Scottish Parliament, 19 January 2012

333 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Local Government Elections 2012

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01741, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the local government elections in 2012. I indicate at the outset that we will be extremely generous with members’ time.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

It is a privilege to lead my first debate as Minister for Local Government and Planning on the subject of local government elections. This is my first opportunity to welcome the Opposition spokespeople Sarah Boyack and Margaret Mitchell to their respective roles.

The 2012 local government elections will be an opportunity to renew local democracy and refresh local government’s mandate. I am sure that we all share the aim of delivering a fair and transparent election in which the lessons of the 2007 difficulties have been learned. I pay tribute to my predecessors Bruce Crawford, Jim Mather and Aileen Campbell, who began the improvements that I would like to see through.

In approaching the local government elections, we have pursued the recommendations of the Gould report, and I continue to seek consensus on matters relating to those elections. The overall conclusion of the Gould report was damning, stating that Scotland’s voters had been treated “as an afterthought” in the planning and organisation of the elections in 2007.

A range of actions have therefore been taken to address the concerns that were raised about the previous election, which suffered from the effects of a combination of factors. Throughout the preparations for the 2012 local government elections, we have kept at the forefront of our minds the interests of the voter and the specific recommendations of Ron Gould, which were widely welcomed and supported by the Parliament in the previous session.

The Gould report found that the fragmentation of roles and responsibilities was a critical barrier to the smooth administration of elections. The Parliament passed the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2009, which decoupled Scottish local elections from elections to the Scottish Parliament and provided for two five-year terms for local government, with elections to be held in 2012 and 2017. After that, local government terms will revert to four years, with local elections being held at the mid-term point of the Scottish parliamentary session. The aim of decoupling the two sets of elections was to make things easier for the voter; to put the voter first; to avoid the voter having to consider two different voting systems; to reduce voter confusion; and, just as important, to give each election its due prominence.

While talking of confusion, I should say that I have been struck by the number of pieces of legislation that govern elections and how they should be run. Addressing that will not be a short-term piece of work, but I would like to see moves towards the consolidation of electoral legislation. That work would, of course, be much easier and more effective if the Scottish Parliament had full legislative responsibility for all elections, but that is for the future. For now, local government deserves a stand-alone election, in which local matters can be discussed and local candidates can have their opportunity to campaign without being crowded out by parliamentary elections.

Gould recommended the creation of a chief returning officer to co-ordinate the administration of local government elections. The Government consulted on that and, following consideration of the comments that it received, introduced a bill. The resulting Local Electoral Administration (Scotland) Act 2011 created the electoral management board for Scotland. The board will assist local authorities and others to carry out their functions and promote best practice in the administration of elections. The convener, who must be a returning officer, is appointed by Scottish ministers and will have the power to give directions to returning officers and electoral registration officers. Those directions will relate primarily to administrative issues. The convener must consult board members and the Electoral Commission before giving a direction.

Through the same legislation, we extended the Electoral Commission’s statutory functions in Scotland to include the local government elections. That extension reflects the need to remove fragmentation of responsibilities; in addition, it will provide consistent oversight of elections. The commission has already carried out some activity on an ad hoc basis, such as the provision of public awareness campaigns, and the bill formalises that work.

Another key Gould recommendation was to ensure that the relevant legislation is in place six months before an election to give administrators confidence in developing their plans for it. I am pleased to remind the Parliament that, in accordance with that recommendation, we agreed the legislation that will govern the 2012 elections at the beginning of November last year.

On 3 September 2010, we published “The Administration of Future Elections in Scotland: A consultation exercise to examine the recommendations of the Gould Report to improve administration of future elections in Scotland”. It covered a range of issues, from the election timetable and the design of the ballot paper to longer-term considerations such as the voting age. We were encouraged by the quality and support of the responses that we received, which helped to shape the Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2011, including the proposed ballot paper.

As recommended by Gould and others, we have tested the ballot paper design with a cross-section of voters, using the principles in the Electoral Commission’s guidance “Making your mark”. The draft ballot paper was included for public consideration in the Scottish Government’s consultation on the administration of future elections in Scotland. The aim of the testing, which was carried out by external researchers, was to assess the clarity and usability of the draft ballot paper and to make improvements at each stage.

The research identified that participants liked the overall design, describing it as being clean, simple and straightforward, but highlighted a continuing issue in that participants did not have sufficient knowledge of the single transferable vote system. The report therefore recommended an information campaign that focuses on STV in the run-up to the 2012 elections. The Scottish Government accepts that recommendation and will work with the Electoral Commission and the electoral management board for Scotland to take it forward. The revised ballot paper was used in the successful bulk testing of the e-counting system that took place during the summer last year.

When voters go to the polls, it is important that the arrangements for casting their vote—and indeed the process that takes place behind the scenes before election day—are as simple as possible and are consistent with other elections. In considering the regulations for this year’s local elections, we therefore examined the contents of the regulations for voting in the 2010 Westminster elections. That allowed us to pick up a number of minor changes that have been made since 2007. By incorporating those changes into our regulations—for example, changes to the electoral timetable—we have been able to ensure a degree of consistency for the voter and the electoral administrator.

We gave the electoral management board for Scotland and the Electoral Commission copies of the draft order so that they could provide detailed comments. The vast majority of the comments that we received have been incorporated into the order, and I thank the board and the commission for their contributions.

However interesting we make the local government elections, we are unlikely to see USA or post-apartheid South Africa-style queues in May. However, I make the Parliament aware of a new provision that addresses an issue that was experienced in England in 2010. A person who has presented at a polling station in time and is held in a queue to cast their vote may still put their ballot paper in the box after 10 pm. The inclusion of that provision seeks to address any confusion that has arisen on the technical issue of close of poll. The Scottish Government is the first Administration to include such a provision in election rules and the move has been welcomed by the Electoral Commission.

We have received a number of informal representations about that change of policy from electoral administrators who feel that it might be difficult to manage. While not discounting those views, we agree with the Electoral Commission, which describes the change as a

“positive step to ensuring that every vote counts in the local government elections”.

To give further reassurance, the Electoral Commission is working with the electoral management board for Scotland to produce effective guidance on how to manage the provision.

We have recently introduced legislation to reduce the cost of obtaining copies of the marked register. That will bring costs into line with those for other elections in Scotland.

I also take this opportunity to inform the Parliament that we will introduce legislation next week to increase the spending limits at local government elections by 17.5 per cent. That is a rate-of-inflation increase since the previous review in 2005, and it responds to a unanimous request from the political parties panel that the limits be increased. As it happens, representatives had differing views on the uplift. On this occasion, I have sided with the Labour Party representative’s view on the increase. Any future increase will be a matter for further consideration and consultation.

The use of single transferable voting for local government elections means that e-counting is almost inevitable.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

The minister acknowledged earlier that awareness of the single transferable vote system is low and said that the electoral management board would work with relevant bodies, including the Electoral Commission, to raise voter awareness. Will he give more detail about the factors that have been considered for a voter education campaign and about the timescale?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I will expand on the awareness campaign later in my speech, but it will be broken down into phases and will involve a partnership between the Electoral Commission and councils across Scotland.

The testing regime for the new e-counting system is important. Improvements have been made to the system since the previous count. As we all know, a manual count would take many days to conduct.

The new regime has been thoroughly considered. The system has been subjected to more rigorous testing, which should protect against the failures of the past. The testing started in January 2011 and culminated in the delivery of a bulk stress test of the system over two weeks, when more than 500,000 ballot papers were successfully scanned and counted. Councillors, the Electoral Commission, academics, the Open Rights Group, the former Local Government and Communities Committee and representatives from the press and the media have all attended tests of the system.

The system provides greater transparency. Every part of the process is fully visible to candidates and agents. Large display monitors are used to inform observers of count progress, and adjudication staff and returning officers use dual-facing monitors in executing all decisions. All 32 local authorities have committed to using the new system and we are now preparing to deliver training to the staff who will operate the system during the count.

The use of electronic counting has resulted in the capturing of a considerable amount of new data. In the 2012 election, we will publish more information than before, including detailed information on the number of preferences that were given to candidates at polling stations.

Candidates’ confidence in the system is important. We seek to build greater transparency, while of course ensuring the secrecy of the ballot. The availability of more detailed information is paramount in providing reassurance that the system has produced a correct and accurate result and in instilling transparency in the process and confidence in the election’s overall outcome. We are therefore considering the practical and legal issues that are involved in publishing full preference tracking at ward level, with a view to introducing legislation that allows the retrospective release of that data from May’s elections. That matter is being raised with the political parties panel.

Turnout might be an issue—the decoupling of elections might contribute to that. A strong and vibrant democracy relies on people from all walks of life using their vote. Councils will run their own campaigns and the Electoral Commission will run a public awareness campaign.

For the first time, the commission will have a statutory responsibility to promote public awareness at local government elections. It will run its campaign in two phases—voter registration, which will be given a clear focus, and voter information. The registration campaign will be followed by voter information, in the media and in local information booklets, that is aimed at ensuring that electors have the necessary information to cast their votes under STV. As politicians and parties, we too have a duty to reinvigorate the electorate with positive campaigning and policies that capture the imagination of the public to participate in the democracy that we cherish.

Once the votes have been cast, they will need to be counted. I know that the timing of the count has provoked a certain amount of discussion over the years. The electoral management board has issued a consultation document to seek views on when the votes in this May’s elections should be counted. I understand that the board’s convener is considering issuing a direction to local returning officers to ensure consistency in arrangements across Scotland. Regardless of the consultation’s outcome, the political parties panel considers that a consistent approach is important.

Over the past five years, the Parliament has embraced the Gould recommendations with a high degree of consensus. We may legitimately disagree on political matters, but we have worked together to implement the largely administrative recommendations that fall within the Parliament’s powers. However, there is one key recommendation on which no action has been taken: the full devolution of the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. It is absurd that the Parliament is not responsible for the election of its members and that we are unable to give 16 and 17-year-olds their democratic right to vote, even when that is the will of the Parliament.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Is the minister as surprised as I was that, when the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke just a couple of weeks ago in the House of Commons, he seemed to be blissfully unaware of the fact that we cannot legislate to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in local elections? Given that the secretary of state seems so relaxed about the idea that we might already have that power, will the minister ask for a section 30 order as soon as possible to ensure that we can do that with some haste?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I was as surprised as Patrick Harvie was that the secretary of state did not know the legal competence that he has in that regard, which the Scottish Parliament does not have. We have made approaches on the issue, but the United Kingdom Government has remained silent. We will make further approaches.

I hope that the Parliament can unite today behind a concerted effort to deliver a sound election for local government and that it will continue with a consensus-based approach, acknowledge the extensive and timely preparations that have been undertaken, and call on the last outstanding recommendation to be delivered by Westminster: the transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the legislative powers for local government elections.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the importance of local democracy and in particular this year’s local elections; welcomes the response of the Scottish Government, local authorities and others to the Gould report and the improvements that have been made in electoral administration as a result; further notes that preparations for the local government elections in Scotland in May 2012 have been taken forward in a collaborative manner with electoral professionals and local authorities including work to procure, develop and test a system of electronic counting to be used in the elections; calls on all of those with an interest in these elections to work to further increase and improve voter engagement and participation, and supports the recommendation of the Scotland Bill Committee that the UK Government should amend the Scotland Bill to devolve responsibility and powers for all elections that take place in Scotland, except those to the UK and EU Parliaments.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have prepared to speak for eight minutes, but my speech will take 10 minutes easily.

I thank the minister for his warm welcome. I was absolutely delighted when I first saw the debate’s title, because I thought that it would be a great chance to highlight the importance of local government elections and encourage people to vote in them. I also thought that it would be a great opportunity to highlight the fact that the Scottish National Party has taken a 2.9 per cent cut in its budget from the United Kingdom Government, but has passed on a 6.1 per cent cut to local government. However, when I read the motion, I realised that we would be not just debating local government, but taking part in the endless conversation that is the SNP’s mission for independence.

The local government elections will be held in their own right. It is a long time since local government elections were held separately. Turnout for local elections is always lower, and recent election turnouts have been incredibly low. Therefore, I very much welcome the minister’s comments on promoting more engagement and involvement. I will return to that issue.

Our amendment focuses on participation and voter registration in the local government elections. We wanted to put those issues explicitly on the agenda, as we think that they are crucial issues that we should note. Nothing like the full number of people who are eligible to vote do so in any elections, and I think that we all know that, having decoupled the elections for good reason, as the minister outlined, ensuring that people turn out on the day and that the elections are supported by local people are serious issues.

We supported the implementation of the Gould report’s recommendations when it was published after the 2007 elections. Like the minister, I think that what Gould said about how the voter was treated was striking. He said:

“the voter was treated as an afterthought by virtually all the other stakeholders.”

That is a damning comment. In all our discussions about the elections, we must put the electorate first.

Gould argued that parties should be involved in discussions about elections, but that we should not own the process or put party advantage above the interests of fair elections. Those are good principles that should apply to whatever election or referendum is being discussed. That is why we argued in the chamber last week for there to be discussions on the referendum not just between the First Minister and the Prime Minister; the wider civic movement in Scotland and the parties that are represented in the Parliament should also be represented and consulted. Therefore, I very much welcome the minister’s comments. He has listened to the comments from a range of parties on the amount of money that parties are allowed to spend on the election.

The only thing that concerned me about the timing of the count was that the consultation on that took place over the Christmas holidays, which will not have maximised people’s contributions to the discussion. I know that that is a technical issue, but in the spirit of Gould we should have proper and wide-ranging discussions and consultations.

I agree with the minister that the Gould report was good; it contained clear analysis and sensible recommendations for the conduct of the elections. Reading it four years on, I find it an excellent reminder of what we need to focus on in the run-up to the elections in May.

When the report was published, we argued that, as politicians, we should not pick and choose which recommendations suited us or just sign up to the ones that favoured our party and leave the others on the sidelines. One of the key recommendations was that all the arrangements should be in place in good time—ideally six months—before the elections.

As we are now less than four months away from the local government elections, the minister’s report today on what the Scottish Government has done to ensure that those elections are fair and transparent and that they are run properly is welcome. Has the minister conducted his own review of that process to satisfy himself that everything that needs to be done has been done before the elections take place?

I will focus on postal voting, which the minister did not mention. The Gould report dealt with access to postal vote registration, the opportunity to cast a postal vote and even the way in which we fold our postal votes so that the electronic counting machines can deal with them. Those might seem small issues, but as we are encouraging people to vote by post, they must be taken on board. Perhaps the minister can comment on that in his closing remarks.

Our amendment deletes the last section of the motion—or suggests that we delete it; given our numbers in the chamber, we cannot guarantee to delete anything. We do not dispute the need for consistency and a more coherent approach, and we are signed up to the Gould recommendations. However, the Scotland Bill Committee did not consider the evidence in relation to local government, yet it still made recommendations on that in its final report. It is too late to make major changes for this year’s elections; that should have been discussed before the minister’s predecessor laid the order before the Parliament in October last year.

Across the country, parties are selecting or have already selected their candidates for May’s elections, and we should focus on what happens in less than four months’ time. The turnouts for recent by-elections have been incredibly small, and this election will be the first stand-alone local government election for decades. No one group or organisation is responsible for promoting participation—the minister is right to say that we all have responsibility for that. However, I would be interested to hear how much will be invested in the discussions on promoting voter participation, particularly with regard to the key issue of voter registration.

In the run-up to the 2007 elections, there was publicity from the Electoral Commission on how the STV system worked. What similar publicity will we have this time? There is a new generation of voters who were not around to benefit from that publicity last time.

In 2007, the Electoral Commission published its report on other aspects of the election, and I will focus on the issue of electoral registration. It is now possible to register to vote much closer to polling time, but research for the Electoral Commission has shown that the percentage of people missing from the registers has grown since the last time that matter was examined more than 10 years ago. The research suggests that around 13 to 15 per cent of eligible people in Great Britain were not registered following the annual household canvass activity in autumn 2010, in comparison with 8 to 9 per cent after the 2000 canvass.

