tern no +GDINBV Report no THE ClTY OF COUNCIL

Proposal for a Members Bill in the Scottish Par Local Government Elections () Bill

The City of Edinburgh Council 2 June 2005

1 Purpose of report

To invite the Council to consider a response to the issues and questions raised in a consultation paper issued by the on the decoupling of Scottish Parliament and Local Government Elections as proposed in The Local Government Elections (Scotland) Bill. The consultation has been driven by a member’s bill within the Parliament promoted by MSP. However, Mr Mundell is no longer an MSP.

2 Summary 2.1 The Scottish Parliament has issued a Consultation Document seeking views on a range of questions concerning the effects of decoupling the Scottish Parliament and Local Government Elections. The Consultation Document is attached as Appendix 1. 2.2 Views are invited on five specific points:

i) What do you think are the problems that are currently generated by holding elections on the same day? ii) What new pro ink will be created as a result of the introduction of the single transferable vote for local government elections? like to see the local

iv) at benefits, if any, overnment elections create?

v) at are the finan ial consequences of

ts or views are welcome

2.

I 2.5 Appendix 2 suggests res e questions raise Parliament Consultation Document. 2.

be adopted, the bill would have to be taken up by another MSP.

3 Recommendations 3.1 The Council is invited to approve Appendix 2 as its submission to the Local Government Elections (Scotland) Bill Consultation Document.

Tom Aitchison Returning Officer

Appendices Appendix 1 - Local Government Elections (Scotland) Bill Consultation Document Appendix 2 - Proposed Response Contactltel Frank Sibbald - 529 4231

Wards affected None

Background Commission Reports on the Scottish Elections 2003 and Papers the Northern lrelan Assembly Elections 2003. Act of Counci No 10 of 25 January 2001.

2 I 8 *

18 February 2005

Dear Consultee

Proposal for a Members Bill in the Scottish Parliament Local Government Elections (Scotland) Bill

Please find enclosed a copy of the consultation paper on my draft proposal for a members’ bill, to require local government elections to be held on different dates from Scottish Parliament elections, and to delay the next local government election until 2008.

I have always held the view that separate elections for local government and the Scottish Parliament would allow for more local accountability by increasing the focus on the real issues of local government which are currently overshadowed by the policies of the Scottish Parliament.

However, with the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote for local elections I believe the need for separate elections is greatly increased. Otherwise, the Scottish voter will, in 2007, be required to vote for two different bodies with two different electoral systems using three ballot papers and evidence proves that this will cause significant voter confusion and lead to an increase in spoilt or inadmissible votes.

I would be gratefbl if you could take the time to read the consultation paper and provide comment on any issues that you believe to be relevant, by Wednesday 1 June 2005. Please feel free to copy this consultation paper to any other organisation you are aware of that would be interested in providing comment. Further copies can be obtained from me at the Scottish Parliament.

DAVID MUNDELL MSP South of Scotland

Enc a

David Mundell February 2005 lntrod~ction 3

The Proposed Bill Explained 4

Local Government Elections - The Current Position 5

Why the De-Coupling of Elections is Necessary 6

1. TO Increase Local Government Acco~n~bil~ty 6

2. Aiding the Introduction of Single Transferable Vote (STV) 8

Delaying the Next Local Government Elections to 2008 10

Questions for Consultation 11

2 However, with the introductio elections I believe the need for separate elections is greatly increased, as the Scottish voter will, in 2007, be required to vote for two different bodies with two different electoral systems using three ballot papers. As I will discuss later, evidence shows that a combination of voting systems on any one day can cause significant voter confusion and lead to an increase in spoilt or inadmissible votes.

I believe that by ~ovingoca1 govern~entelections a ~ar~ia~e~ta~elections

I ti ’ Ele~ions (Scotland) Bill Consultation ment to existing legislation to Document ifferent dates from al ernment election until 2008.

hen I initially lodged the pro osal under the previous Scottish Parliament procedures, I quickly ained 26 signatories from the Scottis Party, , Green Party, Senior Citiz and one independent. I will re-submit my proposal now si holding this consultation and I hope to gain the same support from members. The consultation will last for three months, after which the responses will be collated and analysed before any further progress is made.

