Elections 2007
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-2667, in the name of Duncan McNeil, on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee, on the committee's report on the elections in 2007. I warn members that time is very tight in this debate, so Presiding Officers will be enforcing time limits on members' contributions.
Let me start by thanking the committee members, the clerks, the officers and the Scottish Parliament information centre for all their hard work and patience in putting together this report, which has allowed us to have this debate today. Although there will be many differing views and personal experiences of the problems that marred the 2007 elections, it is clearly in everyone's interests that we do our best to avoid a repeat of the failures.
As members know, local government elections have been held simultaneously with the Scottish Parliament election since 1999. However, at the election last year, there were two significant changes: the single transferable vote system and electronic counting were both used for the first time. Having watched the events from close quarters, members will need no reminding of the problems that occurred that night. At an early stage, it became apparent that there was a high number of spoiled ballots—higher than normal—and that there were problems with the electronic counting machines. In some cases, the problems extended the count into the following day. In the Lothians count, they even led to suspension.
In the two previous local government elections that were tied to the Scottish parliamentary elections, the number of rejected ballot papers accounted for 0.77 per cent and 0.59 per cent of the overall votes cast. In 2007, the number was as high as 1.85 per cent. The rate of rejected ballots varied from 1.11 per cent in East Dunbartonshire to 2.77 per cent in West Dunbartonshire.
The number of rejected ballot papers in the local government elections was considerably smaller than the numbers involved in the parliamentary election, in which the rate of rejection was as high as 4.07 per cent, but that should not be allowed to detract from the fact that the level of rejected ballot papers in the council elections was unacceptably high.
In light of the controversy that arose from the high level of rejected ballots, the Electoral Commission engaged Ron Gould, an international expert, to conduct an independent review. The resulting report was published in October last year and the Local Government and Communities Committee agreed to study its recommendations. The Scottish Affairs Committee of the House of Commons conducted its own inquiry into the Scottish parliamentary elections, and a report was published in May 2008.
Even though the remit of the Local Government and Communities Committee extended only to the local government elections, many of our findings will inevitably be relevant to the Scottish parliamentary election. We took oral evidence from Ron Gould in a videoconference; from the Electoral Commission; and from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Bruce Crawford, and his officials. DRS Data Services—the company that provided the electronic equipment for counting ballot papers—did not accept an invitation to appear, much to our disappointment. However, the company did supply written information.
We published our report in June of this year. In the report, we examined all the areas covered by the Gould report that were relevant to local government, and we made a series of recommendations. The minister responded to our report in August, and I would like to thank him for the positive way in which he received the committee's recommendations.
One of the main areas covered in the Gould report was the need for a unified structure for managing elections in Scotland. Gould recommended the establishment of a chief returning officer, and he recommended that the returning officer function at local level should be professionalised. The committee agreed that a chief returning officer post for Scotland should be established to secure a co-ordinated and unified approach to elections held in Scotland. I am pleased that the minister responded positively to that recommendation, and I look forward to seeing the results of the Scottish Government's consultations on how things might be done.
A successful model for the approach is already well established in Northern Ireland, where Westminster retains full legislative responsibility. The model enjoys the confidence of the voters and the political parties, and the committee feels that it would be worth further investigation.
There appears to be general consensus across the Parliament on the proposal that future local government elections should be decoupled from the Scottish Parliament election, so that they are not held on the same day. I want to make it clear that that would not guarantee that the problems experienced in May 2007 would not be repeated. However, the committee agreed that there would be organisational and administrative benefits as a consequence of less complex arrangements being required. Furthermore, decoupling the elections would enable attention to be focused more effectively on local issues.
However, the committee was conscious that there is concern about the level of turnout if elections are decoupled. There needs to be effective consultation and engagement with the electorate, effective research and more effective public information campaigns if the danger of lower turnout is to be avoided. The training of information officers should be more consistent and rigorous, and should include equalities awareness training.
If elections are to be decoupled, the committee recommends that the date of the next local elections should be determined by extending the current local government term, and the next, to five years each. Thereafter, local elections would revert to a four-year cycle.
Much has been said about the design of the Scottish Parliament ballot paper and the impact that it may have had on the level of spoiled papers. However, the high level of rejected ballots in the parliamentary election should not eclipse the high level of rejected ballots in the local government elections. The committee noted with concern that approximately 30,000 fewer people voted in the 2007 local government elections than in the Scottish parliamentary election, despite the elections being held simultaneously.