Do we have the comparable figures for Scotland? I am interested in the issue of participation, because a social justice factor is involved. In my region, the areas with higher levels of deprivation—

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I agree with Sarah Boyack that registration is a problem. Having been a member of Glasgow City Council, I must give the council its due as it has done a lot of work on registration, but it has struggled to get the figures up. Does Sarah Boyack know of any specific ways in which registration could be improved?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Yes—part of the issue is that we must go round and talk to people rather than just waiting until the elections. The way that it is done at present is that a letter pops into people’s houses.

The statistics show that the areas with higher levels of deprivation or transient populations have much lower registration levels than more affluent, stable communities. There is an issue around targeting communities in which there is low turnout and low registration. There is a real democratic deficit in that regard, and we must all consider it. There is good practice in some local authorities, but that must be applied across the country.

We have all been in the polling station when somebody has turned up who cannot vote because they are not on the most recent register. I am keen to hear what the minister will do to encourage registration.

In our debate last week, we talked about lowering the voting age. However, we know that the turnout for elections among younger people is lower than the turnout among people in older age groups. I therefore ask the minister what in particular will be done to focus on younger people and to make local government elections relevant to them. Access to affordable housing, jobs and training, and local sports facilities are all issues that are dealt with by local government, and there is a huge opportunity to engage young people. There is a great line in the film about Aung San Suu Kyi that has just come out, called “The Lady”:

“You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.”

We must get that message across to young people.

Many people are also concerned about the move to individual registration. There could be a duty to promote registration, so that all local authorities would see that as a key issue.

As has been said, everything needs to be in place six months before the elections. A key issue for all elections or referenda is that we need to know the rules in advance. In his speech to Parliament in October 2007, the First Minister stated that the Scottish Government accepted all the Gould recommendations, one of which was about what parties call themselves and the issue of sloganising. In his summing-up speech, will Derek Mackay, who is the SNP’s campaign manager, be able to tell us what name the SNP will be flying its flag under this time? The spirit of that recommendation was not applied in the Scottish Parliament elections last year.

What will be the outcome of today’s debate? The elections are vital and there is real irony in the fact that the party that is demanding more powers for the Scottish Parliament is sooking up powers from local government to here, whether through the new Forth Estuary Transport Authority board, the new education quango or whatever. Local authorities are worried that their financial straitjacket means that they will be responsible for delivering on the ground what the SNP decides here. That is an issue that we need to debate. Local government should remain local; it should be accountable for local service provision. Local councils exist solely to provide local services to meet local needs and suit local circumstances, accepting the fact that collective provision will always be more effective than individuals trying to look after themselves, particularly in a recession.

Those of us who are party animals take knowing how to vote for granted, but we must ensure that there are proper systems in place to encourage ordinary voters. I am keen to hear more from the minister about the resources that are being allocated to ensuring that that happens. We also take for granted the conduct of the elections. I welcome the fact that we have been able to focus on that today. It is highly appropriate that we acknowledge the work of the thousands of staff throughout the country who do the hard work on the day of the elections and, afterwards, during the count to ensure that our democracy is a real democracy.

I ask the minister to give us a bit more detail about awareness raising and the distribution of promotional literature to ensure that the voters—the people who really matter—know when the elections will take place; how to register; how to vote in a polling station; how to get to the polling station if they have a physical disability; and how the postal vote system works. As the minister said, we must ensure that the elections are democratic and that as many people as possible who are registered and eligible to vote actually turn out and vote.

I move amendment S4M-01741.2, to leave out from “and participation” to end and insert:

“, registration and participation, and notes the valuable role of the Electoral Commission in helping to ensure fair, open and transparent elections and good practice in this regard.”

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I welcome the motion’s emphasis on local democracy in general and on this year’s local government elections in particular.

There is no doubt that local democracy was badly undermined in the 2007 election fiasco, which led Ron Gould to conclude, in the independent report that the Electoral Commission asked him to undertake, as the minister and Sarah Boyack have highlighted, that almost without exception the voter was treated as an afterthought by virtually all other stakeholders.

The Gould report details the various factors that contributed to the confusion and chaos at that election-night count. Those included the fact that the elections for the Scottish Parliament and local government were held on the same day and the fact that three different types of electoral system—first past the post, the additional member system and the single transferable vote—were in operation, the latter being used in Scotland for the first time. Electronic counting was also used for the first time, resulting in the rejection of ballot papers, which were automatically discounted without any manual authorisation. It is perhaps not surprising that, with all those factors to contend with, the process became all-important and the voter was forgotten.

The key Gould review recommendations were legislated for in the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2009. As a consequence, local government and Scottish Parliament elections have been decoupled, as the Scottish Conservatives advocated from the outset. As the motion states, work has been carried out

“to procure, develop and test a system of electronic counting”

for this year’s local government elections. Given the complexity of the STV system, electronic counting remains a sensible method of determining the result. As the minister confirmed, the early indications suggest that the trial has been successful. Furthermore, all rejected ballot papers will have to be checked by the chief returning officer or their duly nominated representative.

The design of the ballot paper has also been addressed. In “The Administration of Future Elections in Scotland: A consultation exercise to examine the recommendations of the Gould Report to improve administration of future elections in Scotland”, which was published in September 2010, the Scottish Government states:

“The overriding principle will be to put the interests of the voter first and to ensure that the ballot paper design adopted for the elections minimises the possibility for confusion.”

However, that commitment did not prevent the reappearance of the phrase “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the Scottish Parliament election ballot papers.

Despite the upbeat terms of the motion, and as James Kelly and Sarah Boyack have pointed out, concerns remain that insufficient work has been done to date to ensure that voters are properly informed and educated about how the STV system works. In fact, most people still associate STV with a television station rather than a voting system. It is clear that there is a lack of understanding that could in turn adversely affect turnout and participation.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way on that point?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

My apologies—I learned bad lessons in another place.

Does Margaret Mitchell accept that the lack of understanding of STV has been overstated? There were fewer spoiled papers in the STV vote than in the parliamentary vote, certainly in Glasgow. Many people already use STV in elections for things such as pension funds and unions.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That certainly is not my experience. From talking to the electorate, I find that there is still huge confusion about the STV system and multimember wards.

Although the Conservatives are generally supportive of the motion, we do not agree that the Scotland Bill should be altered so that responsibility and powers for all elections that take place in Scotland—except those for the United Kingdom and European Union Parliaments—are devolved. Implicit in such a move would be the responsibility for the franchise. As the minister confirmed again this morning, the SNP continues to argue for extending the franchise to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections and the forthcoming referendum. The SNP states that, to deny that age group the right to vote shows a lack of consistency with other legal rights. However, the real inconsistency is highlighted in the SNP’s preferred policy that young people must be 21 years of age or over to purchase alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets.

It is argued that, if young people have the right to marry at 16, they ought to have the right to vote. However, it is worth pointing out that, although they have the right to marry at 16, few choose that course of action. Significantly, according to 2010 statistics, although there are 126,000 people aged 16 and 17 in Scotland, a minuscule 79 chose to exercise the right to marry, and they were not just in the 16 to 17 age group, but in the wider 16 to 19 category.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Ms Boyack said that we should do everything possible to get folk out to vote. Over the years, I have found that many young people in fifth and sixth year at school are immensely interested in politics, but when they leave school they are suddenly disinterested because we have not grabbed their interest at that earlier point. Does the member agree that giving young people the vote at 16 and 17 would keep them interested in politics?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am coming to my main point, which is that while some people would feel competent to vote and would be interested enough to take that option, many others would be totally ambivalent about it. As the Electoral Commission’s 12-month consultation, “How old is old enough?” reveals, young people were divided on whether they were ready to be given the vote at 16.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

If Mr Robertson does not mind, I would like to make some progress.

As for helping to increase participation and turnout, according to the same Electoral Commission consultation, evidence suggests that lowering the voting age would decrease the overall percentage turnout in the short term because of the additional number of eligible but disengaged voters. Longer term effects are also disputed. The Electoral Commission has a vital role to play in ensuring fair, open, and transparent elections. For that reason, the Conservatives will support Sarah Boyack’s amendment.

The Conservative amendment notes that

“responsibility for the general administration and conduct of elections to local government is already devolved”

and supports that being extended to elections to the Scottish Parliament. The important point is that that would safeguard the consideration of UK constitutional issues on a consistent UK basis.

The mistakes made previously have been reviewed and it is to be hoped that the glitches have been resolved. It is crucial, however, for voters to have an understanding of the electoral system that is in operation, and of the powers and service provision for which local government is responsible and which affect the daily lives of people all over Scotland. Politicians and candidates must bear some responsibility for educating people and promoting policies that resonate with the electorate, thus motivating them to participate and turn out to vote.

Opposing school closures is a case in point. For example, the proposed closure of Earnock high school in Hamilton a number of years ago saw a vastly increased turnout at the polling stations with people queueing to vote. It resulted in the defeat of sitting local members who had voted for the proposition. That is an example of local democracy in action. The decisions that local authorities take about spending and cuts will also encourage those who are rightly opposed to, for example, the proposed closure of refuges for victims of domestic abuse in North Lanarkshire, or the same council’s decision to cut funding to the Bellshill citizens advice bureau for debt advice, to exercise their democratic right to register their protest at the ballot box.

There will be no shortage of live and contentious issues for local government candidates and other politicians to put to the electorate in an effort to gain votes and increase turnout. In those circumstances, with all the funding decisions that are affecting the provision of services to the public, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote is not a priority.

I move amendment S4M-01741.1, to leave out from “supports” to end and insert

“notes that responsibility for the general administration and conduct of elections to local government is already devolved and that these powers are being further devolved for elections to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Bill while ensuring that issues of UK constitutional importance continue to be dealt with at UK level.”

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the room is full of standing councillors from Scottish local government, you might regret giving them the freedom to discuss it in detail. However, I have every reason to believe that you will control the situation.

I congratulate Derek Mackay on his new role as the Minister for Local Government and Planning. As everyone knows, I have worked with him for many years. His record, particularly in local government, has been strong so it is great to see him in his new position.

We are talking about the Gould report and many of the things that happened in the past. We only have to look at the 2007 elections to realise that it is very good that the elections have been decoupled. When I hear Sarah Boyack talk about the confusion and the discussions that took place at the time, I remember that it was a Labour-Lib Dem Administration that created the situation for the 2007 election. It was rushed at the last minute because so many election papers had to be in the right places, which did not help.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does George Adam agree that having “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the ballot paper was designed to cause the electorate confusion?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

The confusion was not helped by the fact that there were so many different ballot papers, the arrangements were rushed through and there was very little public education about STV. That was the problem.

The comment is funny coming from the Labour Party, which calls itself the Scottish Labour Party, although we all know that there is no such thing.

The idea of having a stand-alone election is good for local democracy, because it is important that people in areas such as mine have the chance to discuss the local issues that affect them and their areas. It is important that we have the time for that debate, that it is not lost in the national picture and that people have a chance to discuss the issues in full.

Although, as the minister says, we do not have the South African ideal of people queueing up at 10 o’clock to try to cast their votes, I welcome the fact that people coming in at night due to shift patterns, work and family commitments will be able to vote, and that it will make a difference.

It is important that we inspire people to vote. Let us not say that local council election turnouts have always been low and will continue to be low. We must go out, stand on our records and inspire people to vote.

I find some things a wee bit strange, such as electronic voting. Party animals, as Sarah Boyack called them—that is a new one; I was going to say “more experienced members of political parties”—found it strange watching the computer screens for the electronic voting. We were used to the old analogue way of doing things. One of the independent candidates in Renfrewshire said that waiting for the results to come in and watching the graph go further was like sitting in a bookmaker’s. That was difficult, but things change and we have to move on—as long as the process is open and transparent. That is extremely important.

We must ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds get involved in and enthused by local and national Government. As my colleague Kevin Stewart mentioned in his intervention on Margaret Mitchell, we must ensure that we get young people at that early stage and keep them involved from that time.

When Ms Mitchell mentions not allowing people to buy alcohol until they are 21, she mixes two entirely different ideas. People constantly turn up at the surgeries that I hold as a sitting councillor with complaints about the problems that their communities are having with individuals and alcohol in particular.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does George Adam accept that there is a certain hypocrisy and inconsistency in suggesting that 16 and 17-year-olds are responsible enough to vote but that people are not responsible enough to buy alcohol until the age of 21?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

There has always been a level of hypocrisy in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to join the Army and fight for their country but not being able to vote on the Government that sends them to war in the first place. That is a continual issue.

A level of maturity is needed when dealing with alcohol. It is not hypocrisy. We are talking about looking after our communities and ensuring that we move our young people away from their dependency on alcohol. People need a level of maturity when dealing with alcohol, whether they are 21 or 41.

The most important thing that will help with election campaigns is to have a positive campaign that will encourage and enthuse people. I mentioned standing on our records. I am happy to do that, because the Scottish Government, working in partnership, has given a fair settlement to local government over the past five years.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

The budget that the Parliament will consider next week will contain £700 million of cuts to local government over the next three years. Does George Adam consider that a fair settlement?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

James Kelly is aware that circumstances have changed and that we live in extremely difficult times. We have a recession, which was created by Labour and has been continued by the Tories. Over the next couple of years, we will have a debate on the future of Scotland. The main reason for Scotland to be independent is so that we can make our own decisions and ensure that we take our place in the world.

In Renfrewshire, we worked hard for a fair settlement and we have managed to deliver quite a lot. We have done simple things, such as developing Paisley town hall and spending £1.5 million on closed-circuit television in all town centres. We have ensured that Renfrewshire is the gateway to the Commonwealth games in 2014 and have contributed £100,000 to activities connected to the games.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

You must close, please.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I have taken three interventions, Presiding Officer. I was told that I had some latitude.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Youth unemployment is mentioned constantly. The council’s administration proposed

“to create a fund of £2.5 million to support a package of measures aimed specifically at youth unemployment in Renfrewshire.”

The fund will lead to the creation of 250 new jobs with employment subsidy and will secure training for 1,300 young people.

Politics is about responsibility for making decisions that make our communities more socially just, secure places to live. We must ensure that as many Scots as possible engage in politics and we must enthuse them to do so. We must also ensure that the public have confidence in the election process, from the voting booth to the counting hall. The plans outlined by the minister will help to achieve that.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate on local government elections. I declare that I am a member of North Lanarkshire Council, although that will no longer be the case after the elections that we are debating.

I am glad that the Government has acknowledged the importance of the local government elections by scheduling the debate and explicitly stating that importance in the motion. To sustain that acknowledgement of importance, we must talk only about the local government elections and not allow the debate to veer off into other areas; that diminishes the profile of both the local government elections and the debate. By focusing solely on the elections, we should be able to achieve the aim of the motion and our amendment and increase voter engagement, registration and participation.

There have been welcome changes to the administration of the local government elections. There is a new provision to allow a member of the public to cast their vote after 10 pm as long as they are in the queue to vote before the 10 o’clock deadline. That will avoid the confusion that there was at some polling stations in England in the 2010 UK election, when a number of people were unable to vote despite arriving on time, and the criticism that followed.

Like the minister, I am not sure that we will reach a high enough turnout to cause queues at polling stations at 10 pm. You never know, though. Perhaps the voters of Kilsyth will be energised by the fact that Mark Griffin will not appear on the ballot paper; perhaps voters in Renfrew North will be similarly enthused by the fact that there is no Derek Mackay on the ballot paper. Perhaps they will all be so happy at the prospect of getting a different councillor that they will turn out in huge numbers. That is a bonus—they will be able to vote after the 10 o’clock deadline as long as they get to the polling station in time.

There is also a return to electronic counting, of which I am a massive fan, despite the problems in 2007. I think that those problems were more a result of voters being faced with three different voting systems at once than of the machinery. Tests in Perth of hundreds of thousands of ballot papers have been successful. A test of the procedures in a by-election also went smoothly.

