That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 27 January be considered. These regulations make amendments to the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986 that are necessary as a result of amendments being made to the Representation of the People Act 1983 by Section 25 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. They do not therefore introduce new policy; the policy position is as provided by Parliament in the 2009 Act. These regulations simply make sure that the policy is given effect. Without these changes, Section 25 cannot be commenced.

Section 25 of the 2009 Act transfers responsibility for retaining certain United Kingdom parliamentary election documents in Scotland, thereby making them available for public inspection and disposing of them from sheriff clerks to parliamentary returning officers. Section 25 will be brought into force, by order, on the same date as these regulations.

It might be helpful if I provide some background to the introduction of Section 25 of the 2009 Act. At present, after a Westminster election has been contested in Scotland, election material, including the marked register, is sent by the returning officer to the local sheriff clerk for safekeeping. The sheriff clerk is obliged to make some of the material available for public inspection and to destroy all the material after one year, unless otherwise ordered.

However, there have been difficulties with the present arrangements for some time, as sheriff clerks do not feel that their offices are set up to carry out these functions effectively. Following consultation with stakeholders, the Government proposed a change to the law to transfer responsibility for storage and access for UK election records from sheriff clerks to returning officers. This is already the position for documents relating to European Parliament and local government elections in Scotland. It also essentially mirrors the practice in England and Wales where local authorities, through electoral registration officers who are also acting returning officers, are responsible for these functions.

Similar provision will be made for Scottish Parliament election material through the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order, which will be made before the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections.

On timing, the intention is for the new arrangements to apply to the next general election. This is of course subject to Parliament approving these regulations and the regulations being made sufficiently in advance of the date of the poll.

As for consultation, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which represents returning officers in Scotland, and the Electoral Commission were consulted on the proposal to transfer these functions from sheriff clerks to returning officers and on the proposed commencement date. They were content. In addition, and in line with statutory requirements, the Electoral Commission was consulted on the draft regulations.

On the question of funding, returning officers will be able to claim for the costs necessarily incurred in connection with their new functions as part of their claim under Section 29 of the 1983 Act. Section 29 provides for payments to and by returning officers. In addition, fees will be payable to returning officers by eligible purchasers of the marked register of electors and the marked postal vote list for UK parliamentary elections in Scotland. These regulations do not change the existing fees, which remain as set out in the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001.

To summarise, these regulations do not introduce new policy; they simply make consequential changes that are necessary as a result of Section 25 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which transfers functions in relation to retention, public inspection and disposal of parliamentary election documents in Scotland from sheriff clerks to parliamentary returning officers. I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations in some detail. They are a bit opaque when you see what is printed on the page.

I was going to ask whether the returning officers are likely to have offices suitable for the receipt of this material, and I was a bit surprised to hear the Minister say that the sheriff’s officers did not feel that they had adequate provision. I suppose that I should be slightly reassured by the fact that he says that the returning officers already keep similar material for the European and local elections. I hope that provision is being made for them to be able to store this additional material. I do not know how much security is required for storing such items. If they are all equally subject to the same regulation that states that they can be destroyed after one year, that simplifies the amount of storage that is required.

I am interested to see that this measure includes an element of modification to the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 1986, practically all of which, as far as I can understand, were abolished by the regulations in 2001. This must just be the fag-end of those earlier regulations. Given that this appears to be mainly a tidying-up exercise, we are pleased to support the regulations.

I also thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the regulations. They seem to be uncontroversial, and it is to be hoped that the Government will be able to expedite their enactment so that they indeed come into effect before the general election.

In so far as they have any purpose, it appears that it is to simplify the arrangements for holding papers. So far as I can understand, there is no substantive change in the nature of the papers that will be retained by the returning officers and those that are held by sheriff clerks. It was stated, when the regulations were introduced in another place, that there had been difficulties with access and with the fees to be charged. I am not clear why there were difficulties, but it is important to be reassured that those difficulties have been addressed and in particular that the fees regulations to which the Minister referred are not intended to do more than cover reasonable costs. Local authorities are under considerable pressure, and one would not wish the public's free access to matters connected with elections, to which they would otherwise be entitled, to be in any way restrained by action that might be taken to raise funds from such matters. I assume that these things are handled by relatively few people and that the costs will be minimal. I hope to be reassured on that point.

