Local Government Elections

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at on 11 June 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack Labour

I very much agree with much of what Derek Mackay said in his opening speech, especially his point that it is up to all of us, across the chamber, to talk not only to one another but to key stakeholders and, as important, to people who do not normally vote, because we need to ensure that, in some way, their voices are part of our discussion. I agree that it is shocking that, at the most recent local government elections, fewer than four in 10 people turned out to vote. That is simply not good enough. If the issue was just with the local government elections, we could say that we could fix only them, but we know that, only a few weeks ago, we had an equally low turnout for the European elections.

The reason why I wanted to put in my amendment something about not only the technicalities but the politics is that it was very obvious from looking at the different boxes at the Lothian count on the night of the elections—we were not able to look too closely at them—that some areas had incredibly an low turnout of below 20 per cent but others had a turnout of up to 50 per cent. Social class was not the whole explanation, but it was part of it. I wanted to put that on the agenda. My amendment is an add amendment because it adds to the minister’s motion.

We are in the middle of the Scottish Government’s consultation period, so I will focus on the technical side—the mechanics—the changes that we could make now and the point on which the minister spent much of his time: how we connect and reconnect people to the political process, which is the bigger challenge and one in which we all have to be involved.

On the mechanics, I am grateful to Anne McTaggart and John Wilson for the work that they did as part of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s effort on the matter, because they examined many of the clear options that are available. We must consider how we ensure that people are eligible to vote, make it easier for them to vote and address the fact that far too many people are not even registered to vote.

Would it be possible for the minister to pull together some of the analysis of the matter? The Institute for Public Policy Research, the Electoral Reform Society and academics have done work on it. Having dipped a toe into that for today’s debate, it is clear to me that a lot of work is available—some relates the United Kingdom and some relates to other countries, particularly other western democracies, where researchers have considered the matter—but we could do a bit more work on the insights and best practice that have been suggested.

As a starting point, we should make it easier to register because far fewer people are on the register than should be on it. What more can we do to support alternatives? One suggestion to which Anne McTaggart and John Wilson refer in their report is continuous registration, which has been experienced in Northern Ireland. Others have suggested using people’s day-to-day contact with local government or other state institutions, having forms available more widely, for example at post offices, Government offices, schools and universities—it would not break the bureaucratic back to have a range of organisations where there was a set of forms that people could fill out and hand in—or using the opportunity of people registering for council tax. There is a set of ways that we could get people on to the register.

Voting is a fundamental democratic right, but we need to do more to enable people to exercise that right, so we must address eligibility to vote and consider registration on the day for people who have missed out. Much of my local work is with people who are homeless and who move house a lot. They are most likely to miss out on the registration forms that regularly come through the door. Research in the US showed that registration on the day significantly increased turnout. Would that be practical for us? What would be the downside? There are certainly benefits, in that it would at least give the most dispossessed the chance to vote.

Secondly, we must also make it easier for people to cast their vote. An electronic voting machine would have massive advantages on the night, because we would be able to press a button and suddenly know what the count was. However, that would remove a huge amount of transparency and the capacity to double-check. We would have to rely entirely on machines. I have a natural reservation about that. I do not know whether it is because I am more a 20th century person than I am a 21st century person, but I think that we should all be interested in probity, accountability and security—as well as sheer mistakes in the program.

Although I have reservations about that approach, I am attracted to considering some of the 21st century solutions that the Electoral Reform Society suggested. We should at least consider the practicalities of suggestions such as voting online and voting by phone or smartphone. Again, there are potential cyber issues—such issues have been mentioned in the news over the past 24 hours in relation to finance. Although we need to consider such measures, there could be some big challenges.

When I read Anne McTaggart and John Wilson’s report, I was struck by the issue of universal postal voting. A few elections ago, I was instructed by my team to get a postal vote, because they were worried that I would not get round to voting on the day. When we talk to people, we hear that having to vote on the day is a real issue. The research and the pilots that have been done in England, Wales and Scotland show a significant uplift in voting of around 20 per cent if people have a postal vote that is automatically sent to their door.

As John Mason said, postal votes would not necessarily prevent people from handing in their vote, which can make them feel as if they really have voted, but for a lot of people they could be quite a game changer, as receiving a postal vote would make them aware that the election was taking place. There is always a need for checks and balances, but I wonder whether we should look at that seriously.

In the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, turnout was four times higher turnout among those who were involved in a universal postal voting scheme, and Scottish local authorities that have tried it have seen significantly higher turnouts.

In the spirit of cross-party consensus, we would be prepared to look at the issues and what the choices might be. I do not think that there are technical fixes, but we have to look at what could be improved and what practical measures would help. We owe that to people who have not voted thus far, and we owe it to democracy, to try to improve it.

In the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003, voter turnout dropped below 50 per cent. We need to make voting easier and make people more aware of the system, but we also need to make them want to vote—that is crucial. In a way, my amendment focuses on what makes people want to vote. It highlights underrepresentation, particularly of young people, people from low-income backgrounds and people from areas of multiple deprivation, although those are not the only groups that do not vote. The low registration rate among ethnic minority communities needs to be addressed, as does significant undervoting by students in local elections.

One level, we can understand why people do not vote—the disconnect—but the services that local authorities provide affect absolutely everybody, and we need to get that message across. What more can we do to raise awareness among young people? I would be interested to look back over the Scottish Parliament’s outreach work over the past 15 years. There is a whole cohort that we could study. Has it made a difference? I will not be alone in having done endless school meetings and endless meetings in the Parliament. Have we made a difference?