The reason that I am a fan of electronic counting is that the results of the election can be released down to ballot-box level, as long as it is not lower than the 200-ballot limit, for voter identification reasons. That means that political anoraks such as me—I would not call myself a party animal—can analyse local voting trends in tremendous detail, just as I could after the 2007 election. I am pleased that Aileen Campbell was able to reassure me about that at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee last October. Derek Mackay has given the Parliament a similar assurance that the Government will seek to release that data.

There have been successful tests of draft ballot papers with sample groups. As the minister said, participants have described the design as clean, simple and straightforward. However, as stated, the main cause of errors was the lack of understanding of the single transferable vote. I am pleased that the Government has accepted the recommendation to work closely with the Electoral Commission to run an information campaign to improve awareness of STV and encourage voter engagement and participation.

We already know that local government and Scottish Parliament elections have been decoupled by moving to two five-year terms for local government. That was intended to put local government elections at the mid-point of a Scottish parliamentary term, but the situation has now been complicated by five-year, fixed-term Parliaments in Westminster and a five-year session here too. If it is to be assumed that five-year terms will continue in the Scottish Parliament in order to prevent clashes with Westminster elections, we will also have to debate five-year terms for local government in order to continue the principle of free-standing local government elections.

Although I agree with the principle of decoupling to give local government the focus and priority that it deserves, collectively we will have to deal with the issue of a potentially reduced turnout and the implications of that. Jointly we will have to do all that we can as politicians to encourage as many people as possible to participate in the elections, although I imagine that in practice that will result in us all going our separate ways to encourage our own supporters to turn out and vote. Taking that aside, the Government should start a voter registration drive to encourage people to get on to the electoral register and a campaign to encourage people to switch to a postal vote, as figures show that turnout is much higher in that section of the electorate.

I am also pleased that the Government has accepted another recommendation from the Gould report, in that the period between close of nominations and polling day will be increased from 16 to 23 days. That is a welcome change that will allow more time for the printing, distribution and return of postal votes, reducing the pressure on election administrators at a very busy time and potentially eliminating the scenario in which a postal ballot is received by a voter, but too late for it to be returned in time to be counted. That is a big issue for anybody who falls ill or becomes housebound on an emergency basis, applies for a postal vote at a late stage and is unable to cast it. I am glad to see that that potential scenario has been overcome.

I look forward to the measures that I have mentioned being implemented and, I hope, the smooth running of local government elections in May. I also look forward to playing a big part in the elections locally, although perhaps not as big a part as I anticipated this time last year. I support the amendment in Sarah Boyack’s name.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I start by congratulating Derek Mackay on his ministerial maiden speech to the Parliament. It was a job well done.

I will speak briefly about the motion, but the great thing about it is that it gives us an opportunity to talk about the elections in May, which will be the thrust of the main part of my speech.

I welcome the hard work and joint effort from the Scottish Government, local authorities and others to ensure the implementation of the changes that flowed from the Gould report. Mr Gould should be congratulated on his full and frank report, which highlighted many of the shortfalls of the 2007 Holyrood election. We have heard from previous speakers examples of the problems and some of the work that the Government is doing to combat them. Unfortunately, there are a couple of areas in which we do not have the powers to do that—two of them being votes for young people aged 16 and 17 and the devolution of the powers to control local authority elections.

The proof that the Scottish Government took recommendations seriously is in the smooth running of the 2011 Holyrood elections, and I am confident that the decoupling of the local authority elections from other elections will ensure another successful, well-run day in May.

There are aspects of the Gould report’s conclusions that should leave some of the political parties in this chamber embarrassed—well, on this occasion, just one party as the other party has not even bothered to turn up. To be told that

“the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive frequently focused on partisan political interests, overlooking ... the voter”

surprises few of us on this side of the chamber but must have come as a huge shock to voters across the country who previously put their faith in those political parties to make decisions on their behalf and not solely for political gain.

We have moved on, and I look forward to the transparent, fair and smooth running of all elections, and referendums, in Scotland in the future. Of course, one way to ensure that is, as the motion says, to devolve the power for the running of all Scottish elections to Scotland.

I am sure that I am not alone on this side of the chamber in saying how much I look forward to the forthcoming local elections.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The member mentioned fairness. One of the arguments promoted by those who supported STV was that it would be fairer. In my local authority, Labour is the largest group with 14 members, but it does not control the council. With 14 members, Labour has only two seats on the executive committee, yet the Scottish National Party with 13 members takes eight seats. Would the member support changes to legislation to bring us in line with England, where there is fair representation on council bodies?

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I point out to Mr Findlay that I was leader of the opposition in Glasgow City Council. I know all about unfairness in local authorities.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Answer the question.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

As opinion polls continue to show growing support for the party, which has a great record in local by-elections and a track record of success in administration, and given the record of hard work and commitment of SNP councillors across the country, I am confident that the people of Scotland will elect our candidates as their local authority representatives in great number.

We have talked about the process of local elections and how we can try to make it easier for people to vote in May; now we must enthuse people about coming out to vote. The main reason to come out and vote in Glasgow in May is that the elections give people a chance to throw the dead hand of Labour control off our beautiful city. For far too long the citizens of Glasgow have had to live under the complacency, arrogance and incompetence of an Administration that would rather fight with the Government for political reasons than work with it to make life better for the people that it is meant to represent—present company excepted, of course.

While the SNP Government completes the M8, builds a brand new hospital and funds numerous new schools, the local administration group penalises the poorest and most vulnerable in society by closing down day centres for the disabled and schools for pupils who have additional support needs and, worst, by using the admirable self-directed support system to cut funding from the people who need it most, leaving many people without any way to live life as fully as they have been used to doing. It is thought that Glasgow City Council will face a legal challenge on how it is trying to implement the policy. I would not bet on the council’s being able to defend its approach.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am wondering to which part of the motion the member is referring as he gives a party-political broadcast.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I did not realise that there are set words that we have to use in our speeches—[Interruption.] I am trying to explain why we should get people out to vote, not just how people should vote. The two issues are closely connected.

Glasgow Labour is ripping itself apart, after the most inept selection process that I have ever witnessed, with more than 20 councillors deselected for not being up to standard, one of whom was city treasurer just a few months before and another of whom was convener of the licensing board. When was it realised that those people were not up to the job? If that is the case, why were so many of them in extremely important positions in the first place?

We are putting forward a record number of high-quality, committed council candidates to fight for Glasgow—double the number that we put up in 2007.

While Labour supports the continual privatisation of the national health service, the SNP continues to protect the NHS in Scotland from the worst ravages of the Westminster cuts.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

And while Labour has a number of councillors who thought that their only responsibility was—

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I think that that is highly unfair, Presiding Officer, but I am happy to go back to talking about how we should encourage 16 and 17-year-olds to vote for the SNP. I have given some of the reasons why they should be able to vote for the SNP when it comes to the local authority elections on 3 May. I did not realise our speeches had to be okayed—particularly by Mr Findlay—before we made them, but if I have touched a nerve I do apologise.

We have an opportunity, thanks to the work of the Government and local authorities, to ensure that more people vote on 3 May. I hope that they will vote for the SNP.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I think that all members agree on the importance of local government, and I think that the electorate agrees on that, too. Councils have a remit on many of the issues that concern people, such as council tax, housing—in many places—schools, roads, planning, refuse collection, licensing and parks. The list goes on.

I have had the privilege of being in Glasgow City Council chamber, at Westminster and here, and I have no doubt that councillors are generally at least as hard working as other politicians are and are often underpaid.

I am glad that this year’s local government elections will take place on their own day, but we must not forget the bad old days.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I was interested in the member’s reference to councillors being underpaid. Does he therefore disagree with the minister’s decision not to do anything on councillors’ pay?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I was going to touch on that later. For now, I will just say that in the short term we are constrained because the public would not accept a pay increase, but we need to look at that in the longer term, so the member has a point.

My experience of council elections came first in 1998, when I was elected to Glasgow City Council, which had only one other councillor who had been elected for the SNP—our own, dear Kenneth Gibson. In 1999, I was elected again, this time with his mother, and then there were two of us. In 2003, we reached the fabulous achievement of having three SNP councillors in the city. To touch on a point that Neil Findlay made earlier, during the time when I was a Glasgow city councillor, the Labour group attempted to claim that 100 per cent of the executive of Glasgow City Council should be Labour, with no opposition councillors whatever. I protested against that by sitting in the lord provost’s chair and got suspended for nine months.

We need to give due thanks to the Liberal Democrats, who forced the introduction of STV. Thanks to that, in 2007 we achieved an SNP group of 22 councillors. Unfortunately, Liberal Democrat members are not here to hear my compliments. The Liberal Democrats forced Labour to accept PR, much against its will, and it is disappointing that their colleagues at Westminster did not manage to force similar concessions from the Tories but settled merely for an AV referendum.

STV is clearly the best system. It means that all councillors have equal footing, compared with the slightly flawed system that we have here at Holyrood with two different ways of being elected. As I said earlier, I think that there is a pretty good understanding of how STV works, especially when it is the only system that is being used on a particular day.

However, some areas of the system could be improved, and we will have suggested some of those in the past. First, a five-member ward would have been more proportionate and would have helped smaller parties. Not many of those are represented here today, either. A second issue is by-elections. At the moment, in a three-member ward where, say, party A has two seats and party B has one seat, and the party B member dies, the likelihood is that the main party, A, will win the third seat as well. We then end up with a ward where 100 per cent of the seats are held by one party. That was not the intention. We could say, for example, that the replacement councillor should be from the same party as the one whose seat has been lost—or an independent if that was the case—or that the by-election should take account of existing councillors. I accept that a tidy solution is difficult, but we need to consider the matter at some stage in the future. Another aspect of elections that we would like to improve is giving 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, but that is outwith our power.

I look forward to May’s elections and hope that the SNP becomes the largest party in Glasgow. However, to achieve that, we need to increase turnout, which is a long-standing problem for us in Scotland at different levels. The fact that we have a separate day for the elections is very worth while. That was opposed long and hard by certain other parties—partly, to be fair, on grounds of turnout. Part of the answer on turnout would be to give councillors the respect that they are due; perhaps we do not always do that. The public have a tendency to look at it as a hierarchy, with MPs at the top, MSPs next and councillors down below that, with members of the European Parliament totally lost somewhere. Having been in the first three of those positions, I do not agree that that hierarchy reflects reality.

We have made some inroads into the issue of respect, especially by ending ring fencing, which gives councillors a lot more autonomy. When the minister and I were both councillors travelling to Convention of Scottish Local Authorities meetings, we asked endlessly for ring fencing to be ended, and doing it is a big achievement for the SNP Government. There is no point in having elections to local government if councillors cannot make their own decisions.

However, more must be done in all parties. We could allow councillors to take more of a lead on media issues, for example. MSPs have tended to barge in on what are largely council matters; indeed, I have been guilty of that myself.

As I have said, we also need at some stage to think about paying councillors better. I consider the gap between the £16,500 paid to a councillor and the £57,000 paid to one of us to be too wide. That kind of pay limits the number of people who can afford to be councillors, especially those who need to take on the role full time.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Does the member welcome the fact that, before a ministerial view was taken on a pay freeze for councillors, councillors themselves, through our umbrella organisation, COSLA, had volunteered to introduce such a freeze because of the circumstances in which we all find ourselves?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The minister is absolutely right to talk about circumstances, because certainly that is the current situation, but I think that in the longer term we need to think about redressing the balance.

Finally, councils need to be responsible for more of their finances.

Nevertheless, there are positive things to highlight. For example, the relationship between Glasgow and the Government over the Commonwealth games has been very positive, and I trust that that will continue.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I know of no one who would dissent from the view that

“local democracy and ... this year’s local elections”

are important. I certainly would not; however, in agreeing, I must declare an interest as a North Lanarkshire councillor who will stand down in May. There is also no question but that the 2007 election brought local and Scottish democracy into disrepute on a number of counts and that the lessons that have been drawn in the Gould report and elsewhere have, in most respects, been learned. Nor is there any doubt that subsequent “improvements ... in electoral administration” are welcome. Clearly we all welcome the work on providing a robust system of electronic counting for the elections and want a successfully run election with a high turnout.

However, the final section of the Scottish Government motion is not really about local government elections. That is just as well, because if the motion had any real relevance to that issue, I would be drawing the chamber’s attention to Gould’s criticism of the lateness of consideration of arrangements for 2007 and his recommendation that such matters should have been sorted out long before.

In this debate on local government elections, we should not muddy the waters by discussing the Scottish Parliament elections that will take place in four years’ time or the administration of a referendum 1,000 days away. Instead, we should give proper consideration to ensuring that the local government elections are—and are seen to be—fair and above board. I believe that that is best done through the good offices of the Electoral Commission.

We might all agree on the importance of local democracy, but it could be said that some have a funny way of showing it. I do not think that local democracy is well served by current Scottish Government policies. On funding, which has already been mentioned, recent figures from the Scottish Parliament information centre show that, within a shrinking Scottish Government pot, local government funding is shrinking faster than everything else.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No—I am moving on.

This year, 34.5 per cent of the Scottish Government budget will go to local government; next year, the figure drops to 33.9 per cent; and the year after—2013-14—it will fall again to 33.2 per cent. Over a three-year period when total funding will drop by 2.4 per cent, local government funding will drop by a massive 5.9 per cent. What happens to the rest of the Scottish Government budget when we take out local government funding? With the rest of the budget taking an increasing share, it drops by only 0.6 per cent.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have already recommended to one member that they stick to relevant issues in this debate. Will you be doing likewise to the member speaking at present?

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

For the next two years, the Scottish Government expects local government to shoulder 10 times the level of cuts that will apply elsewhere. In 2014-15, the cuts are smaller and more even, but already the damage is done, so the cumulative impact of that squeeze on local government is that it will always be £1 billion worse off than if its budget share had been maintained to 2015—and, of course, that figure would be higher still if one compared the position had the budget been maintained in real terms. So much for valuing the importance of local government.

Support for local democracy should also mean working with local authorities to tackle issues such as high unemployment and ensuring that Scottish policy supports local action. Why, then, do areas such as North Lanarkshire not feature in initiatives such as new enterprise zones? That is a double blow for North Lanarkshire, as the BioCity life sciences—

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will take your words of wisdom, Presiding Officer.

Local democracy is important. So is holding the Scottish Government to account for what it does to local government. The verdict on local government’s performance will, I hope, be delivered through smoothly run elections in May. The verdict on the Scottish Government may be reflected in that result too.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I congratulate the minister on what I consider to be an excellent first speech, and I welcome Sarah Boyack and Margaret Mitchell to their respective shadow posts. In this generous mood of congratulating people, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Aberdeenshire Council—which might come as a surprise to it, given some of the debates that I have had with it recently—on the proactive way in which it has been getting itself ready for the elections in May.

Last year, I had the privilege of working with Aberdeenshire Council’s chief executive, Colin Mackenzie, his returning officer and his officials, particularly Alan Bell, who strived to ensure that those who could vote in last May’s elections were able to vote.

With the changes to local government elections and the introduction of the electronic counting system—we have all heard of the complexity of those issues and the problems that we had in 2007, and I am absolutely delighted that the recommendations of the Gould report have been taken on board—it is important that people understand the methodology behind the system and what will be happening. I think that the minister said that the system has gone through stress testing. I sincerely hope that he means rigorous testing, not stressful testing, because I hope that the local government elections in May will be stress free. I have every confidence that the electronic system has been tested in full and I hope that we will have no surprises in May—except, perhaps, for a surprising rise in the number of SNP councillors elected.

It is important that those who are allowed to vote are able to do so. It is in the interests of every member in this chamber to ensure that we encourage our colleagues at local government level to find a method of countering apathy—I am reluctant to use that word, but I think that there is sometimes a degree of apathy when it comes to turning out to vote in local government elections. It is important that we ensure that people have the confidence to come out and vote for what they believe in. We must ensure that the information that they are given is robust and understandable.

