensure that there is proper scrutiny by counting agents?
I have other questions but, given the lack of time, I will deal with them in correspondence with the minister.
I call David Davidson to open for the Conservatives.
David McLetchie will open for us.
That is not what my script says. I apologise, Mr McLetchie.
That is quite all right, Presiding Officer.
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, although in many ways I regret the necessity for it. The order that we are discussing will implement a flawed system of election to our councils and will sweep away a system of representation that has served Scotland well at local level.
I value the contribution that Scotland's councillors make to local government and their service to the communities they represent. In my experience, irrespective of party, councillors genuinely seek to represent everyone in their community to the best of their abilities. I know how much they value the councillor-ward link and their ability to get to know the people, organisations and communities that lie within their relatively small wards.
Will the member give way?
I will in a second.
We are moving to a situation in which councillors in our cities will, on a multimember basis, be responsible for representing between 18,000 and 25,000 people. I fear that the consequence of that move will be to sweep away the intimacy of the relationship between the elected councillor and the local community that is one of the strengths of the system.
Does the member realise that some multimember constituencies exist in England and Wales, albeit that the elections are not by means of the single transferable vote? Does he think that the people who live in such council areas have less representation because of that? Has the link between member and ward been lost in those areas, where wards may have three or four members?
Yes, I am aware that multimember wards exist in some councils in England, but I do not think that that is a perfect system of representation. I am surprised that the Scottish National Party should hail England as a model for representation in Scotland. The SNP does not usually call on English models in aid of its arguments.
The second reason why I voice some regret at the necessity to discuss the order is that, in my opinion, we should not hold elections to our councils at the same time as we elect a new Scottish Parliament. That point would hold true irrespective of the voting system for council elections. Personally, I believe that council elections and Parliament elections should take place on separate days so that appropriate attention is given to both elections and so that the parliamentary elections do not bury the appropriate discussion of local issues that would occur in communities if the elections were separated.
I note with interest that the Arbuthnott commission—virtually all its recommendations seem to have been rejected by the Government—recommended a separation of Scottish Parliament and local council elections. Such a separation would be a particularly good idea in the context of the elaborate new voting system that we are introducing for the local government elections on 3 May. The new system will be a recipe for confusion and for a mountain of spoiled ballot papers.
Regarding some of the details, I was somewhat alarmed to learn at this week's meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee that the counts for the Scottish Parliament elections—apparently, the Scottish Parliament count will precede the local government one—may be even slower under the electronic system than they are under the current manual system. It would appear that most of us will have a long night on 3 May.
I am interested in the minister's reference to the "independent research" on the form of the ballot paper. That subject excited much debate in the Local Government and Transport Committee. The examination of the proposition showed that the methodology behind the research was surprising, if not flawed. It was based on showing people a ballot paper on which there were no fewer than 14 candidates' names. I notice that no fewer than 10 candidates are listed on form 4, the sample ballot paper that is annexed to the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007.
I wager Mr McCabe and others that there will be 10 candidates in barely one ward in Scotland, whether it be a three or a four-member ward. The optimum number of candidates will be approximately five in a three-member ward and six or seven in a four-member ward. Research that suggests that people will have to look at lengthy lists of 10 or 14 candidates is fundamentally flawed, and the committee's decision on the appropriate form of the ballot paper is undoubtedly correct.
I urge Parliament to support the Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007 at decision time. The order is the logical consequence of the decision that we took earlier in the session to change our voting system and to move away from the discredited first-past-the-post system that was designed for 19th century politics to a fair voting system that is designed for a modern 21st century Parliament and modern 21st century councils. The order will allow the people of Scotland to express clearly whom they want to represent them. Instead of placing a simple X on a ballot paper, people will be able to indicate their preferences between candidates by writing 1, 2 or 3.
The beauty of the new system is that it takes power away from the political parties and returns it to the voter. For the first time, the voter will be able to indicate their preferred choice of candidates: they will be able to choose different candidates from within the same party and from outwith the parties.