SP signatories are: Mr (Scottish Conservative Party), Mr Jamie McGrigor (Scottish Conservative Party), David McLetchie (Scottish Conservative Party), Murdo Fraser (Scottish Conservative Party), (Scottish Conservative Party), Mrs (Scottish Conservative Party), Mr (Scottish Conservative Party), Margaret Mitchell (Scottish Conservative Party), Miss (Scottish Conservative Party), Alex Fergusson (Scottish Conservative Party), Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Scottish Conservative Party), Mr David Davidson (Scottish Conservative Party), (Scottish Conservative Party), (Scottish Conservative Party), (Scottish Conservative Party), Mr (Green Party), John Scott (Scottish Conservative Party), (Green Party), Eleanor Scott (Green Party), (Green Party), (Green Party), (Green Party), Chris Balance (Green Party), Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party), Dennis anavan (Independent), John Swinburne (Scottish Senior Citizens

In addition, I am pleased to announce that in a discussion 2004 meeting the Convention of Scottish Local A~thorit~es( to support the main provisions of this, my proposed Bill. Local Gover~ment

ment elections are held on the same day as Scottish Document

The 2002 Act move local government elections to a four-year cycle. Local government elections were prev~ous~yheld on a three-year cycle under section 5(3) of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994, whilst Scottish Parliament elections are held on a four-year cycle under section 2 (2) of the Scotland Act 1998. The 2002 Act amended the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 to link the timing of elections to the years in which ordinary elections of the Scottish Parliament occur.

Consequently, the next local government election is due on the first

In June 2004, the Scottis Parliament passed the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. This Act, among other changes, introduced the system of Single Transferable Vote (STV) to be used at all future local government . This represents a radical change in how electors will be choosing their councillors in the future.

Under this proposed system of SN,electoral wards within local government areas are grouped together, and people vote for three or four members for each ward. Voters are presented at the polls with a list of all the candidates standing for the ward. The voter marks “1” on the ballot paper against their first choice, a “2” against the second choice and so on, making as many choices as the voter wishes until all the candidates have been given a preference. The voter may cast only one, or any other number of preferences.

In marking their preferences, voters are not confined to one party but can select, for example, a Green candidate as first preference, an independent for second, a Conservative for their thir is allows the voter reference for the indiv~dualcandidates rather than their parties, although the candidates’ party allegiances will most likely such may form the basis for a voter’s c osen preferences. ocsbGovernhent Yt ections is . Elections (Scotland) Bill Consultation To Increase Local Government Acco Document I wish to see local emocracy and accountability flouris . The de-coupling of local elections will increase local overnment accountabi~j vote for their local councillors according and, I believe, will greatly strengthen become aware of local elections and s me engaged in local politics.

In their official report on the 2003 local government an Scottish Parliament elections, the Electoral Commission concluded that in the media “the council elections were overshadowed by the Parliament elections”’. Stand alone local elections will allow the focus of the election campaign to centre on local issues, so creating a real debate on local priorities that really matter to people, like council tax levels, housing, planning, licensing, local transport, road and pavement maintenance, litter, and refuse collection. Therefore as local councillors’ work receives more publicity, people will begin to vote for counciilors according to their record at local government and hold them to account for that record.

The McIntosh Commission, a working group of experts set up before devolution in 1998 to make recommendations on the relationships between Local Government and the Scottish Parliament, concluded that: “We do not however think that local government elections should be held at the same time as the parliamentary elections: although that might produce a higher turnout, it does also mean that the local elections would tend always to be held under the shadow, as it were, of the parliamentary election and that national issues will dominate local elections even more than they tend to do whenever those elections are held. The resu t is to weaken the democratic mandate of local government”.*

In addition, I believe that separating the elections will strengthen the institution of local government, because by increasing its transparency by allowing it more time in the media spotlight, the role of a councillor will become more fully understood. his may have the added bonus of making e post of local councj~iormore attractive to more people from backgrounds, which can only serve to make local gover~~en~more representative of Scottish society as a whole. ore empowered, democratic and accountable councils will deliver a more focused local governance, one geared towards local solutions for local

1. Scottish Elections 2003, The Qfficficial Report on the Scottish Parllament and Local Government Elections 1 May 2003, The Electoral Commission

2. The RepoFt of The Commission on Local Government and The Scottish Parliament, June 1994 Locab! orters of combine Electti (Scotland) Bill higher profile elections a higher turnout can be maintaine~. nsultation ver, only hiding the problem of a disen local electorate, cument The real solution lies in local pol~tic~a

~mmunity.