Margaret Mitchell alluded to one of the problems we face when she talked about the complexities of STV voting—the situation was, of course, made more difficult for people to understand in 2007, as we had more than one election going on at the same time. It is important to ensure that not only those who vote in polling stations but those who use the postal voting system have the appropriate information and an awareness of the STV system.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

I agree with what the member is saying and am pleased that he is saying it but, when it comes to increasing awareness among communities, does he agree that the minister should look at ways of encouraging people from the minority communities, in particular, to participate in elections? One way of doing that would be to ensure that they are registered to vote. Many members of those communities are not registered to vote, which means that at every election they miss out on the opportunity to exercise their democratic right.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I agree 100 per cent that we must ensure that people have the necessary information, which must be in a language and format that everyone can understand.

I congratulate Aberdeenshire Council on the work that it has done to ensure that people have full access when they go to their polling station. Every local authority has a statutory requirement to ensure that that is the case, but I know that Aberdeenshire Council looks at all its polling stations and ensures not only that they are accessible, but that they have appropriate lighting and that appropriate information is provided at election time.

We should try to ensure that the information that goes out to the electorate on the STV system is provided in the languages and formats that people require. We need to encourage organisations such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People that provide information to people with sensory impairments to get that information out to the groups of people they represent.

I remember full well what happened at last May’s election when, at 6 o’clock in the morning, I went up to the platform, having been elected as the MSP for Aberdeenshire West. I would welcome the count being done on the following day, and not just because I probably went for three days without sleep—albeit that I was probably on an adrenalin high at the time—but because that would be fair to the local authority staff, who endure a great deal on polling day, manning the polling stations and so on. Counting taking place the following day would also be fair to candidates, and I hope that the minister will take that point into account when he sums up.

I look forward to the election in May and to its being fair and transparent. I congratulate the minister on saying that post-election information will be made available so that we can see how and where people voted, and I look forward to seeing even more SNP-run councils in May.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and, like other members, I welcome the minister, Sarah Boyack and Margaret Mitchell to their new positions and thank them for their contributions to the debate.

As the Parliament has already recognised, the 2007 election fiasco should never happen again. However, it was not all bad—in many senses, what happened in 2007 was significant. It was the first time that the single transferable vote system had been used in Scotland for local elections—sadly, that is not why the 2007 elections stand out in our memories. At 38,352, the number of spoiled local government ballot papers was rightly perceived as being way too high, even if it was somewhat less than the number of spoiled ballot papers in the parliamentary election on the same day. It is clear that Scotland’s reputation for being able to administer elections efficiently and fairly suffered a damaging blow.

The people of Scotland are entitled to a robust and efficient electoral system, and I am glad that members across the chamber agreed that things had to change for the elections in 2011 and 2012, to ensure that people would not, in effect, be disenfranchised by accident ever again.

The independent report that Ron Gould published in 2007 was a welcome guide to how elections ought to be run. The SNP accepted the report and the wide-ranging conclusions of the review, acknowledging the unusually complex system in Scotland whereby electoral responsibilities are divided between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. As we know, the administration of local government elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but many powers remain at Westminster, such as the franchise and the power to change the voting age at those elections, as the First Minister reminded us last week.

In connection with that issue, I find it surprising that the Liberal Democrats are so hostile to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum without acknowledging that, if we had control of the franchise for local authorities, there can be no doubt that the reform could have been introduced for the elections in May.

The complexity of the situation is illustrated in the Gould report. Members who have looked at it recently will know that it includes an interesting table, on pages 12 and 13, that lists the various statutes—created by Westminster and Holyrood respectively—that affect local government elections. The situation really is a guddle. No wonder Gould described it as antiquated and fractured. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is continuing to press for full control of the franchise for local elections in order to streamline the legislation and maximise efficiency in the process.

Gould expressed concern that two different voting systems were used on one day—first past the post and STV. That led people to put crosses where they should have put numbers and vice versa. We need to continue the public campaign to make voters aware of the need to place 1, 2 and 3 on the paper as opposed to crosses. I am glad that a public awareness campaign immediately before the 2012 elections will focus on that.

Following Gould, the decision was taken to separate elections to the Scottish Parliament from local government elections. That decoupling brings us to where we are today, with the local government elections approaching a whole year after the parliamentary elections. The Gould report argued that holding local government elections in the same year as Scottish Parliament elections might have overshadowed the importance of the former. Few would disagree with that. It is important to ensure that there is an informed debate before any local government election, and I am glad that there will be no confusion between elections this year that might detract from that debate. This year’s local government elections are no less important than any that have gone before.

The decoupling presents a significant challenge in relation to turnout. Sarah Boyack reasonably mentioned issues with postal voting. I am happy to stand corrected, but I am not sure that there has been much consideration of the alternative voting methods that could complement postal voting, which are mentioned on page 69 of the Gould report—in particular, advance voting. Those methods might increase turnout and they certainly need to be considered in connection with any franchise for the referendum. I hope that the minister will address that, either in his closing speech or later.

Local authority elections are often regarded as being less exciting than national elections. Although I concede that local elections often lack the television and other media coverage and excitement of parliamentary elections, it is local authorities that provide many of the services upon which vast numbers of the electorate rely. Without those services, daily life would grind to a halt for many people. For that reason, local elections matter just as much as any other elections. I therefore urge my constituents and voters throughout Scotland to get fully involved in the elections and to cast their vote. Let us hope that, whatever the result on the first Thursday in May, we can be proud that the elections have been fairly and efficiently run.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

As most members will know, I am an elected member of Glasgow City Council. I wanted to declare that interest before I contribute to today’s debate.

I welcome this debate on the forthcoming local government elections in May. It is a welcome change to have a discussion about a vote of which we know the date, and in which we know what will be put to the electorate.

As we know, reflection, analysis and action on the elections process were needed after the circumstances of the 2007 vote. Many voters were left feeling disenfranchised by the whole situation and I am sure that no one in the Parliament wants that to happen again. The work that was done to produce the Gould report was therefore needed and welcome.

In preparing for the debate, I was struck by the fact that the Gould report said that having too little time to incorporate changes adequately into the electoral process was consistently reported to the research team as having been problematic. That made me think that this debate is also rather late in the day, as we have less than four months until polling day.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

No.

Lest we forget, the underlying principles for us as elected members are representation, democracy and dialogue. We should all strive to increase participatory democracy at all levels, to enhance citizenship and to redress the democratic deficit. The decentralisation of decision-making processes to our communities is imperative. That enables us as politicians to best represent the needs, issues and aspirations of communities, as we are elected to do.

Recent history suggests that we might have a disproportionately low turnout on polling day and that a vast number of people will not use their vote. That issue is particularly important and needs to be addressed, especially as this will be the first stand-alone local government election in almost a decade and will involve a huge number of new voters.

As seasoned canvassers, campaigners, party animals and—what else have we had this morning?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Anoraks.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

Anoraks—that was it.

I am sure that we have heard many of the reasons that people give for not voting, but we must all try to work together to increase awareness and interest, in the hope of increasing turnout in May.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

After all, one of the Gould report’s recommendations was that we put voters first and ahead of any party self-interest.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member take an intervention, please?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

No—I will not.

We must strive to increase participatory democracy at all levels and enhance citizenship and we must work to redress the democratic deficit, especially locally, where the situation is being noticed more and more with the onset of cuts to public services because of the Scottish Government’s council tax freeze.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

As a member of Glasgow City Council, I know that its budget will have the biggest cut in Scotland between now and 2015. Given funding cuts of £25 million, for example, it is no wonder that local democracy struggles to engage with voters.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

That applies especially because such cuts will be felt most by—

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I did not think that the member would give way.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

Such cuts will be felt most by people in the most vulnerable circumstances and could result in the withdrawal of vital council services in communities across Glasgow and Scotland.

I want the people of Glasgow to turn out and vote in the forthcoming local elections. First and foremost, I want them to feel that they are voting in an open and fair process.

As a woman from a working-class background with a particular interest in the women’s movement, I am often reminded of the struggle of people like me to get the chance to vote. It is because of the class and gender struggle for suffrage that I feel not just pride in having a vote but the responsibility to use it.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member give way on that point, please?

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

It is of course vital that the people of Scotland have the opportunity to participate in the forthcoming local government elections through a system that they can trust and engage with. That is why the Electoral Commission’s role is extremely important.

The Electoral Commission’s independence ensures that the public feel greater confidence in the procedures with which they engage. As we know, responsibility for local government elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so the same legal requirements for the commission to have a direct role in the conduct of elections that are reserved to Westminster do not apply. However, we should not underestimate the value that the commission still offers. It plays an extremely important role in giving advice to local government candidates, their agents, officials and activists, for instance. In fact, the dedicated pages on the commission’s website are of real value to those groups, and they should be widely promoted. Perhaps most significantly, the Electoral Commission has a proven record of working to maximise voter registration, participation and awareness. As I said earlier, that is a must if we are to encourage more people to engage in the local elections.

I am glad to support the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack, as it acknowledges that excellent work. I hope that members across the chamber will also recognise that work and support the amendment.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I formally welcome Derek Mackay as the new Minister for Local Government and Planning. His promotion is well deserved.

I am delighted to support the Government’s motion and am even more delighted to look forward to the fray of the local elections in May this year. As we all know and as has been said, the 2007 elections were a shambles, but the 2011 parliamentary elections ran smoothly. The system for the 2012 local elections should be better and should allow us to focus on our policies. They will, of course, be helped by the decoupling of the national and local elections and by the in-depth electronic counting system aided and abetted by the professionalism of more fully trained presiding and returning officers. The electronic system report is very readable not just for information technology anoraks and is a strong foundation for voter confidence.

This time, we politicians have no place to hide. The people’s focus on policies and their decisions will out. They have a right. They rightly demand security of process, fairness of proportionality, proximate accountability and, above all, clarity of policy. It has been said that there is concern about the low turnout levels. It is incumbent on all national and local politicians to address that issue. I believe that part of the solution is that all elections that pertain to and affect solely and directly the sovereignty of the voters of Scotland must be devolved to and controlled by the Scottish Parliament.

Electoral conditions should move with the ever-increasing maturity of our nation. That is why, for example, we must pursue legislation to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the local government elections and, indeed, all Scottish elections.

The now-accepted Gould report revealed many of the issues relating to the 2007 debacle. There were too many such issues, and there is not enough time to rehearse them. Narrow partisan politics, electronic counting, inadequate preparation and descriptive confusion were all highlighted in the report. I welcome the past considerations and actions, as well as the new initiatives that the minister has announced today.

We have—happily—moved on from 2007, but there is still one concerning element, which I mentioned. That element was highlighted in the joint statement made on 27 October 2009 by Mr Crawford, who is now Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy, and Ann McKechin, who was then under-secretary of state in the Scotland Office. That statement was collaborative and substantive in its response to the Electoral Commission. Specifically, item 8 of the statement said that the electoral management board’s remit

“should extend to all elections in Scotland”.

So it should, of course.

With confidence in the process, let us now progress together to the constructive politics of local administration elections in Scotland. The voting system has demanded the development and encouragement of partnerships in councils, positive debates and meaningful outcomes that will finally destroy the hierarchies and hegemonies of local authorities that besmirched some of Scotland’s large local authorities in the past.

Let us go into the fray in May. We on the SNP side of the chamber will point to our major achievements in leading or working in council partnerships, such as the council tax freeze, the small business bonus scheme, the introduction of single outcome agreements, preventative spending and maintaining local government revenue in cash terms. Others will argue their particular case equally strongly.

Throughout the Borders, and indeed throughout Scotland, the SNP will fight to win each council outright, but it will be constructive at all times if partnership is necessary. In South Ayrshire Council, the SNP worked in partnership with the Tories—we picked up a council that was almost bankrupt and have now turned it into a fully liquid council. Let us debate and do battle.

I return briefly to my earlier point about allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. We must look forward even beyond the election in May. I have no idea what the average age of candidates in the election will be, but it will certainly not be 16 or 17. We must not only encourage and avail the involvement of the young in voting but collectively—as it is our responsibility—and actively secure their participation.

As I and other members have said, turnout at local elections is already too low. I know that the youth vote issue is particularly dear to the minister’s heart. The active involvement of young people at an early age will, I believe, prevent our elections and local elections from withering on the vine. Our nation and its future democracy are too precious to allow that to happen. I beg members to support the motion.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I declare at the outset that, unlike many other members who have taken part in the debate, I am not, have never been and am never likely to be a member of any particular local authority, despite George Adam’s best efforts from a sedentary position to recruit me .

The debate is important, as no one should underestimate the importance of local government and local democracy. Local government is, in many ways, the level of government that has the most direct impact on the individual.

Before I get to the guts of the debate, I note that I was taken by something that was mentioned by a few members on the Labour side of the chamber. Sarah Boyack talked about local government being in a financial straitjacket, and James Kelly and Anne McTaggart repeated that mantra, as did John Pentland—who will perhaps be bold enough to take an intervention from me or from any other member at some point in the next four years; it will be a gala day when he does. If he had been bold enough to take my intervention, I would have made this point: in 2007-08, local government’s share of the Scottish Government budget was 37.1 per cent, whereas in the current financial year, it is 38.4 per cent. It will be higher than the 2007-08 level in each of the coming years of the spending review period.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is it not the case that the Government has made an art of cutting budgets and then restoring them in part and saying that it has increased budgets? Has that not happened with the housing budget and again with the local government budget?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I think that I just heard from Rhoda Grant a tacit admission that the supposed facts that were being espoused by her colleagues were in fact nothing like facts at all. She said quite clearly that budgets had been increased by the SNP, and I am happy to back that position.

It is clear that the SNP in government respects local government and local democracy. I cannot recall anyone ever saying of this Administration that, as was once said of another Administration,

“the executive is resorting to bully boy scare tactics”

in relation to local government. Those were the words of Labour councillor Pat Watters on 7 February 2006; I do not think that I need to remind members who formed the Government in 2006.

Let us get to the guts of the debate, the background to which is the Gould report. The report’s overall conclusion was pretty damning by any stretch of the imagination, stating as it did that Scotland’s voters had been “treated as an afterthought” in the planning, organisation and execution of the May 2007 elections.

Some of the report’s findings are very damning indeed. For example, it states:

“the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive were frequently focused on partisan political interests ... overlooking voter interests and operational realities within the electoral administration timetable.”

It also states that

“changes were introduced ... with the expectation that such changes would simply fall into place”

and that there was

“no effective planning process ... connecting legislative timetables to operational timetables”.

I could quote a number of such damning findings but I do not need to, as Parliament has welcomed and debated the Gould report. In January 2008, we had a full debate in the chamber after which Parliament passed a motion backing the terms of the Gould report and the devolution of legislative powers over elections to the Scottish Parliament. Mark Griffin, who made one of the better speeches from the Labour benches, was right to welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has acted on the Gould recommendations. We should remember, however, that it is not just the Scottish Government but this legislature as a whole that has done so. That is entirely appropriate, as the changes should not be made in a partisan, party-political way, which is a criticism that was levelled by Gould at the organisation of the May 2007 elections. We must move away from that, and it is clear that we can do that if we all get behind the Gould report.

Let us look at what has happened in the intervening period. Many of the proposals in the Gould report have been put into practice. We need only look at the organisational changes that were made for the 2011 parliamentary elections, which ran very smoothly, for evidence that things are going in the right direction. The minister set out clearly the extraordinary level of preparation for the May 2012 local government elections, which has involved testing the ballot papers and a rigorous test of the electronic counting system. A lot of organisation has been undertaken, so no one can level the charge at the Government or the Parliament that Scotland’s voters are being treated as an afterthought in the run-up to the elections.

One change, which George Adam picked up on, is particularly welcome. We are unlikely to see massive queues at the polling stations at 10 pm, but if someone has joined a queue to vote and the polling station is going to close, they should not be denied their right to vote. If they have taken the trouble to go out and exercise their democratic right to vote, they should not be told that the polling station is closed and they have missed their chance to vote, which is what happened in Sheffield in the 2010 general election. That should not happen again.

Presiding Officer, I was told that we had some leeway. How much leeway do I have?