Does Mr Rumbles not realise that in the vast majority of cases political parties will put forward only one candidate in a ward and that people will have the chance to choose between candidates from the same party only in a minority of cases?
Bristow Muldoon is being somewhat disingenuous. If a party puts up only one candidate, it does not think that it can win more than one seat. The choice is for the voter to make; the system gives the voter power to choose between the candidates who are placed before them. If the Labour Party intends to put up only one candidate in each ward, I look forward to that; we will see what happens.
Will Mr Rumbles take an intervention?
I have just taken one.
It is no wonder that David McLetchie and the Conservative party, who opposed this renewal of democracy, complain most loudly about it. David McLetchie says that it is a complicated system. In a way, it is—yes and no. It is complicated for the officials who have to count the preferences, which is why it is helpful to have e-counting; but for the voter it is as simple as 1, 2, 3.
It is too difficult for the Tories.
The member is absolutely right: the Tories have not yet quite reached the 21st century. The change for the voter—of putting 1, 2 or 3 on the ballot paper, rather than an X—is not exactly demanding. Conservatives such as David McLetchie, who argue that this is a complicated system for the voter, are—to use parliamentary language—being less than straightforward.
This is a long-overdue reform that real democrats, who put the wishes of the voter first, should support whole-heartedly at decision time.
The order is important, as it sets out all the rules that will govern this year's local government elections in Scotland. We all realise that the elections are being conducted under an electoral system that is different from what we are used to. The order is important for ensuring that those who are responsible for the conduct of the elections, such as returning officers, understand the detail of the manner in which the elections are to take place, can prepare the documents and organisational arrangements for the elections, and can convey information to participants and voters. It is important that voters understand how the new system will work.
The vast majority of the measures are not contentious and, although I feel that the wrong decision has been reached in one particular area, which I will outline in due course, I will support the motion so as to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of this year's local government elections.
I fully support the proposals for electronic counting, which will speed up the counts in local government elections, but I share Mr McLetchie's concern that the process will not be as swift as we might have imagined. Indeed, during this week's meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee, it emerged that many parliamentary counts might not be completed until about 5 in the morning and that many local government counts will not be completed until some time after that. Although I support the draft order—which, after all, enables electronic counting—I ask the ministerial team to reconsider the issue and find out whether it is possible to put additional resources into ensuring that the counts are completed more swiftly than is currently envisaged.
The Scottish Executive looked at the design of STV ballot papers in other parts of the world, but found no consistency. For example, and as Tom McCabe pointed out to the committee, candidates in Australia and Malta are grouped in party blocs, whereas candidates in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are listed alphabetically by name. Feedback from the Executive's subsequent research into the issue indicated that, when shown different ballot paper designs, a significant majority of participants chose the design that grouped candidates by party.
At one point, some committee members questioned the quality of the research, but when the minister indicated that he might be prepared to carry out further research, some members, including Mr Rumbles, who had dismissed the original research, got very agitated and, instead of wanting more research to be carried out to allow Parliament to reach a proper decision, wanted to reach a decision right away.
I should also point out that Age Concern Scotland wrote to the Executive on behalf of itself, Help the Aged, the Scottish Pension Association and the Scottish pensioners forum to urge that candidates be grouped by party because, in their view, it would make the ballot paper easier to negotiate. Unfortunately, the two Executive parties were unable to agree on the issue, which is why the matter was referred to the Local Government and Transport Committee. When the committee discussed the issue, the Liberal, Conservative, Scottish National Party and Solidarity members, in a state of collective paranoia, combined to reject the ballot paper design that had been supported by research.
Will the member give way?
No; I have only 40 seconds left.
I do not think that either design will make much difference to the number of councillors from each party that are elected.
So why are you going on about it?
I am about to tell the chamber why. I ask Mr Rumbles not to shout at me from a sedentary position.