The committee had some concern that the lower level of rejected ballots in the local elections, compared with the Scottish Parliament elections, may have been due, in part, to voters believing that they had only one vote and so marking their local election ballot papers with an X or with a 1. Those papers will have been counted as valid, but it may be that some voters did not realise that they were able to vote for more than one candidate. Although it may not be possible to conduct research into whether that in fact happened in 2007, it remains a possibility that the wishes of some voters were not translated into correctly completed ballots. That reinforces the case for effective information campaigns.
The committee welcomes the Scottish Government's intention to examine the various options for ballot paper design and to consult on the options. The committee wishes to stress the importance of effective testing of the options for ballot paper design, and wishes to be kept informed of progress on the research.
The committee recommends that those consulted on ballot paper design should include disability rights organisations. It is essential that the ballot paper design leads to a ballot paper that is easy to complete and is a fair reflection of the views of all voters.
Voter registration is also an issue. Although it was not covered in evidence to our inquiry, registration is also a reflection of engagement in the political process. There is a need for effective campaigning to increase electoral registration.
During the course of its inquiry, the committee welcomed research studies that had been conducted into rejected ballots for the parliamentary election. The studies explored the relationship between the level of rejected ballots and both social disadvantage and ballot paper design. I welcome the commitment given by the Minister for Parliamentary Business that the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation that will allow post-election data to be released at polling station level for local elections. That will make it easier for variations of turnout by area to be examined more closely for local government elections.
Committee members' experience of participating as candidates in the 2007 elections was that the organisation of postal votes was inconsistent, even within constituencies, and that the support provided by information officers was variable. The committee noted in its report that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has raised concerns in its research that greater use of postal voting may make United Kingdom elections vulnerable to fraud. There is also the risk that systems of electoral administration may have reached breaking point as a result of pressures imposed in recent years.
Nevertheless, the committee acknowledged the value of the postal vote in allowing many more people to vote than would otherwise be the case. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government explores the greater use of postal voting as a means of improving voter participation, while bearing in mind the need to protect the integrity of the ballot. I welcome the Scottish Government's circulation of draft secondary legislation, which is intended to give effect to more secure postal ballots by means such as the introduction of personal identifiers. It is important that equalities considerations are taken into account as part of the process.
Accurate counting of votes is, of course, of paramount importance. That must be taken into account in any consideration of whether overnight counting should take place. Nevertheless, the committee's preference was that the overnight count should be retained for local elections, if at all possible.
Members may agree that there was variation in the display of spoiled ballot papers on the night of the 2007 elections. If electronic counting is to be used in future local government elections, the committee considered that there should be agreed national standards on the display of spoiled ballot papers on screens at the count.
I have referred to equalities issues a number of times during my speech and the matter was a central theme of the committee's inquiry. The committee recommends that the elections steering group includes representation from equalities agencies and organisations in its membership. The committee also recommends that the Scottish Government considers whether further research is needed on promoting equalities within the electoral process.
My key message is that the voters themselves should be at the heart of our electoral system. In 2007, we got it wrong because the complex ballots and time-saving counting methods were there to make things easier for those of us involved in the political process, not necessarily for the voters.
We must remember that elections are not the plaything of politicians. Ron Gould has said on the record that voters were treated as an afterthought. Let us not make that mistake again. After all, what is the point of an electoral system if not to help as many voters as possible to exercise their democratic right? Everything else is secondary.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Local Government and Communities Committee's 8th Report, 2008 (Session 3): Elections 2007 (SP Paper 120).
I wrote to the convener of the committee on 1 August to respond formally to the committee's report. I said that I was grateful for the committee's detailed consideration of the important issues that arose from the 2007 elections and I am happy to repeat that message today.
Having considered the report further, I welcome it as an important contribution to the debate. I also thank Duncan McNeil for his positive contribution this morning across a wide range of issues. My speech will have to be a bit more focused, but I may get a chance when I sum up to come to other issues. I welcome the emphasis that Duncan McNeil placed on equalities and I support such an approach.
I was pleased to note that so many of the committee's recommendations echoed the commitments made in the Scottish Government's response to the Gould report, which was published back in March. Therefore, it is not surprising that I am happy to accept the majority of recommendations and comments. Ron Gould identified many problems with our electoral system; it is now up to us as a Government and all of us as members of the Parliament to ensure that we address them.