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I can give you about another minute.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I turn to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds voting. Unlike the minister and Patrick Harvie, who is no longer in the chamber, I was not surprised at all that the Secretary of State for Scotland was unaware that we do not have the power to extend the franchise for local government elections. It is perhaps a surprise that I was not surprised but, when one considers that the current occupant of that post is Michael Moore MP, why would I be surprised that he did not know what he was talking about? With the greatest respect, I say that Margaret Mitchell most tellingly and incorrectly raised the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote. She suggested that that age group is disengaged, but I have seen no evidence or study that suggests that. My experience, like Kevin Stewart’s, is that that age group is fully engaged with the political process. If 16 and 17-year-olds have certain responsibilities placed on their shoulders, they should have certain rights, one of which should be the right to vote not only in local government elections but in every election.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to the chamber for my late arrival this morning. The technology did not work for me. Last night, I sent my speech to the Parliament from home, expecting to be able to print it out this morning. However, it arrived on my BlackBerry, not my desktop, so I had difficulties. That is the explanation for my late arrival. I just hope that the minister’s officials throughout Scotland do not have to give him a similar apology after the May election. I hope that there is a back-up plan—I had one, although it took a little time.

I congratulate the minister, Sarah Boyack and Margaret Mitchell on their appointments and wish them well in the work that lies ahead. I welcome what the minister said this morning, at least in the part of his speech that I heard. Good progress has been made. I am pleased to support Sarah Boyack’s amendment, which commends the role of the Electoral Commission in supporting

“fair, open and transparent elections and good practice”.

I come to the debate having been involved in election campaigns since I left school at the age of 16. A few years after I returned to Scotland from London, I was privileged to serve as a councillor in Fife Regional Council and, following reorganisation, in Fife Council. I held a variety of posts in that time, including deputy leader of Fife Regional Council, chair of the equal opportunities committee and, finally, roads and transportation spokesperson with the reorganised Fife Council. My experience of elections spans more than 40 years, 17 of which were in the London boroughs of Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark, where I was an election organiser throughout those years.

In all that time, my aspirations have been to maximise public engagement and participation in the process. I have witnessed personally how the views of individual returning officers can govern the elections in their jurisdiction, resulting in a variety of approaches in electoral administrative areas. I and others consider some of those practices to be extremely unfair. Over all those years, it has become obvious that, if we had not had an Electoral Commission, we would now be talking about creating one. If ever we had doubts about the need to regulate all that is involved in electing people to represent us, we need only reflect on the experiences that members of the Parliament have had.

My colleagues have spoken about the practical issues in local government elections and the recommendations of the Gould report, so I shall not repeat any of those points, which they made so well. Instead, I will reflect on the values and freedoms that we take so much for granted in this country. That is not to say that reports such as the Gould report mean that we can rest on our laurels. Instead, we should celebrate the hard work to date, knowing that much remains to be done.

If ever we had doubts about the value of those freedoms, we need only read about the experiences and work of Amnesty International. Part of its remit is to monitor elections abroad. It is good to be reminded of reports from election observers in various countries. I believe that Linda Fabiani has been an observer—she was with us a few moments ago, but she might have just popped out briefly. Election observers undertake an important task. Before Christmas, hundreds of thousands of Russians attended protests throughout that country to denounce alleged fraud in the 2011 parliamentary elections and the presidential elections. Following the controversial parliamentary elections in early December, three massive protests were held in Moscow—the biggest ever in the Putin era—expressing the anger of the many Russians who say that they were denied a truly fair vote.

Only yesterday, we learned that, as a consequence, a group of Russian writers and television presenters are launching a league of voters in an effort to make future elections in the country fairer. The remit is not to support individual politicians but to campaign for the election process to be fair, open and transparent, with good practice at the heart of what Russians do. That is what Sarah Boyack’s amendment calls for here. The league of voters hopes that regulation will be the outcome of its efforts. We want the same good practice, fairness and transparency in our country.

Our challenge is not just to deal with the process but to motivate and encourage people to take an interest in elections at every level. Our country has the lowest turnout in local government elections in the European Union, even though our turnout in national elections is close to the norm for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Moreover, in some parts of the country, election turnout has reached new lows since the 1997 general election. The Scottish Government’s response has been to introduce new electoral arrangements to make it easier to vote and to change the way in which local government operates so that it is clearer who is responsible for making decisions. However, in local elections, we still fail to engage the participation of a majority.

During the past 20 years, turnout in local elections has averaged 40 per cent. Not only does that put this country at the bottom of the European Union league table for turnout in subnational elections, it means that we are the only country in the EU in which subnational elections regularly engage the active interest of less than half of its citizens. Moreover, in recent years, turnout has fallen even lower, with less than 50 per cent of voters turning out to vote in local elections in many parts of Scotland. The turnout in the London borough of Southwark, where I lived for a time, dropped to 26 per cent. At one time, Keppochhill had the lowest turnout in Scotland at 31.6 per cent. The message continues to concern us all.

Only yesterday, I had a brief conversation with Eberhard Bort—he is known more affectionately to many of us as Paddy—who, together with Lesley Riddoch, has expressed strong arguments about the process of the centralisation of government having

“gone further in Scotland than in other countries.”

They argue that that is

“damaging democracy and economic development”.

Do we need to reflect on their paper and that of Rob Gibson, whose ambitions are highlighted in their article, which I read last night? We would do well to consider the case that they make.

So here we may have the nub of the crisis in local democracy in our country. Voters are not sure that local elections decide anything, but then they are not sure that they want local councils to have much freedom to decide anything anyway.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Until and unless local government can persuade its citizens that it should have a degree of autonomy from the central state, it is likely to find it difficult to persuade them that local democracy that helps to justify the exercise of any autonomy is worth their attention.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I welcome the new minister and the shadow spokespeople to their new posts.

It came as no surprise to me that the Gould report was as damning as it was. At the May 2007 election, I spent a night and a day in an election count hall in Aberdeen watching the on-going farce. I certainly do not blame any of the election staff for that farce, because folk did their best. Unfortunately, not enough planning was done on what would happen with the electronic vote machines on that night. Some slight difficulties—“slight” is not really the word that I would use—were caused by simple things such as the fact that the machines could not handle postal votes that had been folded. I am glad that much more testing of that has been done so that we can be confident that we do not see the same farce happening come May 2012.

Local government elections are extremely important. I am still a local councillor and refer members to my entry in the register of interests. Unlike Mrs Eadie, I think that most folk think that local government has a huge part to play in their day-to-day lives. Many folk think that local government is much more important than this place and certainly more important than Westminster. We should therefore do everything possible to encourage—

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

In fact, I was quoting Rob Gibson, who was quoted in the paper that I read last night, along with other documents.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank Mrs Eadie for clarifying that. I do not entirely agree that local government is of no consequence in folk’s lives; in many folk’s lives, it is the paramount authority.

Today, we have heard a number of speeches about encouraging people to register and to vote. I agree with Ms Boyack that there is work being done in some places but not in others to encourage people to register to vote. I also agree that it is more difficult to get folk in areas of deprivation to register. The efforts of electoral registration officers and evaluation boards should target those areas to encourage people to register to vote.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome Mr Stewart’s comments. It is helpful to have a cross-party discussion on the issue, given the range of political control across local government. Might one way to help be for us to put a statutory duty on returning officers to ensure that they take electoral registration seriously and are proactive about it?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am always wary of adding to statutory burdens. However, best practice should be spread across the country. We should examine some of the good stuff that has gone on in certain places and ensure that it goes elsewhere. I am sure that, in his closing speech, the minister will go over that point and consider whether it is possible. Perhaps he will issue some guidance rather than put some new statute in place.

Mr Griffin made some interesting comments. I do not know whether turnout will increase in his council seat when he stands down or whether it will increase in Mr Mackay’s former council seat, just as I do not know what will happen in mine.

One of the key things about Mr Mackay and Mr Griffin is that both were elected at a younger age than most. We require more young folk in local government, and I was proud to lead an SNP group in Aberdeen that had four folk under 30. They were elected for the first time at the previous local government elections and one of them, John West, was 18 at the time. Those four councillors were fully engaged with the process, and I think that the fact that we had young candidates encouraged younger folk to go out and vote.

As I said when I intervened on Mrs Mitchell, 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged but there comes a point—and I do not know when it is—when a number of young folk become disengaged. We should give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in every election—I have believed that all my days and will continue to believe it—so that we continue to keep them engaged in the process and do not have a point of disengagement. I cannot see what the difficulty is with enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds. We have had some flip-flopping on the issue from the Liberal Democrats, who have not bothered coming to the chamber, and from some Labour members. It is time for the Parliament to have the right to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local government and Scottish elections.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Does Kevin Stewart agree with the view of the Scottish Youth Parliament and the National Union of Students that 16 and 17-year-olds should definitely have the right to vote?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I completely agree with the Scottish Youth Parliament, the NUS and Mr Robertson. I truly believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the franchise and I hope that they will have it in elections in the very near future. I know that the minister will do all that he can to ensure that we get the powers to enable them to have it.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

I welcome Derek Mackay to his new ministerial role.

As other members have pointed out, the elections to our councils in May this year will be the first to be held on a stand-alone basis since 1995, notwithstanding the fact that independent report after independent report consistently said that council elections and Scottish Parliament elections should not be held on the same day. Those recommendations were studiously ignored by the previous Labour-Lib Dem Scottish Executive, and it finally took the fiasco of the 2007 elections to change minds.

In light of that experience and the recommendations of the Gould report, the Parliament accordingly exercised its devolved power in relation to local government elections and put in place measures that extended the lifespan of our present councils to a five-year term and will likewise give a five-year term to the councils that we will elect this May.

It is worth recalling that there were 38,352 rejected ballot papers in the local government elections of 2007—1.83 per cent of the total and approximately three times the number of rejections in the 2003 council elections, which were conducted on a first-past-the-post basis. The change to the single transferable vote undoubtedly led to a higher number of spoiled ballot papers; the number would have been higher still had it not been agreed that persons who marked a ballot paper with a single cross would be treated as having cast a valid vote for a number 1 preference. Although that was the correct adjudication decision, the situation demonstrated that many people had failed to grasp the essentials—the 1, 2 and 3—of STV.

In the light of that experience and of the Gould recommendations, testing has been undertaken on the layout of the ballot paper. The Scottish Government’s thorough approach in that regard is to be welcomed and commended. However, as a number of members, particularly James Kelly, pointed out, no matter how well designed the ballot paper and how clear the instructions on the day, that is not a substitute for an advance voter education campaign to inform people about how the system works and how they should cast their vote if it is to be valid and counted.

Once again, there will be electronic counting of ballot papers in these elections. That is right, given the complexity of the maths surrounding STV. If we get this right, there is no reason why we cannot have an overnight count for these elections and know the make-up of our councils at the earliest opportunity. Like Mark Griffin, I welcome the minister’s decision to make available after the election further information about voting preferences at ward level, which I am sure will be of considerable interest to us all.

Turnout in elections is important. I accept that coupling the council elections to the Scottish Parliament elections in the past improved the local election turnout from an average of around 42 per cent in stand-alone elections to 52 per cent in 2007, although turnouts for Parliament elections are nothing to write home about.

As matters stand, it is likely that turnout will fall to approximately where it was before. We need to do a lot more to encourage people to register and vote, and to ensure that they know how to cast a valid vote. Sarah Boyack made an interesting point when she asked the minister to elaborate on what budgetary provision the Scottish Government has made for awareness raising in that respect or whether that is being left to councils.

Sarah Boyack also raised the issue of sloganising on ballot papers by the SNP. She need not concern herself, because “Derek Mackay for Local Government Minister” does not have quite the same ring to it, even if it sounds pretty good to Mr Mackay.

Apart from the issue of the franchise, the conduct and administration of council elections is wholly devolved, which is why we were able to change the voting system from first past the post to STV and to change the rules on the timing of elections, terms of councils and other administrative aspects of the conduct of the elections.

Although the issue is not expressly stated in the motion, it is apparent from the debate that many members want to extend the franchise in council elections to 16 and 17-year-olds and think that Parliament should have the power to do that. The issue was fully examined in April 2004 by the Electoral Commission, which recommended that the minimum age for all levels of voting in public elections in the United Kingdom should remain at 18, which is the common age in international comparisons. Indeed, in the 2004 study, the Electoral Commission found that only nine countries had a voting age below 18. It seems that the SNP wants to put Scotland on a par with Cuba and North Korea—two countries also led by people with outsized egos.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Oh, I was really starting to enjoy this. [Laughter.]

The Electoral Commission made the valid point that we should not equate different ages for different purposes and come up with superficial arguments, such as that which says that because someone can marry at 16 they should be able to vote at 16. The commission also recommended that, if we are going to look at a voting age, we might look at the age of majority for general application in a range of contexts before we come to a decision on a particular point.

Notwithstanding our dissenting views on voting ages, I do not think that attention should be deflected from our support for all the work that has been done to ensure that the forthcoming elections are conducted fairly, efficiently and in a manner that puts the voter first. I commend the motion, provided that it is amended as recommended by my friend Margaret Mitchell.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to close this morning’s debate on behalf of the Labour Party. Also on behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome Margaret Mitchell and Derek Mackay to their posts. I acknowledge Derek Mackay’s first speech as minister and wish him well.

As John Pentland pointed out—there has been agreement across the chamber on this—elections and local democracy are crucial in Scotland. If we look at the landscape and the issues that local government deals with, from housing and education to roads, we see that people interact with local government on a constant basis as they journey through their day. We see that as MSPs in some of the issues that are raised with us. That means that it is important that we reinforce the role of local councils and local democracy. That is done by proper, clear and transparent elections with as high a turnout as possible in order to enhance the credibility of the councillors to represent the electorate.

Helen Eadie spoke about her 40 years in politics, and there is no doubt that elections have changed over that time. We now have many more elections, with different electoral systems. That presents greater challenges not only in getting more people to the polls but in ensuring that people interact with the system and understand the different electoral systems by which we choose our representatives. Those are major challenges.

It is clear, as Margaret Mitchell and Anne McTaggart said, that it was correct to review the arrangements in the aftermath of the 2007 elections because of the chaos that ensued and that we must put in place arrangements in which the electorate can have more confidence. From that point of view, I recognise the work that Ron Gould did and congratulate him on the many recommended arrangements that have been taken forward. Central to those arrangements is the design of the ballot paper, and I acknowledge that testing has been done on it.

One issue that nobody has mentioned is the positioning of candidates on the ballot paper, which I suspect affects Labour and the SNP in particular. When a party runs more than one candidate, it is to an individual candidate’s advantage to have a surname such as Adam and to be placed higher on the ballot paper. In fact, Kenny Gibson produced some really interesting research in the aftermath of the 2007 elections to show that, when parties ran more than one candidate, people who were placed higher on the ballot paper were more likely to be successful. I can also say anecdotally, from my experience in Labour, that in 2007 some experienced councillors lost out to new candidates. We need to consider the issue in the context of the 2012 elections.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I agree with the member that there is a problem in that regard, but does he have a solution? We have struggled with the issue. For example, random naming, which has been done by some pension funds, is quite confusing.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

The issue is a difficult one, which the Parliament will need to consider in the aftermath of the 2012 elections. I know that people have suggested that party candidates be grouped together or that parties be given the opportunity to rank candidates.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

After the most recent election I thought about changing my name to Aaron Aardvark. Robson rotation, which involves putting candidates in different positions on ballot papers so that there is no such advantage, is used in some places, including New Zealand. However, there is a difficulty, in that such an approach might make counting much more difficult. I do not know whether it would be worth our tinkering with the approach, given the experience in the count after the 2007 election.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

As I said, the issue needs proper consideration after the election; it cannot and should not be considered now.

As members look ahead to May, I think that we all agree that there should be a good turnout, so it is important that we raise awareness of the STV system. The Scottish Government’s testing exercise showed that awareness is low, so there are major challenges to overcome. As David McLetchie said, the number of rejected papers in 2007 was three times the number in 2003.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, sorry. I need to make progress.