The design might make a difference to the way in which some voters cast their vote—indeed, some might well make errors in doing so. Of course, that will apply only to a small percentage of people, but I believe that the design of ballot papers should make the process easy for the voter, not give any party an advantage one way or the other.
The SNP's position on this matter is particularly rich. The nationalists say that the proposal is designed to aid the Labour Party even though, week in, week out, they tell us that they will sweep to success in May. If that turns out to be the case, the only party that will have gained any advantage from the proposal will be the SNP—but I do not believe that that will be the case.
In spite of my concerns about electronic counting and the design of the ballot paper, I will support the draft order and encourage the Parliament to do so. However, I recommend that, once the election is by, further research be carried out on the issue to ensure that ballot papers are properly designed with the voters' interests in mind.
I, too, welcome the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Order and will support it today. However, I ask the ministerial team to look again at a number of issues. The minister has indicated that further secondary legislation for the local government elections will be introduced soon, and that should provide an ideal opportunity to make the necessary changes.
At Tuesday's meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee, the Deputy Minister for Finance, Public Service Reform and Parliamentary Business said that he will very soon consult on making available an anonymous version of the voting information that the electronic counting system will capture. I welcome that commitment and look forward to seeing the options for such publications. After all, it should be perfectly possible to publish such information in a way that would maintain the secrecy of the ballot by not permitting individual voters to be identified but which would let people in the academic community and political parties know how votes were cast and what transfers were made.
That has already been done for STV elections in Ireland, where the full ballot data are freely available on the returning officer's website. Such publication, soon after an election, would demonstrate the openness and transparency of the process and enhance public confidence in the new voting system and counting procedures. I welcome the assurance that the deputy minister has given, but I look for more detail on the publication date and how we will ensure the proper balance between the secrecy of the ballot and the transparency of the information.
My second point concerns by-elections in which there is only one vacancy. The order makes it clear that the standard STV counting rules will apply. The process will therefore include the calculation of the quota to identify the winner. My concern is that major problems can arise when the winner's votes fall well short of the quota. Although the rules in the order provide for that situation, the public may perceive that, because no candidate achieved the quota, something is wrong with the result. The public may even think that it is not valid.
I speak from personal experience of the election of the rector of the University of Edinburgh, which is conducted using STV and is a single-winner election. Last February, a record ballot was cast. All four candidates had substantial support and the count went to three stages, with one candidate being eliminated at each stage. However, by the third stage, around 15 per cent of the votes had become non-transferable. I was declared the winner at the third stage. I was several hundred votes short of the quota required, which could have been regarded as a problem had not the Electoral Reform Society looked at the situation and devised a system whereby no quota was declared. The election was conducted using STV, but without the requirement for a calculation of the quota. There was therefore no question in voters' minds about why no single candidate had reached the quota to fill the vacancy. The Electoral Reform Society wrote that version of the rules to avoid that well-established problem. At the moment, the rules under the order do not allow us to cope well with the situation that I described. Making provision for that alternative approach would require only a small change to the rules.
Proportional representation is a much-needed part of the reform of local government. I whole-heartedly welcome the introduction of STV to the local government elections. The changes that I have suggested would increase voter confidence and improve the transparency of the system, particularly in by-elections. Although we should not require to cover that situation in May, by-elections will need to covered in proper detail in future.
I did not expect to be called. However, having listened to Mark Ballard, I now understand why Archie Macpherson beat me by 70 votes about 22 years ago in the election of the rector of the University of Edinburgh.
I move on to more serious topics. I have absolutely no wish to throw a spanner in the works of the local government elections. However, at the Local Government and Transport Committee earlier this week, I was heartened to hear that it was not too late, as I had thought, to make changes. At the meeting, I complained that independents in the local government elections are being put at a disadvantage because of the way that their names will appear on the ballot paper.