The Kerley Commission, the Renewin set up in 1999 to consider electoral systems for local government, concluded in 2000: “We recognise t e attractions tha coincident elections would bring to local government: a share in the increased turnout that a national election brings; and, from a wider perspective, a rationalisation of the voting demands on the electorate. However, the higher turnout could not be claimed as an increased democratic mandate for local government: it would not bring additional voters to the polls because of their involvement in local government issues. In fact, coincident elections would tend to reduce the electorate’s focus on ocal government issues. Conversely, separate elections would ensure that local government issues are at the heart of local government elections: this seems to us an essential part of democracy and democratic ~enewal”.~

3. The Report of the Renewing Locat Democracy Working Group, June 2000

7 ~~ca~G~ve~n~ent e Elections (Scotland) Bill Consultation Document The jntroduction of he local government elections in 2007 will with two different voting systems on election ly new electoral system fort of scots.

Parliament is elected under the Additional requires voters to put two crosses on tw papers, one for their constituency member and one for a list member. At the same time we will be using the STV system for the first time and marking 1, 2, 3 etc. to indicate our candidate or candidates of choice.

Evidence shows that the number of spoilt votes increases dramatically o different voting systems are used simultaneously. For example, when STV and AMS were used in elections to the Belfast City Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2001, 3.3 per cent of the people who voted for candidates in the Belfast City Council elections failed to exercise their votes correctly. That would approximate to 62,388 spoiled ballots in the 2003 Scottish council elections, which would be 5 times the actual 2003 spoilt ballot number (12,803).

Professor John Curtice from the Department of Government, University of Strathclyde argued at the Local Government Committee that: “There is no doubt that a somewhat higher number of invalid votes will be cast under the new system (STV) than are cast under the current system (FPTP)”.4

The recent elections in London again showed that being confronted with different systems on the same day creates difficulties. At the elections in May, 56,862 (2.9%) votes for mayor and 167,071 (6.7% constituency member & 2.53% London-wide party choice) assembly allot papers were ruled inadmissible5. To put this into context the total number of spoilt ballots in the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections was only 0.65%

I believe it is important for voters to be able to vote quickly and easily and for them to know how their vote will a ct the overall result in order to attract them to the polling booth in the first place. ere is a danger that a combined election with STV will increase vo complexi~yof having three voting systems running e by side, the time it will take to vote and possibly the need to queue to cast their vote.

S~paratingthe elections will avoid this learn exclusively about the new S distraction of the other systems.

4. Local Government and Transport Committee Meeting on Tuesday 2 December 2003

5. BEG online - Monday 14 June 04 A study carried out by the Electoral ~om~iss~~nrevealed t polling following t ections in Scotlan ConsuNation of non-voters clai nfusion over the Document them not to vo electors “felt uns the regional list MSPS”.~

Furthermore, the Single Transferab rking Group concluded in their Final Report on 14 December 2004, “The Group recognises that t next local government e ections are due to take pla the elections to the Scottish Parliament. It notes that and election practitioners favour ecoupling the elections and that this approach would ease the burden of administering the elections and also reduce the potential for voter confusion.”

3

4

5. Written evidence to the Local Gov@rn~entand Transport Committee 3 Elections Bill on y proposal seeks to separate local government elections from Scottish rrently the next election is ever I propose that the I oupled from those of the Scotti

I know some supporters of de-coupling would like to see the election moved to a year earlier than currently scheduled, to 2006, and I hope to hear these arguments as part of my consultation. I do not think, however, that this proposed legis ation can progress in time, neither can the new rules and systems pertai be in place in time, nor might the boundaries be determined earl r candidates to be selected and elections held.

Voter fatigue may occur if voters are asked to vote too often, too close together, so in order to avoid this, I consider the best option available to us is to delay the local elections for a year until 2008. While this is extending the Councillors’ mandate without checking with the electorate I think it will be more beneficial in the long-term, both for local government accountability and to minimise the number of wasted votes at both elections.