I commend Sarah Boyack for the points that she made about registration. There is no doubt that we have more transient populations in Scotland nowadays, which presents great challenges for the electoral registration authorities. If up to 15 per cent of eligible voters are missing from the register, as Sarah Boyack said, it is clear that people are underrepresented. We must ensure that as many people are registered as possible if we are to reinforce the role of local democracy.

Members made interesting points about the count. The political anoraks among us enjoy the count starting after the polls close at 10 pm, but it is right that we give proper consideration, through the consultation, to the impact of the approach on council and election staff. We should take cognisance of the issue. If it is right that the count takes place the following morning, so that it can be conducted properly, that should happen.

We have concentrated on process, but the election is about people. It is about the pensioner couple who have had their care package cut. It is about the probationary teacher who cannot find employment. It is about the parent who must buy a home computer and printer so that they can print out their child’s homework. Such challenges come against the backdrop of the SNP’s proposed cuts of £700 million in next year’s local government budget. I look forward to the election in May and I look forward to exposing the issues and the SNP Administration’s shallow approach to local government.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I, too, look forward to the local government elections, for a range of reasons. They will be the first local government elections for some time in which I have not been a candidate. In some respects, I will miss having the opportunity to stand in a council election. Many members remarked on the fact that my name will not appear on the local ballot paper. That might encourage people to go out and vote in Renfrew North and in Mark Griffin’s ward.

I can exclusively reveal today that while I have departed my seat in Renfrew North, “Alex Salmond for Renfrew North” will not appear on the ballot paper at the local government elections. In my first week in office, when looking for somewhere to carry out my duties as a minister-designate while the First Minister was away in China, I occupied his office; I may have taken his seat for a week, but he will not be taking mine at the local government elections in May.

The debate has focused mainly on the election process. That is because it is important that Parliament considers all the factors that were raised during the 2007 elections to ensure that we have fair, free and transparent elections in which we can be confident that the right process is in place to deliver a clear and sound result in which we can all have confidence. I appreciate the tone of the speeches that have been made from across the chamber in trying to ensure that that is the case. Sarah Boyack raised several pertinent points about the election process and asked some specific questions.

I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats—the so-called champions of proportional representation—have been absent from this very significant debate on the local government elections. Having checked the Official Report of the previous debate on Gould, I note that the Liberal Democrats said on that occasion that they were very good at winning elections, yet the chamber is empty of Liberal Democrats this morning. I make that point because those who are enthusiastic about proportional representation in local government should be here to continue to remind us that PR has made a positive difference in local government in Scotland regarding how coalitions have been composed and how local government has been taken forward.

On the timing of the count, clarity is more important than curiosity, and that is why the consultation is taking place. Sarah Boyack mentioned the pick-and-choose approach that should be avoided in terms of the Gould recommendations, and she is absolutely right. We have studied closely every recommendation in the Gould report. I am left wondering, though, why the Labour Party is moving away from its position on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. A number of Labour figures, including the party’s UK leader and Margaret Curran, have supported votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I wonder why Labour members have not considered that issue fully in this debate and why, too, some of them have moved away from their position in the previous parliamentary debate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have tried to be absolutely clear in saying that with less than four months to go, we must focus on what will happen at these elections. We are more than happy to debate with ministers on the future shape of local government that they are after, but we must now be getting young people out to vote at these elections.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I completely disagree. There is clearly an issue about timing in respect of the Gould recommendations. If the Labour Party’s position is that the franchise should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, I welcome that and hope that it is consistent with other decisions that this Parliament might take.

On the proportional representation campaign, there are questions about the voter education and information process that several members have mentioned. In addition to the council-led campaigns that will be delivered locally, the Government will commit £1.5 million towards the information campaign to meet the aspirations that have been outlined by members from across the chamber.

There is, too, the issue of people being missing from the electoral register. Valuation joint boards take that very seriously and are already proactive in addressing it. I entirely take the point that that may also have a social and economic element, in that poorer people appear to be less likely to vote, and specific actions could be considered to deal with that. However, that legislative duty remains at Westminster, further making the Government’s point that all powers should be transferred to Scotland in relation to legislation and the administration of local government elections, in order to ensure that we can tackle issues in a holistic way. It is not good enough for the UK Government simply to say that we should be in charge of the administration of elections—that is, the donkey work and, incidentally, paying for them—but not be in control of the franchise, the electoral system and all the legislation that relates to how we deliver any such campaign and registration process. There must be a greater focus on registration, so for the first time there will be a dedicated campaign on registering to vote. Many councils already do that through a no vote, no voice campaign.

This Government has delivered a local government agenda and localism. We have not gone into the details of budget, but I remind the Opposition that the share of local government spend coming from the Scottish Government is greater than that which we inherited from the previous Administration.

That said, I return to the election process. It is important that we have come to such consensus on this issue. Margaret Mitchell made a fair point about the complexity of multiple systems being presented on one day. However, with regard to concerns about the interplay between future UK elections and local government elections, I hope that we will not have to have future Westminster elections in Scotland and that, as a result, they will not interfere with the polling day for Scottish Parliament or local government elections.

On the question whether STV is an electoral system or a television channel, it is of course an electoral system. Although the amount of spoiled ballot papers might be low—and was in fact lower in 2007 than the amount of spoiled ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament elections—many people might still not fully understand the system or what they have actually done on their ballot paper. That is the reason for the huge voter education and information phase that comes after the registration phase. As for the point about council cuts and letting local people decide, I absolutely agree. If the UK Westminster Government had not made these cuts to Scotland, they would not have been followed through at a local level. Nevertheless, I point out that 32 of the 32 local authorities have signed up to the Scottish Government’s funding package.

As for 16 and 17-year-olds, if they are good enough to die for their country, they should be able to elect their country’s Government. That is why we support giving them the vote. I was a wee bit disconcerted by Margaret Mitchell’s argument that, if we give 16 or 17-year-olds the vote, they might well not use it. I am sure that the very same argument was levelled at the suffragettes when they campaigned early in the last century to give women the vote.

George Adam, who, as he reminded us, is an elected member, said that he looked forward to the council elections. Of course, he is not standing as a candidate; indeed, many of us have been freed from those elections. Nevertheless, there will be a huge debate about what local government should look like over the next five years. For example, people have considered whether it is right to have three or four candidates in a multimember ward but again, in the spirit of Gould, we would not want to change that at this time. Although the issue of party rankings and where candidates feature on a ballot paper was also considered, it turned out that the public were indifferent on the matter and, in any case, any change in that respect serves party interests rather than voter interests. As a result, we have not amended the legislation to that effect.

On postal voting, there will, of course, be campaigns to encourage turnout. We have encouraged that approach and, indeed, more people have signed up to it. As colleagues have pointed out, a black belt in origami was needed to complete the postal vote form in a previous election, and we have tried to simplify that process.

Although John Pentland veered off the issue of process to talk about the budget, I absolutely agree with his points about voter turnout and the Government certainly wants to encourage local people to take an interest in their council.

Dennis Robertson asked about bulk stress testing of the ballot paper. I confirm to the member that the stress relates to the system, not to my emotional state come polling day. We have tested the ballot paper and the system itself to ensure that there is no repeat of the electronic debacle that some people encountered in the previous elections.

Motivating people to vote should not come down solely to systems or processes. After all, political parties and candidates have a duty to do the same in their manifestos, their campaigns and what they choose to do at election time. Hanzala Malik made very important points about ensuring that every part of society is encouraged to take part in our democracy—which, as Helen Eadie reminded us, is free and peaceful. We do not face the same difficulties that other parts of the world face, which is why I am reassured by the consensus and confidence that members have expressed in the Government’s approach.

I must address Anne McTaggart’s inaccurate comment that we are not making changes in the spirit of Gould. Everything that we are doing is being done in that very spirit and there have been no changes outwith the six-month approach that we have been asked to take.

I am not sure that we will pick up Chic Brodie’s suggestion that our campaign slogan be “the fray in May”—campaigns will consider their own slogans. Finally, Jamie Hepburn made very helpful comments on the importance of empowering this Parliament.

This debate has not been about who will run Scottish local government. That is for the electorate to decide. Instead, the debate has been about how we run the election and, given all the recommendations that have been made, I think that it has been very constructive and positive.

Seabird Breeding Colony Special Protection Areas

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive to what extent it monitors the site condition of seabird breeding colony special protection areas, including the corresponding marine extensions. (S4O-00569)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Scottish Natural Heritage operates a site condition monitoring programme for protected areas in Scotland to determine the condition of the natural features. It uses a range of information sources to assess the condition of special protection areas for seabirds, including national population censuses and breeding surveys.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister will be aware that one of the SPAs with marine extension is St Abb’s Head, which is in the region that I represent. It supports in excess of 20,000 seabirds and is truly a site of European importance. Does the minister accept that, if the monitoring of the site is not sufficiently robust, licences for marine activities could be erroneously granted and negative impacts on the seabird populations might result?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The member makes the point that, if we have insufficient information, we might not deal with proposals for developments correctly. I accept that point. That is why we monitor the activities of seabirds. I know, in particular, that the Isle of May, near St Abb’s Head, is an important seabird colony, particularly for gannets.

We have recently published an atlas of all marine activity, under the banner of Marine Scotland. We work with third parties, such as the RSPB, and use information from them. A wide range of information about St Abb’s Head and many of the other SPAs flows into our decision-making processes.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The Isle of May, in my constituency, is a significant seabird and grey seal colony. However, the long-term trend of decline in the number of seabirds continues. What further action can the Government take to address the decline in the seabird population, given its role in creating sustainable tourism?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I absolutely recognise the value of birds as a tourism icon, as well as the fact that they contribute to biodiversity. Ironically, some of the decline in the Firth of Forth has been attributable to the cleaning of the sewage outputs. Less sewage is being discharged into the Forth, which means that there is less food for some of the seabirds. Sometimes, the unintended side effects of good environmental interventions can result in situations such as the one that the member describes.

I should say that, in the Firth of Forth, the numbers of some species are improving while those of other species decline. It is a matter that we keep a close eye on, and we are always open to suggestions about how we can respond to any decline in specific species.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister accept that the health of seabird populations is also a barometer of the health of the marine food chain, and that that applies equally to fish stocks? Is enough research and development being done on the subject?

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Minister: seabirds.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Seabirds and perhaps also water birds are affected by the marine environment and, to varying degrees, rely on sea stocks. When we had a closure in the North Sea some 20 years ago, it was interesting to see that the puffin population rose because there was greater availability of fish.

We are absolutely aware of the interaction between fish stocks and seabird—and, indeed, water bird—populations.

Single Police Service (Governance and Local Accountability)

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that a single police service will have effective governance and be locally accountable. (S4O-00570)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We have set out our proposals for governance and accountability in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, which I am delighted to say has been brought to Parliament for its consideration this week. The bill will provide for clear and effective governance, strengthening the connection between police services and communities and involving the Parliament and many more elected members across Scotland.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the concerns that police and staff organisations have expressed about the costs that the new single police force will have to bear, which are estimated to include £25 million-plus in VAT and £80 million in redundancy costs? Can he offer any information to current employees that will give them comfort for the future?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

With regard to VAT, Mr Pearson will know from his experience on the Justice Committee and his vast experience in a previous life that VAT was a source of concern at the Scottish Police Services Authority. Currently, a single Scottish police and fire service will have a VAT liability. We have written to the Treasury about that and we await a reply. Frankly, it seems ridiculous that a public sector organisation that does such valuable work should lose money through the actions of the Treasury.

On other aspects, we are more than happy to engage with staff. Indeed, I met police officers and civilian staff down at Galashiels when we launched the bill. Fundamental matters to do with the balance between civilian and uniformed staff are ultimately ones for the current chief constables and the future chief constable.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that an issue has been raised as part of the consideration of a single police force about ensuring that we have a transparent, open and independent complaints system. How will that be achieved when a single police force is created?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland will get additional functions that will allow it to investigate serious incidents and other matters involving the police, which will include those in which there is an indication that a criminal offence has been committed. The Crown Office will still direct those investigations, whereas the others will be carried out at the request of the chief constable or the Scottish police authority. Allegations and complaints about senior officers may also be investigated by the commissioner at the request of the authority.

In addition, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland will be able to investigate incidents that have not been referred to it, where it is in the public interest for it to do so. It will decide whether the public interest test is satisfied. As a consequence, the body will get a new name that reflects its new and expanded role—it will become the police investigations and review commissioner.

Tribunals (Devolution)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made regarding the devolution of reserved tribunals to Scotland. (S4O-00571)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Lord Chancellor wrote to me on 31 October outlining the basis of proposals to transfer the administration of reserved tribunals to Scottish ministers and responsibility for judicial leadership to the Lord President. Discussions are on-going at official level on the detail of the proposals, and we expect the United Kingdom Government to consult in the near future.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Does the minister share my concern about the UK Government’s proposals to introduce a charge of up to £1,750 that must be paid before an individual can take a case to an employment tribunal? Does she agree that that amounts to an attack on fundamental employment rights, particularly of lower-paid workers, and that it demonstrates the need for not just the management but the control of charging of employment tribunals to be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament sooner rather than later?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The member will have noted from my answer that the current discussions revolve around the devolving of the administration of the tribunals. Fees and the setting of fees will not be devolved—that is a reserved matter and will remain so regardless of any administrative reform, so the Scottish Government will have no influence on that. It may well have taken a different view from that of the UK Government, but it will be unable to do so until after the autumn of 2014.

I agree that the sums that are being considered are significant and could have a detrimental effect on the most vulnerable employees but, because the substantive law on employment is currently reserved to the UK Government, we cannot effect any change in that.

Independence Referendum (Franchise)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the House of Lords having an influence in determining the franchise for the proposed independence referendum. (S4O-00572)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The Scottish Government has a mandate to hold a referendum on independence and will do so in the autumn of 2014. We will publish our proposals in a consultation document on 25 January. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine the franchise and other details of the referendum, not the unelected House of Lords.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is a negation of democracy for Baroness Taylor of Bolton, a member of an unelected body, to attempt to interfere in the independence referendum franchise, given that that body lacks accountability to the Scottish Parliament or anyone else and is stuffed full of Labour and Tory appointees, hereditary peers and 26 Church of England bishops? I am heartened that he agrees that it is this Parliament, which is elected by the people of Scotland, that should determine the franchise.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Perhaps I should say that I agree with the general thrust of Mr Gibson’s question. [Laughter.]

The Scottish Government will publish a draft bill along with the consultation paper next week. That will provide an opportunity for political parties, civic Scotland and indeed anyone in Scotland to give us their views on how the referendum should be conducted. When the bill comes before this Parliament, it will be for members to determine the franchise for Scotland’s referendum.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the minister for his response that there will be a publication next week. In the light of the discussion that we have just had on the Gould report and on having everything settled six months before we have elections or referendums, will the date of the proposed referendum be published next week so that we can all have a proper plan?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I am afraid that Ms Boyack will have to wait just a little bit longer and hear what we say next week, but she can be absolutely sure that the referendum that we bring forward will be of the highest international standard, and of course it will agree with the Gould recommendations.

Young Carers

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to identify young carers and how this is resourced. (S4O-00573)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

With partners, we are taking a number of important steps to maintain momentum on identifying and supporting young carers. They include the Eryc and Trayc mascots and the associated toolkit for primary schools, a planned toolkit for secondary schools, work with colleges and universities, a resource for general practitioners throughout Scotland, inclusion of a question on young carers in the school census, and identification through six young carer authorisation card pilot areas.

The Scottish Government also provides funding to the Scottish young carers services alliance and health boards to identify and support young carers, and we encourage local authorities and others to identify young carers and commit funding to meet their needs.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the minister for that full reply. He will be aware that young carers often have specific issues that relate to school work. The extra pressures in dealing with both school and caring responsibilities can be both isolating and exhausting for young carers. What resources are targeted specifically at that area?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member raises an important issue, which has been raised with me directly by a number of young carers. It is vital that young carers can continue to participate in the education system in a way that allows them to fulfil their potential. That is why we committed some £100,000 to taking forward the Eryc and Trayc initiative through the website and toolkit that were on display in the Parliament last week. A key part of that is to ensure not only that young carers are identified in our education system but that young people in our schools understand the role that young carers have, and that teachers are educated about the difficulties that some young carers face. Whether they are late in arriving at school because of their caring responsibilities or late with an assessment, teachers should recognise and understand those difficulties.