We should never forget that the electoral system is the bedrock of our democracy, so we must get it right. The Gould report identified that complicated systems and structures have been created over many years to manage our elections. It identified the complexity of the legislation and the fragmentation of roles and responsibilities as a crucial barrier to smooth-running elections. We have a lot to do. Nevertheless, if we can draw a line under the events of May 2007 and learn from them, there can still be a silver lining. We have the opportunity to address those systemic failures and to take the necessary steps to re-establish public confidence in our democratic process.
As Duncan McNeil said, Ron Gould stated that the voters in Scotland were "treated as an afterthought" and we must ensure that we never allow that criticism to be levelled at us again. We published our response to the Gould report in March 2008 and the committee's helpful report followed on from that.
In responding to the report, I make no apology for starting with the issue of jurisdiction. Where should the responsibility for elections in Scotland lie? The committee supported the central recommendation of the Gould report and the resolution of the Parliament that executive and legislative powers for administration of its own elections should be transferred to the Scottish Government and to this Parliament.
Ron Gould reached that conclusion in October 2007 and the Scottish Parliament reached the same conclusion in January 2008. The Local Government and Communities Committee made it a hat trick in June 2008. So far, unfortunately, the United Kingdom Government has failed to see the logic of the recommendation. On 24 June, it outlined its formal response to the Gould report. Although its response was disappointing, we will continue to press it to change its position. Judging by a letter that Bob Doris received from the new Secretary of State for Scotland, such a change is perhaps unlikely, but it would be in the interests of every voter in Scotland if it were to happen. However, we cannot wait for Westminster and put the work that we have to do on hold. For the moment, we must accept that we are where we are and we must move forward to undertake the reforms that are deliverable within our current competence. We must focus on what we can do to restore public trust and confidence in the electoral system in Scotland.
On 3 September, the First Minister announced our legislative programme to Parliament. Among the bills to be introduced is the Scottish Parliament and local government elections bill, which will be introduced in January 2009 and will decouple the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. When we consulted on the proposals earlier in the year, the responses showed that there was overwhelming support for our plans to separate the elections. There was even stronger support for the proposal that local government elections should be moved to the mid-point of the Scottish Parliament session.
The bill will give effect to that, and to the recommendations made by the Local Government and Communities Committee, by extending the current and subsequent local government term to five years. Subject to parliamentary approval, the next two local government elections will take place in 2012 and 2017. After that, local government terms of office will revert to four years.
The bill will also introduce provisions to allow returning officers to release information at polling station level, which will help to increase confidence in the overall result and will provide political parties with valuable information that they can use to analyse how their total vote is compiled. That change will also have benefits in respect of building confidence in the voting system, but we must ensure that the underlying principle remains the secrecy of the ballot.
The committee supported decoupling, the provision of post-election information and other large parts of the response to Gould. I will take the opportunity to comment on a number of recommendations in the committee's report.
On ballot papers, the committee expressed concern about the security and integrity of the ballot. I will be happy to consider anything that the committee has to say on the matter. We hope to address the problem next year when we consult on what can be summarised as the administrative Gould recommendations.
The committee also raised concerns about ballot paper design, which echoed Ron Gould's comments. We are already involved in work with the Electoral Commission and others to consider possible changes. The aim must be to develop a ballot paper that is easy to use and fair: an effective ballot paper that allows voters to vote the way that they want to and gives them confidence that their vote will count. A number of issues must be considered in that work and I know that many in Parliament and elsewhere have ideas that they want to put forward.
As Duncan McNeil said, changes to ballot paper design must be backed up by public information and education campaigns. The designs must be tested extensively before they are introduced, and the test must be whether any changes put the voter first.
I am pleased to say that personal identifiers are an example of co-operation with the committee. My officials have shared with the committee a draft of the regulations that will shortly come before it through the formal procedures.
The regulations will specify how personal identifiers for absent voters should be collected and used for Scottish local government elections. They will also set a requirement for returning officers to check a certain percentage of the postal votes that are returned against the personal identifiers that have been submitted ahead of the election. The Electoral Commission recommends that 100 per cent personal identifier verification should be mandatory, and I am attracted by the idea of 100 per cent checks; however, I am also conscious of the need to consider the cost-effectiveness of such an approach. For instance, for other elections in the United Kingdom, the law requires that returning officers check at least 20 per cent of returned voting statements. That minimum requirement is set out in law, but I am told that, in reality, returning officers aim to check 100 per cent of postal votes. In this year's elections to the Greater London Assembly, for instance, virtually all the returning officers checked 100 per cent of the returned postal voting statements.