0 (Scotland) Bill Consultation Document scussed. I would, however,

responses.

1. What do you think are the problems that are currently generated ding elections on the same day?

2. What new problems do you think will be created as a result of the introduction of the single transferable vote for local government elections?

3. To what date would you ike to see the local government elections moved, if at all?

4. What benefits, if any, do you think separate local government elections will create?

5. What are the financial consequences of holding focal government elections separately?

Please feel free to add any additional comments or views you may have with regard to my proposal.

Thank you for taking consultation, it wi I be very beneficial to receive your opinions ing any further with the development of my Bill and I apprecia you have taken to do so.

Please have your replies to me by ednesday-l June2005at:

lyrood EH99 1SP

Email: at do you think are the proble oldi elections on the same day?

COSLA has previously requested views on the future planning of elections, specifically on the administration of the Scottish Parliament and Local Government Elections on the same day (and on the funding of elections).

The Council on 25 January 2001 agreed to forward the views expressed in a report by The Returning Officer to COSLA. These are set out below. The Council also recommended that counts for the two elections be carried out on different days.

The views expressed in the Returning Officer’s Report referred to above may be considered to be stil valid and are summarised below:

‘$1. Assuming that the next local government elections are to be conducted on the basis of proportional representation I believe it is likely that the administrative burden on election staff will be increased substantially. It is, of course, very difficult to evaluate the risk without knowing what any legislation might entail. If that risk does materialise it may be that it can be dealt with by increasing the number of election staff; this would, naturally, impact on costs. If this should prove impossible whether administratively or through lack of funding, the integrity of election administration could be adversely affected.

2. The most pressing practical electoral administration problems is the timing of counts. This is perhaps most acute where polls are combined but, it should be stressed, may also arise where there is no combination. I am clear that it is unacceptable practice to have count staff working from 9 or 10 in the evening to 6 or 7 the following morning. To do so I believe seriously risks compromising the integrity of the electoral process. [it would be regrettable if the lessons of previous elections were not learnt in this rega It goes without saying that where proportional representation i ved are inevitably more x and therefore of longer duration. ccordingly, absolutely essential that the issue of the timing of counts is p

3. It is my view that funding for national elections is inadequate and should be cil is subsidising election expenditure to ation is replicated to a greater or lesser prehensive and review of the f e undertaken as

d~scussedthe Consu aper at its meetin

several politicai groups. 2. What new problems do you think will be created as a result of the introduction of the single transferable vote for local government elections?

e following statistics, taken fro Commiss~ono ottish Elections 2003 and The lections 2003, problems for voters.

n Scotland 1,932,379 votes were cast at the Constituency level of the Parliamentary Elections, 1,931,472 at the Regional stage and only 1,890,542 at the local election. In other words 41,837 fewer voted at the local government election than at the Constituency level. This variance is attributable to various factors including disinterest in the local government elections, voter fatigue and, perhaps, confusion.

At these same elections 15,785 (0.81 %) votes were ruled invalid at Constituency evel, 15,621 (0.81%) at Regional level and 14,752 (0.78%) at the local elections. At the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, held using STV, of 702,249 votes cast, 10,221 (1.45%) were invalid.

If this rate were replicated in a Scottish Local Government election with similar turnout to 2003 there could be 27,413 invalid votes. This is before taking account of the likely higher rate that would occur in the first-time election by STV in Scotland.

Voter confusion caused by the issue of multi ballot papers would appear inevitable. The consultation covers the concerns over spoiled votes, but it does not appear to take into account the difference in the number of ballot papers cast at the elections. For the Scottish Parliament Constituency Election 1,932,379 were counted; the Regional List recorded 1,931,472 whilst the Local Government Election figure was only 1,890,542. The qualified electorate for the elections was the same which means that 41,837 fewer electors either did not takehequest their local government papers, did not place them in the ballot box or did not return them by post as against those voting in the Constituency Election. Confusion may not be the reason for this difference but, even if it is not, it points towards another difficulty, that of the Local Government Elections being dominated by the Parliamentary elections with electors having more consideration of national rather than oca1 issues. Separate elections would be useful in making the case for local government and a plural system, but the risk of lower turnout at the local government elections is a real one.