We are also taking forward through the health service’s information service for carers a range of initiatives that will identify young carers, and we continue to work with local authorities to encourage them to do everything that they can do locally to ensure that young carers receive the support and assistance that they require.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government pledged in its document “Getting it Right for Young Carers: The Young Carers Strategy for Scotland 2010-2015” to improve respite resources for young carers. What progress has been made in that area, specifically in Aberdeenshire, where there are more than 3,000 young carers?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Much of the respite that is provided to cared-for people is organised through local authorities, but we have provided £2 million for the short break fund in order to provide short breaks across Scotland, and some £290,000 of that has been provided specifically for respite facilities and short breaks for young carers. It is important that local authorities, in looking at how they support cared-for people, recognise the role that young carers play and provide them with the resources and support that they require in order to continue their caring role.

Retail Sector (Support)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive how it supports the retail sector. (S4O-00574)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government recognises the vital role that the retail sector plays in employment and increasing sustainable economic growth. That is why we continue to support it. Almost two thirds of Scottish retail premises are benefiting from a business rates reduction through one of our rate relief schemes, including the small business bonus scheme.

Support for town centres forms a key part of our regeneration vision and we are committed to undertaking a national review of our town centres in the coming year. We plan to hold a joint conference with the Scottish Retail Consortium this year to consider the role of a modern town centre, in which retailers will continue to contribute and thrive.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the news that d2 Jeans, La Senza and now Peacocks, which owns Bonmarché, are all going into administration? Retail is not one of the Government’s key growth industries, but the sector is a major employer in my region. Nowhere is that more apparent than in East Kilbride, where all those firms have outlets in our shopping centre.

What priority does the Government give to retail? When the cabinet secretary has discussions with the retail sector, will he announce them and give me details of them, please?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge the serious issues that Margaret McCulloch raises in connection with the prospects for individual retail outlets. I am aware that discussions continue in relation to some of the companies to which she referred. The hope is that further retail opportunities will arise from that dialogue. The Government will be happy to assist in any way that it can to resolve questions, particularly in our dealings with the banking sector.

As I said in my initial answer, the Government acknowledges the contribution that the retail sector in general makes to employment. We will continue our dialogue with the Scottish Retail Consortium on all such questions. The Government will be happy to consider how the interventions that we make through training, education and other activities can support the retail sector’s development in Scotland.

Campus Police Officers

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how many campus police officers there are in secondary schools. (S4O-00575)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The latest recorded figures from 2011 show that 58 campus police officers were deployed across Scotland to cover 63 secondary schools. Those figures are being audited and we expect them to have increased.

Campus officers help to provide consistent and positive interaction between young people, the police and the community. Decisions on whether to deploy officers to secondary schools are matters for police forces in discussion with local authorities.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I recently attended a meeting at which the value of campus police officers in schools was discussed. The campus police officer who is based at Firrhill high school in my constituency has built up positive relationships with pupils that have improved their welfare and provided them with support, which has helped to prevent offending behaviour. Given the Scottish Government’s preventative spend agenda, does the cabinet secretary agree that it would be better to spend the income from Scottish court fines on providing additional police officers for campus duty than to send it to the Treasury in London?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I agree with the member about the benefits of campus officers. I spoke to the campus officer at Gracemount high school in my constituency on Monday.

Fine payments that are received in Scotland are remitted to HM Treasury. A proportion of those receipts is returned to Scotland as part of the Scottish block grant. Nevertheless, the current arrangements constrain the Scottish Government’s ability to link fine income to measures to reduce crime or support victims.

The Scottish Government has put in place measures to seize the proceeds of crime to support community activities, and we will continue to explore all options for fine payments to stay in Scotland. We will certainly continue to support the good work that campus officers do.

Job Losses (Vector Aerospace)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Vector Aerospace regarding potential job losses at Almondbank. (S4O-00576)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Through Scottish Development International and Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government is having regular meetings with Vector Aerospace to secure new areas of business growth for Almondbank in Perth. Tailored advice and support for staff who face the loss of their job will be made available through the Government’s partnership action for continuing employment initiative.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that the cabinet secretary will be aware of the importance of the Almondbank site to Perthshire and of the highly skilled and committed workforce there. I therefore ask him to reflect on what further steps he could take to seek to ensure a future for the site.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I directly associate myself with Annabelle Ewing’s remarks. The Vector Aerospace site at Almondbank in Perthshire has a long and substantial engineering tradition, and many of my constituents and those of my colleague Roseanna Cunningham are employed at the facility. The Government is committed to ensuring that their skills, talents and attributes can have continuing involvement in business and employment activity in Perthshire, and I assure the member that ministers will do everything that they can through our agencies and other interventions to support the continuation of that important engineering tradition.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00405)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am delighted to announce that, later today, I will officially open the new headquarters of the global financial services firm FNZ, which supports more than 200 jobs in Edinburgh and recruits a large number of graduates. It is yet another example of a global company that supports jobs and investment and is expanding its operations in Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that we were all shocked yesterday to learn that every day for the past three months 200 Scots have lost their jobs. Unemployment has gone up 10 per cent over the same period, there has been a 25 per cent rise in the number of women who are unemployed—which must have an impact on families—and over the past year there has been a 123 per cent increase in long-term youth unemployment. In the light of those figures, what changes can we expect in the First Minister’s budget bill when it is published tomorrow?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Johann Lamont is well aware, the Scottish Government places the highest emphasis on job creation. That has been the hallmark of all the budgets.

The unemployment figures here are extremely serious, as the unemployment figures across these islands are, but Johann Lamont should understand that we in Scotland do not currently have the ability to increase demand in the Scottish economy. That ability lies with the Westminster Government. That is exactly why in the past month the First Minister of Wales, the First Minister of Northern Ireland and I have repeatedly called for the United Kingdom Government to change economic direction and give us either an increase in demand now or the economic tools to do the job for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I know that there is a pattern, but I did not expect to get “hunt the alibi” quite so early.

This is not a game. We can trade figures, but we need to confront them. The reality is that although the First Minister is saying that job creation is his highest priority, it is not working. It seems to me that, although the First Minister has been in power for five years, he simply does not get it. Last summer, he claimed that the unemployment figures demonstrated not that they were not the Scottish Government’s fault, but that

“the economic policy of the Scottish Government is delivering, and is continuing to create and safeguard jobs across our communities”.

When the figures are good, the First Minister is fabulous, but when they are bad, where is that alibi? With 200 Scots losing their jobs each and every day on his watch, does he still stand by the statement that he made in the summer?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

If Johann Lamont cares to reacquaint herself with the statements that were made in the summer, she will find that they made it quite clear that the growth in jobs and activity that we saw in Scotland over that period would be put at risk unless the United Kingdom Government was prepared to change course. She and Labour members seem to think that only the Scottish National Party holds that view. I have Labour’s five-point plan for growth, which was announced in November 2011, before the admission last week that Labour’s new economic policy is identical to the Conservative Party’s economic policy. The five-point plan includes a £2 billion tax on bank bonuses, a temporary reversing of January’s VAT rise, a one-year cut in VAT to 5 per cent on home improvements, and a one-year national insurance tax break. Each of those is the province of the Westminster Government. The only area that is the province of the Scottish Government—the switch to capital investment—is exactly the policy that is being pursued by John Swinney, both by transferring revenue to capital and through the non-profit distribution programme.

I do not mind so much—well, I do mind, but I think that people in Scotland mind even more—that the Labour Party is now in cahoots with the Tories both on the constitution and on economic policy. However, I do mind that the Labour Party is in cahoots with the Tories in denying this Parliament the economic tools that it needs to do the job for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that that response will be a great comfort to the 200 people every day for the past three months who have lost their jobs. The First Minister’s response to the serious situation that those families are in is, “It wasnae me. I didn’t do it. Somebody else did it—and by the way, you’ve all got problems and I haven’t”.

This is a man who takes himself seriously—we know that—but it is about time he also took his job seriously. What concerns me is not just his breathtaking complacency about the horrendous unemployment figures, but the fact that he clearly did not see it coming. He now has in his back pocket more than £0.5 billion extra from Westminster as a consequence of budget decisions. Will the First Minister give us and the people who are confronted with unemployment in our communities an assurance that every coin of that money will be spent on tackling unemployment and on giving our young people some hope for the future?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont sounds ever more like her predecessor: he pursued that theme week after week, but it did not do him a great amount of good. The people of Scotland know where the economic power lies at present, which is precisely why they are demanding the economic powers from Westminster.

The classic illustration is the £500 million figure that Johann Lamont has just mentioned. Is she not aware that two thirds of that spending—which is specified by Westminster—is directed into the second part of the comprehensive spending review?

We believe that Scotland needs investment in the economy now. That is precisely why we have jointly with the Labour First Minister of Wales been calling for the change in the economic course of the UK Government that will allow us to deploy those funds. While we have been calling for that change of course, the UK Labour Party has decided to back the Tories on the economy.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I have said it already: I am not playing a game, and I am not pursuing a theme. I am talking about the issues that are of concern to the people of Scotland. At the moment, 200 Scots a day are losing their jobs, and the First Minister settles for party-political jibes.

Given the seriousness of the situation, and the First Minister’s pathetic response, I fear for the people who have lost their jobs and for those who are worried about losing their jobs. An uncaring Prime Minister, and what looks increasingly like an ultracomplacent First Minister, are uninterested in what the people of this country are talking about.

A man who has been in the job for five years must at some point surely take responsibility, but this is a man who wanted Scotland to join an arc of prosperity, which is now an arc of insolvency. This is a man who graduated—[Interruption.]

This is a man who graduated from the Fred Goodwin school of economics and backed the deal that broke the bank—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Can we have a bit of quiet, please?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I think that members sometimes have a problem with what they are hearing. The reality is—[Interruption.] The reality is that, in the real world, 200 people each and every day are losing their jobs on the First Minister’s watch. When will the First Minister stop congratulating himself on how well he is doing his job and come up with a serious plan to create jobs for the people of this country?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am afraid that the apolitical script that has been written by Paul Sinclair is no better than the scripts that were written by previous advisers.

Let us have a look at the detail of one of the really serious issues—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I do not think that the Labour Party will want to look at the detail. Let us have a look at the detail of one of the really serious issues. Unemployment among women in Scotland is 7.8 per cent, which is far too high. The figure is 7.8 per cent in England and 4.7 per cent in Northern Ireland. We might judge from that that Northern Ireland has the best position, but if we look at employment in Scotland—the number of people in jobs—and look at economic activity among women in Scotland, the figures are much higher than in any other part of these islands. However, 7.8 per cent is a substantial and worrying critical figure. That is precisely why the Scottish Government now has 25,000 new modern apprentices in Scotland—40 per cent more than we inherited from the Labour Party. In 2010-11, nearly 10,000 of those were young women, and 45 per cent of modern apprenticeships in Scotland are now started by women, compared to the level of 27 per cent that we inherited from the Labour Party. The same applies to training for work in Scotland, with the number of women getting that opportunity rising fast and, at 36 per cent, the 40,000 women in Scotland who have benefited from European structural funds is a much higher figure than was previously the case. We are doing our bit with the powers that are under our control to rebalance and preserve justice in the economy in Scotland.

Those are the detailed figures. The Labour Party wants detail but does not like it when it gets the detail because it shows up the record that it had. We have an Opposition that has an economic plan that depends on economic policies being changed at Westminster. However, it will not call for the powers for the Scottish Parliament to do that and it now actually supports the economic policies in the House of Commons. It is little wonder that, when I was in the Gulf this week, gaining jobs and investment for Scotland, The Gulf Today led with the headline, “Labour faces poll disaster” on the forecast from Unite the Union.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00398)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Well, it has not been through lack of trying that I have had no recent meetings with the Prime Minister. I am delighted to say that, the cock crowing for the seventh time, the Prime Minister has now agreed to meet me after the Scottish Government publishes the referendum consultation next week. I look forward to that meeting. That shows that persistence always pays off, even when one is meeting the Prime Minister.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am sure that the First Minister is looking forward to meeting the Prime Minister. As he explained, it is proper to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland in the first instance, because he is leading the process for the Government.

The First Minister’s goal is to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom and to replace those enduring links with ever-closer union with the European Union. Can the First Minister tell me how many times he or the Scottish Government has written to the relevant EU commissioner, asking about Scotland’s accession to the European Union?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We have discussed a range of issues with European Commissioners over the years. I hope and believe that Ruth Davidson is familiar with the very substantial legal opinion that would secure Scotland’s position within the European Union. One of the most famous opinions was, I believe, commissioned by the Scottish Conservative Party from Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the only Scottish judge to preside over the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, the Scottish Conservative Party did not get the opinion that it thought it would get, as Lord Mackenzie-Stuart pointed out that Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would be in exactly the same position with regard to the European Union.

I know that the idea that Scotland as a nation would stand in equality with other nations is a difficult concept for the Conservative Party. That is perhaps why Ruth Davidson, in her first question, seems to suggest a new constitutional formulation whereby the First Minister of Scotland gets to meet the Prime Minister only if he first goes through the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is appointed by the Prime Minister.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

That was an extraordinarily long way of giving me no specifics at all on a very simple question. We know for a fact that, for example, the current Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, has never received correspondence from the Scottish Government on the topic, which begs the question: who has the Scottish Government been in contact with and what advice has been given?

In 2007, the Scottish National Party asserted in a published document that an independent Scotland would continue in the EU, and the First Minister continues to make that assertion. However, the former president of the European Commission Romano Prodi; European commissioners Franz Fischler and Joe Borg; Professor Robert Hazell and Dr Jo Murkens, who are experts on government and constitutional law; and even the International Law Commission say that that is not the case. They all say that Scotland would have to reapply to be a member of the EU, with the consequence that our farmers would be bankrupt without European payments while Scotland waited for renegotiation, and Scotland would be forced to adopt the euro on accession.

The First Minister believes that, if he says something often enough, it becomes fact, but the Scottish people demand more than mere assertion. The weight of expert opinion is that Scotland would not become automatically a member of the European Union. Will the First Minister publish any evidence that he has to support his claim, because the people of Scotland deserve an answer to the question?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I offer the evidence of Emile Noël, former secretary-general of the European Union, and Eamonn Gallagher, former director-general of the European Union, who, along with Maître de Roux, who edited a dictionary of the European Union, have indicated that Scotland is part of the European Union and, since the European Union has no provision to expel a member state or any part of a member state, the negotiation on Scotland’s representation would be conducted from within the European Union.

In the question, I think that Ruth Davidson actually said that there would be a disaster with European payments. However, I had thought that the Conservative Party’s position is that the European Union would face disaster without the payments to it from the United Kingdom. The Conservative Party had better reconcile those two things. The only conceivable threat to Scotland’s current membership of the European Union comes from members of Ruth Davidson’s party in the House of Commons who openly advocate the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Scotland is a European nation. As expert and legal opinion indicates, we would put our position from within the context of the European Union.