I turn to the introduction of the chief returning officer for Scotland. The Scottish Government agrees with the committee that it is vital that there are clear lines of accountability and responsibility for running elections and that a CRO would help to address the issue. A consultation paper, which we will issue before the end of the year, will consider possible models for a CRO for Scotland. As suggested by the committee, our work in drafting that paper will be informed by experiences elsewhere, including Northern Ireland.
We all know that the electoral landscape in Scotland has been fragmented, cluttered and confused, and we must not let that become a cliché; it is a fact that we must do something about. We need a coherent and unified organisation of elections, based in Scotland, that is clearly accountable to Scottish ministers and to the Parliament. We need to develop a system that is right for Scotland. Yes, we can look at models elsewhere, but we must remember that they were designed for different countries with different traditions. We must be careful not to create new posts or organisations if we cannot justify them. As everyone knows, the Government is working to simplify and consolidate the range and scope of public bodies in Scotland. We must keep that in mind in considering a possible CRO. There may be other ways—which I would like to hear about—of providing the co-ordination and coherence that we need.
I understand that the elections in London used electronic counting, and Ron Gould concluded that electronic counting is preferable to a manual count for an STV election—as one might expect. Given the complex counting procedures that are required under STV, it is right that we should encourage the use of electronic counting. Nevertheless, before we can commit to its widespread use in future elections, we must do all that we can to restore the credibility of the system and confidence in it. That means carrying out rigorous tests in comparable circumstances to those of elections, to protect against the failures that were experienced last year.
There is a lot to do, and we have a work plan to ensure that new arrangements will be in place well before the next elections. I very much look forward to working with the committee—indeed, with people throughout the Parliament—over the coming months to re-establish the confidence of the electorate in Scotland's electoral system.
We are here to consider the report into the circumstances surrounding the elections for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authorities that the Parliament's Local Government and Communities Committee has produced. I am sure that all of us in the chamber will have a story to tell about those elections, and I dare say that some will be more interesting than others.
The events surrounding the count in Strathkelvin and Bearsden have featured on television several times, as it was one of the few places where the returning officer was filmed explaining what had gone wrong to those who were assembled to hear the result. I doubt whether what happened in my constituency was much different from what happened in others. There had been difficulties with the postal voting forms, and many people ended up not getting a vote because the forms arrived several days late, after people had gone off on holiday.
The count went fairly smoothly. There were some issues with spoiled papers, but that was to be expected with a new system. The problems arose when the returning officer and her staff thought that they had the result and tried to send it to the central computer for verification. Despite the best efforts of all those who were involved, the two computers just would not talk to each other. They tried for almost three hours to make it work, but to no avail. At 4 am, the returning officer had to send us all home, asking us to return at midday, by which time they hoped to have fixed the problem. Naturally, all the candidates were disappointed that we could not have the result declared.
When I expressed my displeasure at the turn of events, my daughter summed up the situation neatly by saying, "Look on the bright side, Dad. At least you will come back knowing that you have won. Imagine having to come back knowing that you had lost." Finally, at around 2.30 in the afternoon, the result was duly declared and, to their great credit, all my opponents turned up to hear it read out. I thought of applying to the Guinness book of records, to see whether anyone had waited longer between knowing the result and having it made public, but I did not do so.
That is my story. There were lots of other stories about spoiled ballot papers, postal votes that did not turn up and general confusion about how the ballot papers were presented to the public. Indeed, in his report, Mr Gould took all politicians to task when he said that all parties had to accept their share of the blame for what went wrong; no single individual or party was to blame. It was in that spirit that the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee undertook their task of considering the Gould report and reporting back to us. I commend them for their work.
As has been said, the committee's starting point was the motion that the Parliament passed on 10 January. It said that both the Scottish Parliament and Westminster should discuss, agree and publish a timetable for appropriate implementation of the Gould report recommendations, having regard to the conclusions of both the Local Government and Communities Committee and the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee.
