Chamber
Plenary, 14 May 2009
14 May 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill: Stage 1
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 was recognised in the reports that the previous Scottish Executive received from the independent committees. The last one to which I referred was even chaired by a former Labour member of the City of Edinburgh Council.
That excellent advice was received from those two committees—so what happened? The advice was promptly ignored by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Even then, that was not the end of the matter. Six years later, we had the report of the Arbuthnott commission, entitled "Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland". Yet again, after a thorough examination of the issues, the report recommended a decoupling of the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. In a remarkably prescient section of the report, given what was to come the following year, the Arbuthnott commission stated:
"decoupling the elections would reduce the complexity of voting, potentially reduce voter confusion and help keep the numbers of invalid votes to a minimum. It would also reduce administrative complexity in the planning, management and counting of the elections, and enhance the transparency of the electoral process, especially allowing attention to be focused on local issues."
Nevertheless, the report's recommendations were in vain. Still, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would not listen. No matter how many independent committees told them to do otherwise, they persisted in the view that coincidental elections were desirable. For them, it was a case of putting citizens last. We then had the experience of 2007 and the Gould report, and—miracle of miracles—they changed their minds. We are therefore very much entitled to say, "We told you so." In fact, just about everybody told them so. It is a pity that it took the 2007 fiasco to change their opinion.
Some of the same closed minds have tried to perpetuate the myth that there was nothing wrong with the single transferable vote system at the conjoined elections in 2007 and that all the failings were to do with how the Scottish Parliament elections were organised and the design of the ballot paper. That is totally untrue, as Duncan McNeil pointed out, given the unprecedented number of rejected ballot papers in the council elections.
All of that underlines the importance of ensuring that we do not stop simply at decoupling. It is important that we have proper voter education campaigns to ensure that, as far as possible, everyone understands how to cast a valid vote in accordance with his or her preferences. We also need an imaginative public information campaign to inform voters of the functions of local government and the importance of the services that our councils provide to communities and individuals, in an endeavour to encourage more focus on local issues in local elections. As the committee's report makes clear, however, that is not being adequately addressed at present.
The bill has had a long gestation period, but we are finally about to do what we should have done 10 years ago. If the bill is passed, it will be another three years before we re-elect our councils. That is three years in which—finally—to get it right, to do our utmost to maximise voter participation and to give local government in Scotland its due place in the sun. I support the motion.
That excellent advice was received from those two committees—so what happened? The advice was promptly ignored by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Even then, that was not the end of the matter. Six years later, we had the report of the Arbuthnott commission, entitled "Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland". Yet again, after a thorough examination of the issues, the report recommended a decoupling of the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. In a remarkably prescient section of the report, given what was to come the following year, the Arbuthnott commission stated:
"decoupling the elections would reduce the complexity of voting, potentially reduce voter confusion and help keep the numbers of invalid votes to a minimum. It would also reduce administrative complexity in the planning, management and counting of the elections, and enhance the transparency of the electoral process, especially allowing attention to be focused on local issues."
Nevertheless, the report's recommendations were in vain. Still, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would not listen. No matter how many independent committees told them to do otherwise, they persisted in the view that coincidental elections were desirable. For them, it was a case of putting citizens last. We then had the experience of 2007 and the Gould report, and—miracle of miracles—they changed their minds. We are therefore very much entitled to say, "We told you so." In fact, just about everybody told them so. It is a pity that it took the 2007 fiasco to change their opinion.
Some of the same closed minds have tried to perpetuate the myth that there was nothing wrong with the single transferable vote system at the conjoined elections in 2007 and that all the failings were to do with how the Scottish Parliament elections were organised and the design of the ballot paper. That is totally untrue, as Duncan McNeil pointed out, given the unprecedented number of rejected ballot papers in the council elections.
All of that underlines the importance of ensuring that we do not stop simply at decoupling. It is important that we have proper voter education campaigns to ensure that, as far as possible, everyone understands how to cast a valid vote in accordance with his or her preferences. We also need an imaginative public information campaign to inform voters of the functions of local government and the importance of the services that our councils provide to communities and individuals, in an endeavour to encourage more focus on local issues in local elections. As the committee's report makes clear, however, that is not being adequately addressed at present.
The bill has had a long gestation period, but we are finally about to do what we should have done 10 years ago. If the bill is passed, it will be another three years before we re-elect our councils. That is three years in which—finally—to get it right, to do our utmost to maximise voter participation and to give local government in Scotland its due place in the sun. I support the motion.
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...