elections using the Single uld increase the administrative burden on election staff, whilst ire add~tionaltraining reso taff. As regards bot training and staffing,

0 risks of ectoral process is details are provided. At the local government count in the City of Derry the count commenced on Monday 9 May 2005, at 9.00 am and ended at 10.30 pm, to be reconvened the next morning. During these 13.5 hours only 25,706 votes were counted to a conclusion by the appointment of councillors. In one District Election Area the 9,602 votes polled took from 09.00 to 18.15 to be counted, a rate of 1,038 per hour. Using this rate in the City of Edinburgh, assuming a turnout of 50%, some 164,000 voters, the count would take 158 hours to complete. Obviously more than one electoral area could be counted at one time but, using the simple example of the five Edinburgh parliamentary constituencies, each constituency would take in excess of 30 hours to complete. This would clearly be unacceptable both politically and as regards to the health of all persons involved in the count, and the subsequent potential for error due to fatigue.

With regard to e-counting, and or any other e-developments for the administration of elections, the ever increasing risk of moving into potentially unchartered territory makes it essential that such systems are fully developed and tested before implementation at a live election. The ability to undertake such development, and more specifically testing, for use at elections in 2007 requires immediate action, preferably at national level. Prior to any development, however, the necessary legislation needs to be in place to permit the use of e-voting etc. The available time to May 2007 is limited. Currently, the Scottish Executive has established a working group to help plan for the elections in 2007 and to consider the introduction of e-coun ting .

3. To what date would you like to see the local government elections moved, if at all?

The issue is best commented on by political parties subject to previous comments on the Count.

4. What benefits, if any, do you think separate local government elections will create?

Separate elections are likely to reduce levels of confusion for electors and politicians and to simplify the process for administrators and staff in nearly all elements of the election.

Even if the elections are separated for only the first STV election it would enable experience of the system to be gained by all stakeholders which might prove of assistance if consideration were to be made for recoupling the elections in the future.

The separation is likely to be of assistance in giving the local government agenda a higher profile with the electorate. Nevertheless, there may be a down side in that, traditionally, local government election turnout may be lower than at a combined election.

There is, however, a possibility of increased voter apathy or fatigue caused by the holding of major elections, on an annual basis, over several years. This could reduce turnout. Turnout at combined elections may be adversely affected by the necessary publicity which will be required to inform elections. The potential drop caused by a “fear” factor cannot be gauged accurately but the message to electors for separate elections is likely to be more specific and therefore less confusing and off-putting. This may help to minimise any decrease in turnout and to introduce electors more easily to the STV process.

The confusion of electors at the Northern Ireland elections can perhaps be further illustrated by the fact that the majority of the invalid votes are caused by the use of multi “Xs” on the STV paper, instead of the required “1 2, 3 etc” rankings. If the elections are separated there may be fewer such invalid votes since the voting process for one election type will not be influenced by the different voting requirements of the other.

5 What are the financial consequences of holding local government elections separately?

Local Government and National Government will both face substantial increased costs since at combined elections many costs are shared.

The following cost and allocation details are provided for background information.

Expenditure on elections in recent years (per claims to Scotland Office for national elections) 2001 General Election - f477k 2003 Scottish Parliament Election - f675k 2003 Council Election - f363k 2004 European Election - f 523k

It is interesting to note that in spite of the opportunity for economies of scale in the combined elections in 2003, the Scottish Parliament Election is significantly more expensive to organise than any other. The same was true for the cycle of elections between 1997 and 1999.

Basis for split of combined expenditure in 2003

Presiding Officers & Poll Clerks - 33% Local Government / 67% Scottish Parliament Training Presiding Officers & Poll Clerks - 100% Scottish Parliament Conveyance of ballot boxes / ballot papers - 33% Local Government / 67% Scottish Parliament Most other significant costs - 50% Local Government / 50% Scottish Parliament

There are, of course, other hidden costs for the support of the elections by the Elections Team and other involved Departments. These costs and resources would be required for the administration of each election. The separation of the elections would mean a reduction as regards the subsidy of each election but a higher cumulative figure for the administration of the two elections separately.

4