Chamber
Plenary, 14 May 2009
14 May 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1
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 and was therefore beneficial. As I was trying to say earlier, the introduction of different electoral systems, among many other reasons and difficulties, led to the debacle in 2007. Had that not happened, I do not believe that we would be here today trying to decouple the elections.
Let us consider the statistics—and the minister was quite right to point out some of these issues. In the non-combined elections held between 1974 and 1995, turnout was 7 per cent lower than the average for combined elections held since 1999. The average turnout was 45.9 per cent in the non-combined elections but 53.3 per cent for the combined elections held since 1999.
The first elections, I would argue, were undoubtedly better days for our fledgling democracy than today. However, we might therefore expect to see a considerable—and perhaps more than would be commensurate—fall in voter turnout as a consequence of decoupling. That is not a prospect that we should dismiss lightly.
Earlier speakers have addressed the imperative that voters should be confident in the electoral system. We must all encourage greater voter turnout. In Labour, we believe that that is a matter of social justice and basic enfranchisement. We must address it. The highest turnout at the previous election was in the affluent Eastwood constituency, with a turnout of 63.38 per cent, and the lowest was in Glasgow Shettleston, which has well-documented levels of social deprivation, where the turnout dropped to 33.43 per cent. That is why we must target our efforts at increasing voter involvement; there should be a comprehensive information and education programme. As others have suggested, that should be a priority and it must be undertaken by the Electoral Commission on our behalf.
We also support the proposal that the next council elections should be held in 2012 and 2017. After that, we agree that local government elections should revert to a four-year electoral cycle, with elections taking place halfway through a session of the Scottish Parliament.
We also believe that the Parliament should consider listing or grouping candidates by party alphabetical order, as opposed to the present system of arranging surnames alphabetically. There is strong anecdotal evidence that candidates at the top of the alphabetically arranged list on the ballot paper fared better than those at the bottom of the list. We support many of the measures in the bill, but I throw that idea into the discussion.
As we know, significant changes have already taken place: there have been separate ballot papers; there will be a longer period between the close of nominations and the date of the election; and changes in the law governing the conduct of elections will come into force at least six months before the date of the election.
I will close now as I am running short of time. We need a clear commitment from the Scottish Government, which Duncan McNeil has asked for, to meet the costs that are involved in holding the elections separately.
Let us consider the statistics—and the minister was quite right to point out some of these issues. In the non-combined elections held between 1974 and 1995, turnout was 7 per cent lower than the average for combined elections held since 1999. The average turnout was 45.9 per cent in the non-combined elections but 53.3 per cent for the combined elections held since 1999.
The first elections, I would argue, were undoubtedly better days for our fledgling democracy than today. However, we might therefore expect to see a considerable—and perhaps more than would be commensurate—fall in voter turnout as a consequence of decoupling. That is not a prospect that we should dismiss lightly.
Earlier speakers have addressed the imperative that voters should be confident in the electoral system. We must all encourage greater voter turnout. In Labour, we believe that that is a matter of social justice and basic enfranchisement. We must address it. The highest turnout at the previous election was in the affluent Eastwood constituency, with a turnout of 63.38 per cent, and the lowest was in Glasgow Shettleston, which has well-documented levels of social deprivation, where the turnout dropped to 33.43 per cent. That is why we must target our efforts at increasing voter involvement; there should be a comprehensive information and education programme. As others have suggested, that should be a priority and it must be undertaken by the Electoral Commission on our behalf.
We also support the proposal that the next council elections should be held in 2012 and 2017. After that, we agree that local government elections should revert to a four-year electoral cycle, with elections taking place halfway through a session of the Scottish Parliament.
We also believe that the Parliament should consider listing or grouping candidates by party alphabetical order, as opposed to the present system of arranging surnames alphabetically. There is strong anecdotal evidence that candidates at the top of the alphabetically arranged list on the ballot paper fared better than those at the bottom of the list. We support many of the measures in the bill, but I throw that idea into the discussion.
As we know, significant changes have already taken place: there have been separate ballot papers; there will be a longer period between the close of nominations and the date of the election; and changes in the law governing the conduct of elections will come into force at least six months before the date of the election.
I will close now as I am running short of time. We need a clear commitment from the Scottish Government, which Duncan McNeil has asked for, to meet the costs that are involved in holding the elections separately.
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...