Since then, I have looked forward to the minister putting my mind at rest on the matter. Will he confirm that the ballot paper will not disadvantage independents? If an independent produces an emblem that is identifiable in some way with their independent status, surely that emblem can be included on the ballot paper. I am thinking of the local campaigns that local councillors promote; an emblem could help to associate in the public mind the campaign and the councillor. For independents not to have an emblem would definitely put them at a disadvantage. If the person was unable to use the emblem to promote their candidacy on the ballot paper, that would represent unfair and unequal treatment.
Will the minister tell the chamber whether there is time to put right this wrong? I would be pleased to co-operate in any way that I can.
Might not the opposite also work? People have begun to associate emblems with political parties. If someone is looking for a candidate who is not the product of a political party, they may well look down the ballot paper to find a name that does not have a logo beside it.
The member may be right. On the other hand, I might stand a better chance of getting re-elected if I were to put a battle axe beside my name. [Laughter.] That was just a suggestion.
I am genuinely concerned that independents could be steamrollered in an election such as the one that we are about to hold. As Paul Martin—I was going to call him Michael—pointed out to me, some wards contain 25,000 people, which would require an independent candidate to put in a quite disproportionate effort if they were to be elected. I do not think that we should heap insult upon injury by putting independents at a disadvantage through their description on the ballot paper.
I look forward to the minister setting my mind at rest on this point. I took legal advice and was told that there was a case to be made because unfairness is being visited upon independent candidates. That is all that I have to ask the minister; he has been so helpful already today that I hope he will help me with this question, too.
As I said, we would do our best to accommodate Mrs MacDonald, but as it stands, the law prevents us from doing that. If the prospect was a photograph of Mrs MacDonald on a ballot paper, we would move heaven and earth to make that possible.
You are done now, Mrs MacDonald, are you not?
I want to hear more.
Mr McCabe?
What was that?
She wants more.
I think that Mrs MacDonald and I should discuss this in private.
We have finished three and a half minutes early, so I will suspend the meeting until 5 o'clock.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Members have made some valid points in the debate—certainly in this part of the chamber. Will not the minister take the opportunity to respond to any of those points?
I can certainly do that if we have some spare time.
When Mr Crawford spoke about his concerns about the arrangements and the possibility that ballots might end up in different counting centres, we agreed that we could deal with some of the detailed issues in correspondence.
One of the newsletters that came out in support of the Local Government Elections Order 2007 said that an information officer will be employed as a personable person at the ballot box in the future. They will be able to guide us on what will happen with our STV. That might well be a useful process, but I hope that the minister can assure us that the personable information officer will be beyond reproach and will not be giving advice to people entering the polling booth on how to vote for specific political parties. That could invalidate the process. How will we tell the difference between a personable person and someone who might be there as a polling agent on behalf of the parties?
I am sure that Mr Crawford in no way means to impugn the integrity of the returning officers. Clearly, the returning officer will ensure that the person inside the polling station—who is there to assist electors during a new process, which some people might find more complicated than that which they have been used to—is there for the sole purpose of ensuring that as many people as possible play the fullest part in our democratic processes. I am sure that every returning officer in Scotland would be shocked and surprised if there was any suggestion whatsoever that the opposite was the case.
Several members made points during the debate—[Interruption.]
Order. Will members who are having private conversations do so outside?
Mr McLetchie indicated that he was concerned about the professionalism of the independent research that was undertaken into the shape of the ballot paper. I am almost too shocked to find the words to express my surprise that he would say such a thing. The process was conducted under the most rigorous and widely accepted procedures, but Mr McLetchie decided to deride the research for his own party-political interests. Any proposals that were made were put forward because there was a sincere belief—
Will the minister confirm that the methodology consisted of a poor soul standing outside a shopping centre with a clipboard, on a wet day, and that the information was then collated rigorously by the Scottish Executive to give the results that were then reported to the committee?
My information is that the individual concerned was, in fact, wealthy and highly educated and that it was an extremely sunny day. I will end on that note.