I turn to the Local Government and Communities Committee's recommendations. First, there is the question of decoupling the elections. Since the Parliament was formed, it has been the practice to hold Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections on the same day. Last year, that was felt to cause confusion, because of the introduction of a new voting system for local authorities. The committee has endorsed the decision of the Parliament that the elections should be decoupled and has recommended that local government elections should eventually be held two years after those for the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that all members could get into a spirited debate with council colleagues about that issue. Suffice it to say that some of my more experienced colleagues at East Dunbartonshire Council have said to me on more than one occasion, "I told you so." They will be pleased that Labour now supports such a move.
On the question of appointing a chief returning officer, the committee recommends further investigation of the Northern Ireland model. Labour members have no strong views either way and feel that it is an organisational issue that would be best left to the returning officers themselves.
The committee says that ballot papers should be easy to complete and should result in a fair reflection of the views of the voters. Scottish Labour no longer supports the use of a single ballot paper for constituency and list members. We would like to see a return to two separate ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament elections. We also support plans to ensure that party names on ballot papers guide the ordering of the ballot paper and that misleading party descriptions are done away with—although that would be an encouragement for someone to devise a party name beginning with A.
On voter education and engagement, Labour agrees with the committee that greater voter turnout is to be encouraged, especially in less affluent areas. We would like the Electoral Commission to undertake a comprehensive programme of improved voter information and education so that anyone who votes does not feel in any way inhibited once they arrive at the polling station. The committee has endorsed the recommendation that nominations should close 23 days instead of 16 days before polling day. We support that. There is also a recommendation that there must be more consistent and rigorous training for information officers, including equality awareness training. Our view is that returning officers could also do with some of that.
Finally, I will talk about overnight counting, which is almost where I started. The committee would like to keep the overnight count, but it says that local authorities should be consulted. Labour supports retaining overnight counting. Speaking purely personally, despite my experiences last May, I would like to keep the overnight count. Gould suggests a return to manual counting, which we support.
We endorse the call that any changes in the law that governs the conduct of elections must come into force at least six months before the elections that they affect. We also endorse the recommendation that a single legislative instrument should provide all the rules and regulations that govern the conduct of Scottish Parliament elections, alongside the guidance that the Electoral Commission issues.
As we have heard, lessons must be learned from what happened last May. The committee has done an excellent job in presenting the report. I hope that its recommendations find favour in the Parliament. As has been said, the person at the heart of the matter is the voter. Anything that we can do to improve the situation for voters must be welcome.
Much rhetorical hot air has been expended on the debacle of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Scotland's councils on 3 May last year when, as we know, failures in the organisation of the elections led to an unprecedented level of spoiled ballot papers in both elections. Suffice it to say that I trust that our recent experience has wiped the smirks off the faces of those who like to comment condescendingly on the hanging chads of Florida or who self-righteously criticise processes in countries to which it is common to send election observers. Scotland might not have passed the United Nations test.
As we have heard, in the Scottish Parliament elections, more than 146,000 ballot papers were rejected as spoiled. The rejection rates were 2.88 per cent in the regional vote and just over 4 per cent in the constituency vote. In 2003, the relevant figures were an unexceptional 0.65 per cent and 0.64 per cent. Moreover, although it received less publicity, the rejection rate in the local government elections was—as Duncan McNeil said—1.83 per cent, which compares with 0.77 per cent in 2003 and 0.59 per cent in 1999. The change to the STV system tripled the rejection rate, and those figures do not tell the whole story.
Since the debacle, there has been no shortage of inquiries, investigations, consultations and responses, which started with the inquiry by Ron Gould, whom the Electoral Commission appointed. The matter has also been investigated by the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster and our Local Government and Communities Committee, whose report we are debating. We have had the consultation paper "Sorting the Ballot" from the Scotland Office and an issues paper from the Electoral Commission. As we have heard, the Scottish Government is about to launch two further consultations. One will be on a chief returning officer for Scotland, about which the Electoral Commission is distinctly cool and Her Majesty's Government is barely tepid. The other consultation is intended to be a wide-ranging, all-singing, all-dancing paper on several operational matters. We have also had the benefit of the views of Her Majesty's Government on the Gould report and the Scottish Affairs Committee's report.
