Chamber
Plenary, 14 May 2009
14 May 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1
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; they also had concerns over the cost of decoupling to the public purse. Some respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on decoupling raised concerns about the cost. The financial memorandum to the bill outlines two options to estimate the total additional costs of decoupling to all local authorities combined. The estimate is between £4.5 million and £5 million. I raised concerns at the Local Government and Communities Committee that the cost could be more like £8 million. I guess that time will tell.
Liberal Democrats were the only respondents to oppose the concept on the basis of issues surrounding voter turnout, cost and the burden on local authorities. However, at our spring conference 2009, the Scottish Liberal Democrats voted in favour of decoupling. The tight vote at our conference showed that, contrary to some opinion, councillors were not going to vote automatically for a longer term simply to keep themselves in office. Rather, feedback that I have received from many of my Lib Dem councillor friends is that they shared many of the concerns that I mentioned a few minutes ago.
Decoupling is not the only aim of the bill. It will also make provision for the publication of electoral data down to polling-station level. That will provide interesting and useful information—not just for political geeks like me, but for other agencies and individual members of the public, so that they can gain a better understanding of how the votes were cast in their area. However, as Duncan McNeil and others have said in relation to secrecy, that is not to say that any individual's vote, or small group of people's votes, should be identifiable. The Liberal Democrats accept the premise that voter information should not be released if the polling station has had fewer than 200 votes cast.
I turn now to the Government's role. The Government does not respect the autonomy and accountability of local government. The SNP has tied local authorities into unrealistic manifesto promises, complicated single outcome agreements, and, worst of all, its greatly discredited so-called historic concordat. The decision-making abilities and spending priorities of local authorities have been continually constrained by the Government's impositions.
We are cautious not to burden local authorities further with unachievable or impractical responsibilities. Again and again, we hear Mr Swinney say that, no matter what extra burdens he places on local government, local government signed up to a financial deal in the concordat that gives no extra money to meet those extra commitments. Well, for Mr Swinney and for the Scottish Government, that just does not wash.
Voter turnout was not the only concern that many people had over a decoupled election; they also had concerns over the cost of decoupling to the public purse. Some respondents to the Scottish Government's consultation on decoupling raised concerns about the cost. The financial memorandum to the bill outlines two options to estimate the total additional costs of decoupling to all local authorities combined. The estimate is between £4.5 million and £5 million. I raised concerns at the Local Government and Communities Committee that the cost could be more like £8 million. I guess that time will tell.
Liberal Democrats were the only respondents to oppose the concept on the basis of issues surrounding voter turnout, cost and the burden on local authorities. However, at our spring conference 2009, the Scottish Liberal Democrats voted in favour of decoupling. The tight vote at our conference showed that, contrary to some opinion, councillors were not going to vote automatically for a longer term simply to keep themselves in office. Rather, feedback that I have received from many of my Lib Dem councillor friends is that they shared many of the concerns that I mentioned a few minutes ago.
Decoupling is not the only aim of the bill. It will also make provision for the publication of electoral data down to polling-station level. That will provide interesting and useful information—not just for political geeks like me, but for other agencies and individual members of the public, so that they can gain a better understanding of how the votes were cast in their area. However, as Duncan McNeil and others have said in relation to secrecy, that is not to say that any individual's vote, or small group of people's votes, should be identifiable. The Liberal Democrats accept the premise that voter information should not be released if the polling station has had fewer than 200 votes cast.
I turn now to the Government's role. The Government does not respect the autonomy and accountability of local government. The SNP has tied local authorities into unrealistic manifesto promises, complicated single outcome agreements, and, worst of all, its greatly discredited so-called historic concordat. The decision-making abilities and spending priorities of local authorities have been continually constrained by the Government's impositions.
We are cautious not to burden local authorities further with unachievable or impractical responsibilities. Again and again, we hear Mr Swinney say that, no matter what extra burdens he places on local government, local government signed up to a financial deal in the concordat that gives no extra money to meet those extra commitments. Well, for Mr Swinney and for the Scottish Government, that just does not wash.
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...