Chamber
Plenary, 14 May 2009
14 May 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1
I speak in support of the bill on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for the report, and the minister for his opening remarks and the constructive style that he adopted. Although Labour believes that it is not always necessary to hold elections on separate days, we recognise that voters found the use of different voting systems on the same day in the May 2007 elections confusing. That is why we support the basic principle of decoupling the elections to local councils and the Scottish Parliament.
As the minister reminded us—those painful memories—there was so much wrong with the conduct of the previous set of elections to both bodies that it would be wrong to argue that the sole or main cause of the voter confusion was the fact that the elections were conjoined. There were other matters at stake, too.
As many reports have highlighted, and as many people have commented, we are all responsible for many aspects of what is now largely regarded as a debacle of an election. There was much wrong with what happened on that day, such as the different electoral systems at play, the party descriptions, the construct of the ballot paper and the failure of the electronic voting systems. That is why we had an independent review of the elections by Professor Gould. One of the outcomes of the review is that we are now debating a mechanism that will decouple the two elections, with effect from May 2011.
Like others, I believe that a price will be paid for decoupling in terms of voter turnout. In 2001, the Scottish Executive introduced the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, which provided that council elections should coincide with Scottish Parliament elections. The coupling of the elections in 1999 and 2003 did not seem to produce problems; as we all know, the electorate did not have much to say about the coupling of those elections in 1999 and 2003.
The decision that was taken then was correct, in the prevailing circumstances, before the introduction of proportional representation to local government and barely halfway through the first session of the Parliament. The decision had one of the desired effects, which was to increase turnout for the local government elections in subsequent years. The minister has already mentioned that.
As the minister reminded us—those painful memories—there was so much wrong with the conduct of the previous set of elections to both bodies that it would be wrong to argue that the sole or main cause of the voter confusion was the fact that the elections were conjoined. There were other matters at stake, too.
As many reports have highlighted, and as many people have commented, we are all responsible for many aspects of what is now largely regarded as a debacle of an election. There was much wrong with what happened on that day, such as the different electoral systems at play, the party descriptions, the construct of the ballot paper and the failure of the electronic voting systems. That is why we had an independent review of the elections by Professor Gould. One of the outcomes of the review is that we are now debating a mechanism that will decouple the two elections, with effect from May 2011.
Like others, I believe that a price will be paid for decoupling in terms of voter turnout. In 2001, the Scottish Executive introduced the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, which provided that council elections should coincide with Scottish Parliament elections. The coupling of the elections in 1999 and 2003 did not seem to produce problems; as we all know, the electorate did not have much to say about the coupling of those elections in 1999 and 2003.
The decision that was taken then was correct, in the prevailing circumstances, before the introduction of proportional representation to local government and barely halfway through the first session of the Parliament. The decision had one of the desired effects, which was to increase turnout for the local government elections in subsequent years. The minister has already mentioned that.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3964, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. I remind members ...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Bruce Crawford):
SNP
I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its work in considering the bill and preparing the stage 1 report, and I thank those who gave evid...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
As the convener of the lead committee on the bill, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate. I thank all those who gave us written and oral evidence and ...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Duncan McNeil:
Lab
I ask the minister to respond when he sums up. Sorry—I am pressed for time. The costs of the bill have been a general concern for the committee throughout it...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
I have been informed that one speaker will not be taking part in the debate, so we are not quite as tight for time as we were. Nonetheless, we do not have a ...
Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab):
Lab
I speak in support of the bill on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for the report, and the ministe...
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP):
SNP
The member talks about accepting the independent Gould report, but why did the Labour and Liberal Executive, when it introduced the bill to couple the electi...
Andy Kerr:
Lab
Because we thought that the bill that we introduced offered a better way in which to hold elections. It increased voter turnout, attention and participation ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
I call Jim Tolson.
Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) (LD):
LD
This is a difficult—
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
But—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Carry on, Mr Tolson.
Jim Tolson:
LD
I did wonder, but the order of speakers is in your hands, Presiding Officer.This is a difficult debate, not because there will be much argument between the p...
Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Will the member give way?
Jim Tolson:
LD
I am sorry, but I am rather tight for time. I beg Mr Brown's pardon.Voter turnout was not the only concern that many people had over a decoupled election; th...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
Will Mr Tolson please give way?
Jim Tolson:
LD
I am tight for time, but the minister will have a chance to respond when he sums up.
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I wish that he would give way—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Order. Mr Tolson, you should address the motion.
Jim Tolson:
LD
Liberal Democrats have long fought for the autonomy of local government and for recognition of the importance and significance of governance at that level.Th...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. A moment ago, you ruled that the member should stick to the motion that is under debate. He is straying from that and...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
I take the point of order. I was going to tell the member that he must address the motion to agree the first principles of the bill and link his remarks to t...
Jim Tolson:
LD
I will move on, if it is your wish that I do so.The Liberal Democrats will support the bill at stage 1 in today's vote. However, the Government must consider...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Now—I am sure that it will have been worth waiting for—I call David McLetchie.
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
Thank you, Presiding Officer. The voice of the righteous cannot be silenced for long in Scotland's Parliament."I told you so," is often a rather smug and sel...
Andy Kerr rose—
Lab
David McLetchie:
Con
Here comes the old regime.
Andy Kerr:
Lab
Attacking the smugness of the new partnership in the Scottish Parliament between the Tories and the SNP.Does the member believe that every local councillor w...
David McLetchie:
Con
In those days, the results of local elections were undoubtedly down to a mixture of the two—I fully acknowledge that—and we all know the consequences. That w...