What are we to make of the frenzy of activity on how we reform the administration and organisation of elections to prevent a recurrence of what happened in 2007? An outside observer would conclude that not much has happened to date. The Scottish Government is hardly moving at breakneck speed on local government elections, which fall in its domain, but I am sorry to say that the main drag on progress is Her Majesty's Government's unwillingness to accept the conclusion that responsibility for election administration in Scotland should be transferred to a single jurisdictional entity. Gould said that the most appropriate entity was the Scottish Parliament and Government, and the Parliament and the Local Government and Communities Committee's report endorsed that. The behaviour of Her Majesty's Government is disappointing, because it precludes us from creating the office of chief returning officer for all elections in Scotland—to local government, the Scottish Parliament, Westminster and the European Parliament—to replicate the situation in Northern Ireland, which the Local Government and Communities Committee's report recommended.
The one significant step forward is the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Government that the local government and Scottish Parliament elections should be decoupled. A bill to that effect will be introduced early next year. Of course, the decoupling proposal was first made by the Scottish Conservatives way back in 2002—long before the problems in 2007 emerged.
The Kerley and McIntosh committees, which examined local government, recommended decoupling. Subsequently, the Arbuthnott commission recommended it. Those independent committees recognised not only that separation was desirable to promote democratic accountability, but that voters could be confused if two different election systems were used on the same day to elect different bodies. Lo and behold, that is what came to pass. The blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, which opposed decoupling. It took the catastrophe of 2007 to change Labour members' minds, as we heard in David Whitton's speech, which sounded more like a confession at a show trial than a speech to a Parliament. However, the Liberal Democrats have still to atone for their sins. Like the Electoral Reform Society, they cling to the fanciful notion that there was nothing wrong with the STV system.
I say as an aside that the STV system more than decimated the ranks of Labour councillors. It was forced through in the previous parliamentary session as the price of the second Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. It must bring tears to Labour members' eyes when they reflect that the Scottish National Party appears to be capable of running a minority Government with 47 members whereas they were incapable of doing so between 1999 and 2007 with 56 members and then 50 members. Be that as it may—this is not a time for partisan comment.
The Local Government and Communities Committee's convener, Duncan McNeil, highlighted the fact that the ballot rejection rate in the local government elections was three times higher than it was under the first-past-the-post system. That rate did not include ballots on which voters had written a cross rather than the number 1 next to a candidate's name, as the two marks were regarded as equivalent and counted. That was right, but a cross would have shown that a voter did not understand how to vote under STV. Had such ballots been rejected because of that failure of understanding—as they might well have been—the rejection rate in the local government elections would have been even higher than that in the Scottish Parliament elections.
One virtue of separating the elections is that the next council elections in 2012 can be preceded by a much better voter information campaign with a much better focus than was evident in 2007. The Scottish Affairs Committee roundly criticised that campaign.
We are a bit further forward than we were 17 months ago, but not much. I am not at all persuaded that we have taken the opportunity that the Gould report presented to put the administration and organisation of all our elections in Scotland on a sound footing for the future. We can and should do better. I commend the Local Government and Communities Committee's report to the Parliament.
It has been said that, in a democracy, the most important office is that of citizen. Sadly, it is clear from the analysis of last year's electoral process that the citizen was—if not forgotten—certainly the last one to be considered when changes to ballot papers and counting systems were proposed.
We have an assessment that criticises the fact that, among other things, ballot papers were complicated; postal votes were not delivered on time, which disfranchised people; decisions were taken so late that insufficient time was available to communicate them properly; and electoral administration systems might have reached breaking point as a result of pressures that had been imposed in recent years. That is quite a list of shortcomings.
In a mature democracy, it is hard enough to encourage participation in elections without the muddle that we encountered last year. The Scotland Office has a lot to answer for. Organising the Scottish Parliament elections is one of the few significant tasks that the generously resourced Scotland Office has had to do in the past few years, yet most of the failures that the Gould report highlighted fell within its remit.
Many shortcomings related to the parliamentary elections and less light has been cast on the comparative success of the local elections; I think that it is worth reflecting on that for a moment. The intuitive STV system, which was quickly understood and appreciated by the electorate, has delivered fairer votes; there has been a quiet revolution in our council chambers across Scotland. Scotland now has councils that much better reflect the spread of views among their electorates. No longer are councils so dominated by a particular party group that opposition is rendered ineffective; more parties are working together to provide good local governance; and more of the electorate have found that people whom they voted for have become councillors. STV has given voters a much wider choice: the average number of candidates per ward rose from 3.4 in 2003 to 7.4 in 2007. In 2007, there were no uncontested seats, whereas 61 councillors were returned unopposed in 2003.
