Hansard

Members will be aware that there are two key themes to this important bill, the first of which is the creation of the electoral management board. In deliberations in committee and in the chamber, we have heard that that is absolutely necessary to provide a much more cohesive and well-rounded view on how the election should be conducted to ensure that it is freer, fairer and more open in the future. The statutory function of the electoral management board is essential in ensuring that a free, fair and open election takes place and that it has, as the minister said, a smooth administration.

The smooth passage of the bill seems to concern Michael McMahon, but I do not share his concerns. Although it might not be the most exciting debate that we will ever have in the Scottish Parliament, it is necessary that we work together with co-operation across the parties. Alex Johnstone had a good discussion yesterday with my good friend Willie Rennie, who said that MPs would seek to fill every second of the debate. I have had a number of discussions with Willie Rennie about the differences between how Westminster operates and how the Scottish Parliament operates, and I have always told him how debates here are much better because they are much more concise and focused than those of our colleagues at Westminster.

As we all know, the election in 2007 did not go smoothly. It is to the great credit of many that the work that has been done in putting together the bill gives not just me but many others greater confidence that the forthcoming elections—especially the Scottish local authority elections next year, which we are focusing on in this debate—will be much more efficient than has hitherto been the case.

The second key theme of the bill is changes to the Electoral Commission. Although those changes are not as significant as the creation of the electoral management board, they are an important part of ensuring that the whole system works more efficiently. Having gone through the issues that were raised in the Gould report—the need to decouple the elections and many others—I feel that we have clearer information to give to the electorate on all the forthcoming elections. Sometimes, cluttering the picture with too many elections can lead to confusion and concern among voters—indeed, among many members—that we will end up with more spoilt ballot papers even than the number of votes that certain members have in their majorities. I welcome the testing of the ballot paper design that is to be undertaken by the Electoral Commission—that is good to see.

It was also good to see Stewart Stevenson giving us a history lesson. He told us that he was going back to 1892—what a memory that man has. However, very quickly—through his digital processes, no doubt—he fast-forwarded to 1945 and talked about multimember seats. The world did not fall apart in 1945 following the introduction of multimember seats, nor did it do so in 2007 following our local authority elections. In giving us the new history lesson that we seem to be getting from the SNP, Stewart Stevenson has a big task in trying to fill the boots of Christopher Harvie, who often gives us very good history lessons in the chamber. I do not know whether he will manage to do that—time will tell. I cannot conjure up the thought of Stewart Stevenson in plus fours, but let us leave that aside.