The concept of Scotland as a nation standing in equality with other nations might be difficult for the Conservative Party to grasp—which probably explains its latest record low in the poll ratings this week—but the Scottish people do not find it at all difficult. Hence the SNP’s resounding position not just in the opinion poll ratings, but in being with the Scottish people in regarding Scotland as a nation that is equal and capable of exercising that equality in Europe, along with all the other European nations.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The First Minister will be aware of the proposed cuts at BBC Scotland and, in particular, the axing of “Newsweek Scotland” and “Scotland at Ten”. Does the First Minister share my concerns about that, particularly about the effect on political debate in Scotland, especially at the current historic juncture when there is a need for a full and informed debate on our future? Does he agree that the only way in which to achieve that is to have control of our own broadcasting company?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In a time of such significance for Scotland, I have deep concerns about the potential impact of job losses and programming cutbacks to BBC Scotland’s output, particularly in relation to news and current affairs. I recognise that the BBC is being forced to make difficult decisions because of the damaging licence-fee settlement that the UK Government has imposed. That reinforces why Scotland needs greater accountability and responsibility for broadcasting in our country. [Interruption.] I hope that even one or two of the Conservative members who are mumbling—I was going to call them the serried ranks, but that sounds too big for the Conservative Party in Scotland—are actually concerned about the jobs of people who work in news and current affairs in BBC Scotland.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be familiar with Sangs of Macduff from his time representing Banff and Buchan. Does he share the concerns that are being expressed regarding the conduct of Allied Irish Banks in placing the firm in administration, in spite of the insistence of the owner in Wednesday’s Press and Journal that there is no cash-flow problem and nor has the company ever defaulted on a loan or supplier payment? Can he advise me of whether the Scottish Government has contacted the administrator and AIB to ascertain what has occurred and to ensure that the future of the business is secured?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

This is the second time in two weeks that a member has asked about a constituency concern that involves the conduct of financial organisations or other people around companies that have been moved into administration. I know that Fergus Ewing met Michael McMahon this morning about the question he asked last week.

I am aware of Sangs’s situation, and I share the concerns about it. Yesterday, Fergus Ewing wrote to the company’s administrators about the position. On the point about the conduct of AIB, Mr Ewing will speak to the bank later today to discuss its approach and seek an urgent meeting. I can confirm that, of course, partnership action for continuing employment representatives are on standby to offer support, and they will maintain close contact with the administrators.

The details that Mark McDonald has brought to the chamber about the company’s trading position, profitability and lack of exposure and debt, should give every one of us the most serious concerns. In the current economic position, the very least we can expect is that lenders, banks and financial organisations are as supportive as possible of companies in Scotland. If the information that has come into the public domain is anything like accurate, the most serious questions will have to be asked in this particular case.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00404)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A year ago, the First Minister’s Government told us that national control of the police and the abolition of local policing would save £200 million a year. At the time, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice admitted that the numbers were not

“pound perfect in any way”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; c 32006.].

So what is the annual saving in the Government’s plans that were published this week?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice set out the plans and anticipated savings under a range of scenarios. That statement seemed to attract substantial support from across the chamber, and most people in Scotland seem to believe—rightly—that we are offered substantial savings through having a national police service in Scotland.

Of course, the Liberal Democrats are perfectly entitled to take a different view. I just point out to Willie Rennie that they took that different view very volubly during the election—in fact, it is the only thing I can remember them saying during the election in Scotland—and the election result did not indicate resounding support for their position.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister has obviously not read the document. He does not know the annual figure, which is the basis on which he proposed his plans. I can tell him that his own document makes it clear that almost all the headline figures that he cites are not attributable to structure—the savings that are described in the document are not attributable to the proposed changes. The First Minister promised us £200 million but he has sold us national political control of the police for nothing.

Perhaps the First Minister has seen the chart that shows the structure of the review that is being done. The project board is made up of two deputy chief constables, a chief superintendent, a superintendent, two chief inspectors, an inspector, another inspector and a sergeant, all of whom have been taken from front-line duty to deal with governance and structure, and there are 12 other units like them. Is it just those officers who are working on reorganisation or are there more?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I would have thought that most people would welcome the fact that the people who are looking at the organisation of the new police service in Scotland are serving police officers. It is an important innovation by Government to ask the people who do the job to formulate the plans for the future.

I also gently point out to Willie Rennie that, if his party had had its way, we would not have 1,000 extra police officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland, or the lowest level of recorded crime in Scotland for more than 30 years. The savings that have been identified in Kenny MacAskill’s central assumption were £1.7 billion over 15 years. I hope that that convinces Willie Rennie of my reading abilities.

As we see from The Herald newspaper this morning, the Liberal Democrats have arrived at a position that the Advocate General—a post that is held by Lord Wallace, who sits in a non-elected house and was appointed by the party that came fourth in the Westminster election, and resoundingly fourth in the Scottish election last year—appears to know better than the democratic Parliament that has been elected by the Scottish people, and better than the Lord President, who is the highest judicial officer in Scotland. In the future, Willie Rennie should be the last person to talk about politicians dictating to the people.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As usual, when he loses the argument, the First Minister resorts to cheap shots. He would do better to focus on the withdrawal of the local connection between the police and communities. He should be concerned about that—not about taking cheap shots at other politicians.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am afraid that Willie Rennie lost even the support of his coalition partners at Westminster in making that point.

Willie Rennie describes my position on the Advocate General dictating to the Scottish judiciary and the Scottish Parliament as “taking cheap shots”; I regard it as being a very serious constitutional position. Perhaps, when he has the opportunity to think about it further, he will agree with me.

The basic disagreement between Willie Rennie, who proposes that we keep the current structure of eight police forces in Scotland, and the rest of us, who think that the single police service offers economies, efficiencies and further improvements in police performance, is essentially about local policing. When we think of local police, most of us think of the local constables, sergeants and superintendents who serve our communities throughout Scotland and the 1,000 extra officers that we now have doing that. Willie Rennie seems to think that local policing is about having eight chief constables in Scotland, whereas we think that it is about local officers on the streets and in the communities of Scotland.

International Business Connections

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

4. To ask the First Minister what progress is being made in building international business connections. (S4F-00407)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have already mentioned the fact that I will officially open the headquarters of the global financial services company FNZ in Edinburgh later today. I hope that that will be recognised and welcomed across the chamber.

On Tuesday, at the world future energy summit in Abu Dhabi, I signed an agreement with His Excellency Dr Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the chief executive of the leading alternative energy company Masdar. It is the first agreement of its kind between Masdar and a nation and will lead to significant collaboration, resulting in investment in low-carbon projects, development opportunities and a partnership to boost Scottish universities’ research into renewable energy.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

I welcome both those developments. Does the First Minister agree that Westminster politicians should support the Scottish Government’s efforts to attract investment to Scotland instead of pettily fearmongering that there is uncertainty about the referendum—a claim for which they have been unable to produce a single shred of evidence?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am beginning to get somewhat perplexed by Opposition politicians in the Parliament telling me that they are concerned about unemployment and investment in Scotland while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—supported in this, as they are in so much else, by the Labour spokesman at Westminster—try to damage investment in Scotland.

Therefore, we should all be grateful to the widely respected Channel 4 news factcheck blog—which is not, incidentally, owned by the Scottish Government or Alex Salmond—which, this week, totally demolished the claims of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It pointed out not only that Scotland punches way above its weight in attracting international investment, but that that percentage is increasing and that, last year, for the first time, Scotland attracted more international investment jobs than the City of London. It concludes:

“Alex Salmond ... is right to claim Scotland is a bonnie investment. And according to the companies we spoke to, the matter of Scottish independence is of little concern.”

I think that the Scottish people would rather take the word of Channel 4 factcheck than any unionist politician, when they look at their self-interest and how they are prepared to attempt to damage Scotland’s economic prospects to pursue a political argument.

Further Education Colleges

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the aims of the National Union of Students Scotland campaign, our future, our fight. (S4F-00399)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes. The Scottish Government supports the principal aims of the campaign by NUS Scotland, which is why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning made it clear in his letter to college principals last week that they will receive funding in the next academic year to allow college places to be maintained.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I am sure that the 60,000 students who have e-mailed members throughout Parliament, protesting at the disproportionately high cuts to college places, local access, teaching quality and—especially—student support will be very interested in the First Minister’s response.

Senior managers, principals and trade unions have raised similar concerns. Will the First Minister show leadership and accept that at a time of extremely high youth unemployment, it will be impossible to maintain student numbers while colleges are subjected to a £36 million cut in teaching grant and an £11 million cut in student support?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I am not finished yet.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Oh, come on!

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Neil Findlay will want to look at student support, which compares extremely favourably with what is on offer elsewhere in these islands. The commitment on places in the cabinet secretary’s letter stands, as do the Scottish National Party’s manifesto commitments.

I am never very sure which Neil Findlay I am hearing from in this chamber. I am sure that people would be interested to learn, for example, that when West Lothian Council held a budget meeting on 11 January, a councillor—Neil Findlay—voted against increasing resources to support 30 more young people into work through a range of interventions.

Members: Oh!

I see Neil Findlay nodding. I look forward to hearing how MSP Neil Findlay will work to stop Councillor Neil Findlay from trying to prevent opportunities for West Lothian’s young people. [Applause.]

Robert Wiseman Dairies (Sale)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister what impact the sale of Robert Wiseman Dairies to Müller Dairy will have on the Scottish economy. (S4F-00400)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As the member will be aware, Robert Wiseman Dairies has accepted an offer of £279.5 million from German company Müller Dairy. Wiseman currently processes and delivers around a third of the fresh milk consumed in the United Kingdom and employs 1,000 people in Scotland. More than 1,000 producers are contracted to supply the company as members of the Wiseman milk group. A quarter of those producers farm in Scotland from milk fields in Aberdeenshire, Fife, the central belt and south-west Scotland.

The Scottish Government has made it clear to Wiseman and Müller that it wants the takeover to have the effect of protecting jobs and investment. On Tuesday this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment met William Keane, the managing director of Robert Wiseman Dairies, and received assurance that the Wiseman brand will maintain its existing presence in the Scottish dairy market.

It was also made clear to the cabinet secretary that for farmers, there will be no change to the current milk contract as a direct result of the takeover. Shareholders of Wiseman have 21 days to consider the takeover. I will meet senior representatives from Müller as soon as possible after that period is over.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am surprised that the First Minister seems to be so sanguine about the loss of another Scotland-headquartered company when in opposition the SNP took a different view. When Scottish Power was taken over by Iberdrola, the now Deputy First Minister said that

“it is now time for some explicit economic patriotism”

and that we should defend our national companies

“when they are under threat of extinction.”

That, she said

“is what grown-up national Governments do the world over”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2005; c 18931-18932.]

Why does the SNP say one thing in opposition and something quite different when it gets into government?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thought that Murdo Fraser, in lodging his question, wanted a serious account of what the Scottish Government is doing and has done to protect jobs in Scotland and contracts in the rural industries of Scotland. If we want to have a political debate about it, I might add that Murdo Fraser and I support the sort of economic powers that will allow us to build a competitive base to ensure that there is more decision making in Scotland.

Murdo Fraser seems to be recanting the policy that he took into the Scottish Conservative leadership election. Who knows, if the Scottish Conservatives had adopted more of the approach to economic decision making that may or may not be favoured by Murdo Fraser now, perhaps—just perhaps—its slide in the opinion polls, as recorded this week, would not have been as rapid.

12:34 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—

European Commission (Status of an Independent Scotland)

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to enter into discussions with the European Commission to establish the Commission’s view of the status of an independent Scotland in relation to the European Union in advance of the proposed independence referendum. (S4O-00579)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are already in the European Union and an independent Scotland would continue membership, fulfilling the responsibilities that that brings. The Scottish Government regularly meets European commissioners to discuss a range of issues and it will continue to do so.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

This exchange is a reprise—a better-informed reprise, I trust—of the exchange between Ms Davidson and the First Minister at First Minister’s question time. What emerged from that was the mere dogmatic assertion on the part of the Scottish National Party that Scotland would automatically continue as a member of the EU on the same basis as the United Kingdom. There is modest legal support for that assertion, but there is a whole body of legal, academic and political opinion to the effect that, as a new state, Scotland would have to apply for and negotiate the terms of membership of the EU, which might be nowhere near as advantageous as those that presently apply.

Regardless of whether the Scottish Government’s or my view is correct, does the minister not agree that the position should be established definitively before a referendum vote so that the voters know where we stand, and that the Scottish Government should be taking steps to establish that now?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In his answer to Ruth Davidson, the First Minister cited Eamonn Gallagher, Emile Noël and Lord Mackenzie-Stuart. The member asks whether Scotland would be better off. There is an important point to consider. Ruth Davidson mentioned farmers. If Scotland were an independent member state, under the reforms to the common agricultural policy, the new negotiated position would mean that our farmers would be hundreds of millions of pounds better off than they are.

I refer the member to more recent coverage. Aidan O’Neill, who is a Queen’s counsel, has said that

“the most likely position that the Luxembourg court would take”

would be that Scotland, and England, Wales and Northern Ireland

“should each succeed to the UK’s existing membership of the EU, but now as two States rather than as one.”

Even more recently, on 15 January, when a European Commission spokesperson was asked to comment on the status of Scotland and the rest of the UK in the EU in the event of Scottish independence, he said:

“We will not comment on hypothetical questions”.

I suggest that David McLetchie should let the Scottish people answer the question and decide their own future in a referendum made in Scotland.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I invite the cabinet secretary to welcome Denmark taking over the presidency of the EU. Denmark and Scotland are both small European seafaring nations with a shared Nordic heritage and similar natural resources, one of which can take its place at the helm in Europe, while the other is denied the position of a normal nation.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I welcome Denmark taking over the presidency of the Council of the EU. I met the Danish ambassador at an event here in the Parliament last week. Of course, Denmark and Scotland are closely aligned in our vision for the future. We share a vision of a low-carbon society with a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, which is well above the EU’s 30 per cent target, and we share the target of generating 100 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources. Those ambitions are reflected in the Danish presidency’s priority of a green Europe. In the next six months, whereas Denmark will be chairing key EU meetings at which it can advance that agenda, Scotland will be left having to request permission from the UK Government even to attend those meetings.

Year of Creative Scotland 2012 (Rural Areas)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to ensure that the year of creative Scotland 2012 benefits rural Scotland. (S4O-00580)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are working with partners to ensure that events and activities to celebrate the year of creative Scotland take place the length and breadth of the country, including in our rural communities. We are using the emphasis on creativity to highlight and promote Scotland’s rich and diverse cultural life for the benefit of our communities and visitors alike. For example, we recently announced funding under the year of creative Scotland for the Fife music hub, which is a year-long project that involves working with communities in central Fife to enable them to participate by playing and ultimately performing their own music. Such events will engage our communities and visitors and provide a welcome boost to rural economies.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

How will Government activities for the year of creative Scotland 2012 build on the work being undertaken by councils such as Fife Council, and how does the Government plan to support art and culture community events with the year of creative Scotland 2012 funding? Will the cabinet secretary join me in encouraging organisations and individuals throughout my constituency and Scotland to apply for funding under the first in a lifetime and culture and tourism initiatives? The funding is available through Creative Scotland and the closing date is the end of January.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I certainly encourage the member’s constituents and others to apply for that funding. The music initiative that I just mentioned was one of the first in a lifetime programmes for which funding has already been announced. I know that Fife Council is embracing the year of creative Scotland and that it sees great opportunities to promote cultural activity and attract visitors to Fife to experience the fantastic cultural opportunities that will be provided, not only from the new programmes but from the existing wealth of talent and capability in Fife and across Scotland.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the big Burns supper that takes place in Dumfries on 27 and 28 January is a wonderful start to the celebrations of the year of creative Scotland? What is she doing to support the festival?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am delighted that the big Burns supper received funding from Creative Scotland. It is a fantastic way to begin the year of creative Scotland. I look forward to visiting the festival on 27 January to mark the launch of the exciting and innovative programme. It is fantastic to see contemporary artists celebrating the life and work of our national bard.

Artworks of National Importance

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what plans are in place to allow artworks of national importance to be displayed throughout the country. (S4O-00581)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

There is a wealth of artworks of national importance throughout Scotland in both national and local collections. The national collections are expected to continue to display work from their collections as widely as possible.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Aberdeen art gallery and museums worked with the British Museum and National Museums Scotland to feature the event, unmasking the Lewis chessmen, from 7 October 2010 to 8 January 2011, which cast fresh light on one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever made in Scotland. During the 13-week showing, 43,696 people visited the event, compared with the previous year’s figure of 39,533 over the same period. A similar increase in visitor numbers was also recorded for a showing of “Diana and Actaeon” by Titian.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Can we get to the question?