A high percentage of voters ended up with the councillors for whom they had voted. In 2003, about half of all voters voted for losing candidates, but in 2007, nearly three quarters found that the candidate to whom they had given their first preference had been successful. STV succeeded in broadening the range of choice for Scottish voters and opening up the electoral process to a greater range of candidates. We saw an increase in the number of young people on Scotland's councils. As the system matures, I hope that all parties will take the opportunity to field as diverse a range of candidates as possible. It is early days, but I believe that we have invigorated and refreshed our local democracy.
I turn to some of the problems that the committee identified; that said, they are problems only of process, which can and must be fixed. In the time available, I cannot respond to all the recommendations, but I am sure that my colleagues will address other important matters.
The Liberal Democrats agree with Gould that
"a major initiative should be undertaken to rationalise and consolidate the existing legislation as it relates to these elections".
The present cluttered landscape and divided responsibility must be rationalised; Scotland should be in control of its own elections. We agree with the recommendation that Scotland should have a chief returning officer. We see merit in the Electoral Commission's development of that idea—that there should be a new electoral management board, with a convener recognised in statute, and a strengthening of the commission's role.
I have read carefully what was said by the Electoral Commission, which has made a useful contribution to the debate. However, I find it difficult to understand why such a cumbersome system with, potentially, 47 board members would be the right way forward for Scotland. If anything, we need something that is a bit more streamlined, focused and able to deliver.
As I said, the suggestion is worthy of further consideration. Before we come to conclusions, we should explore it further. We need something that refines the situation.
As other members have said, the committee supports the suggestion that local and national elections should be decoupled. On balance, our party does not support that suggestion. I am not yet persuaded that the risk of lower turnout, greater cost—which will, of course, fall entirely to local government—and disruption to schools is justified by the argument for separate elections.
In addition, there are UK general elections, which are generally held midway through the Scottish Parliament session, and European Parliament elections. We could have an election every year, which could lead to the risk that local elections would be hitched to some other election. The proposal could still therefore lead to voter fatigue. The committee's suggestion that there needs to be a campaign to raise awareness of such local elections is, in itself, an acknowledgement that there will be a drop in turnout.
I agree that postal ballots are vital to full participation, but the system must be made more robust.
The evidence of alphabetic bias in the local results was concerning, and much more research is required on ballot paper design and candidate ordering. Any review should be professional and rigorous, and should involve an assessment of what voters prefer and find easiest to use. Alternatives should be examined and, if appropriate, rigorously tested, well before the next local government elections. Decisions on that could be informed by the research that is under way by both the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission.
I support the Royal National Institute for the Blind's recommendation that organisations that represent people with a visual impairment are involved in the ballot paper design process. I would welcome the Government saying that it accepts the recommendation.
In closing, I return to the point that the reform that introduced STV has resulted in welcome changes. The problems that were encountered last year should not eclipse that. Any changes that are made must further strengthen and advance the modernisation of Scotland's local democracy. We must put citizens first and strive to ensure that their vote counts and that the electoral process is credible, fair and transparent.
We come to speeches in the open debate. Members have a tight 6 minutes.
In looking at the Gould report and considering its recommendations and their impact on the local government elections, it became apparent to members of the Local Government and Communities Committee from the start that it was nigh on impossible to ignore the clear connection between the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. The complex mix of legislation that governs the administration of both sets of elections, split between two jurisdictions, and the far-reaching conclusions of the Gould report, led to a "considerable cross-over", as the committee acknowledged in paragraph 20 of its report.
With more than 146,000 spoiled papers in the Scottish Parliament elections and more than 38,000 spoiled papers in the local government elections, it is clear that much was wrong with the way in which the elections were administered. In the aftermath of the 2007 elections, the blame game between politicians started almost immediately. The question was: whose fault was the poor administration? It was most welcome to have Professor Ron Gould conduct a wholly independent investigation into the matter, the result of which was the Gould report.
Publication of the report was a defining moment for the Scottish Parliament. I refer in particular to the debate and vote on the matter in the chamber in January 2008 and the committee report that we are debating today. Both the debate and our report endorsed Gould's key recommendations. Our Parliament has used the Gould report as an opportunity to move beyond the blame game and as a toolbox to work out how to ensure that we get the administration of future elections right.