My Lords, I came here earlier to talk about apprenticeships. By coincidence, I see a piece of Scottish business before us. I am of course interested in the matter. I sat in the other place for 30 years. By virtue of that, I was a parliamentary candidate for many years, and in local government before that. Perhaps I may ask the Minister which sheriff clerks have been complaining, because I have not heard any complaints. The system seemed to work for the 30 years that I was an elected Member of the other House. Perhaps the Minister could tell us which sheriffs have said that this is too tough for them. No one seemed to complain in the past.

We must be careful not to put an extra burden on local government. It is not only the financial side of things; office space is at a premium in most local government buildings because of worthwhile legislation concerning health and safety. The workforce must have proper space, and there must always be proper access to a building. Taking on this extra job will in some cases put a strain on local authority buildings, because a facility will have to be found so that visitors, including disabled visitors, will be able to get access. It will involve extra accommodation.

I recall the Scottish Government elections two years ago. Both Houses had agreed on an electronic system. That put a terrible strain on local government. When it came to the counts, there was great difficulty getting the results. If it had been done manually, we would have got the results, albeit at 3 am or 4 am. In the local authority where I live, the postal votes were not ready. Because I knew my way around the local government buildings, I was able to say, “Look, you must get my postal vote to me before Saturday or else I will not be able to exercise my right to vote”. This is an indication of the terrible strain on local government. If the regulations are to be implemented for the next general election, which is only weeks away, it will be more of a strain, because things that are done in a rush can cause difficulties. Who is doing the complaining? If we are passing orders through this House, we should know where the complaints are coming from.

The geography of Scotland is very different from that of other parts of the country. In the city of Glasgow, to which I am so used, it is easy to get to the sheriff’s building, but if you live in the constituency of Argyll, getting from Campbeltown to Inveraray or to Oban is a full day’s journey. The constituency represented by the noble Lord sitting opposite me up in the Highlands is certainly not one where it is a 15-minute journey to get to these buildings. The long distances involved in some of these constituencies will put an extra strain on local government because people have become used to the sheriff’s building having these facilities. In an island community, different islands may now hold the information.

I thank noble Lords for their observations about this statutory instrument, which I shall deal with in order. First, I shall address the points raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, concerning whether there will be enough space in the offices of returning officers for storage of the additional material. I can confirm that matters will remain as they are: namely, that destruction will take place after one year, and therefore it is unlikely that there will be a massive addition to the documentation that will be retained. I respectfully agree with him that the purpose of this instrument is to tidy up these matters substantially, primarily by moving from the sheriff clerks’ offices to those of returning officers.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, encouraged me to ensure that matters in relation to this instrument are expedited. I can confirm that it will come into force, together with the relative provision in the 2009 Act, when the instrument is made. I understand that that is likely to take place either this coming Wednesday or next Monday, after which two further days must elapse. I trust that that gives him some confidence that expedition will be to the fore.

In relation to matters that may have been mentioned in another place regarding difficulties of access, I am unaware of what that might actually relate to. On fees, no changes are proposed. The approach that has been taken is that of trying to recover reasonable costs and is the same guidance that will obtain pursuant to this instrument. If the noble Lord wishes for clarification, I can confirm that this will not be directed as some sort of fundraising exercise.

The noble Lord, Lord Martin, wanted to know which sheriff clerks were particularly tried by the current arrangements. I am afraid that I cannot give names and numbers, but I assure him that there have been difficulties with the present arrangements and that this is a widespread view held in sheriff clerks’ offices, which are normally set up to deal with the business of the sheriff clerk. They are not confident that they are able to deal with these particular functions. The noble Lord may remember the problem that rose following the Glenrothes by-election when the marked register went missing. Issues such as that have raised a real problem.

We hope that this will not be a strain on local authorities. Consultation is taking place with the Electoral Commission, the electoral authorities and, of course, the political parties. No particular perceived strain has been identified. There is continual monitoring of what goes on with the electoral authorities and, if such a strain were to emerge, further fine-tuning may be brought to bear. I entirely share the noble Lord’s concern that the geography of Scotland can put considerable burdens on people in terms of travelling, but these problems are pretty much the same for the sheriff courts, which are similarly distributed throughout fair Caledonia. In any event, returning officers’ offices have already had to deal with local authority elections and European elections, so it is unlikely that geography will create a particular problem. I hope that deals with the issues that have been raised by noble Lords.

Motion agreed.