In the May 2007 elections, the buck stopped nowhere. Inadequate and outdated legislation, poor organisation and lack of co-ordination allowed the blame game to become one of pass the parcel between all those involved, including the previous Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office. Pass the parcel is a kids' game. I am proud that the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and our committee have been adult enough to back Gould and say clearly, "In future, the buck stops here."
In essence, Ron Gould said exactly that when he talked of responsibility being divided between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government. He said:
"it cannot be guaranteed that these electoral processes will be conducted effectively, due to the fragmentation of the legislation and decision-making in this context."
Mr Gould also said to the committee:
"We do not need to bring responsibility for all elections to the Scottish Parliament in order to get clarity."—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 21 November 2007; c 268.]
He said that, but he also said that responsibility should go to the Scottish Parliament because that would be the logical choice.
I had hoped that today's debate would help to drive change in the Scotland Office, but the Scotland Office has yet to agree with Gould, or the Scottish Parliament, on the matter. We in this place are signed up to further devolution of executive and legislative powers to the Scottish Government and Parliament for the administration of its elections. We all want the buck to stop here, yet the Scotland Office has been resistant; indeed, it has refused.
With a new broom in charge of the Scotland Office in Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland, I had hoped for more than merely a change of face; I had hoped for a change of direction. I had hoped that Jim Murphy would start his new job with a blank canvas on how the Scotland Office and UK Government respond to unified calls from our Parliament for further executive and legislative powers to be devolved to Scotland
Does the member think that it was remiss of the committee—albeit that I suggested it—that we did not seek to broaden the remit of our inquiry to look at Scottish Parliament elections? If we had done that, we could have brought Westminster officials and ministers before the Parliament. Does he agree that we were prevented from doing that because we did not widen our remit?
The committee convener makes a good point, but if legislative responsibility were to be brought to this chamber that would happen quite naturally.
Yesterday, I sent the Secretary of State for Scotland a letter in which I asked the UK Government to give further consideration to ensuring that the Scottish Parliament has all the legislative powers that are necessary to learn the lessons of 2007. I also made Jim Murphy aware of today's debate. I hoped that he would reflect on the current Scotland Office position of refusal to the key Gould recommendation that "exploratory discussions take place" between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government, with a view to assigning responsibility for both elections to the Scottish Government.
However, at 6.30 pm last night, I received the Secretary of State for Scotland's short reply: there will be no change of position. For Jim Murphy not even to wait for this morning's debate is hardly the Scotland Office reflecting on the matter; rather, it is reacting, and doing so in a knee-jerk fashion. His response is an insult to the chamber. It appears to be business as usual at the Scotland Office, no matter what the Scottish Parliament decides.
The Scottish Parliament believes that the Gould report provides a toolbox to modernise Scotland's elections. The response of Jim Murphy and the UK Government was to throw an almighty spanner into its works. Such a knee-jerk reaction from a UK minister does not bode well, but I am sure that the Parliament and the Scottish Government will continue to show how illogical the Scotland Office's position is. As they hear the rest of the speeches in today's debate, I hope that members will bear in mind the fact that we cannot implement fully the improvements that are necessary unless the Scotland Office plays ball. Currently, it refuses to do so.
We should welcome the fact that the Local Government and Communities Committee's report on the 2007 election has once more given us the chance to debate an issue—the method by which we select a Government—that exercises many a political anorak and academic. It is worth acknowledging the fact that since May 2007 I have not had to deal with one piece of constituency work relating to the issue; in fact, I have received no local correspondence on electoral systems in the nine years for which I have been an MSP. However, the matter is important, even if the electorate do not get as animated about it as we do.
As members have pointed out, the democratic process is a vital component of an orderly society. Those who participate in the process must be assured that the system is just and will result in an outcome in which they can have confidence; whether people write to us in the aftermath of any problems that arise is not the issue. Although people must have a chance to have their say on the issues that emerged last year, I hope that this morning's debate will be the last time that we have to discuss them. Surely it is time for us to move on from what happened last May and to concentrate on introducing the recommendations that members of the Local Government and Communities Committee have made.
I agree with many of the committee's recommendations, but I am not entirely convinced by the view that there should be decoupling of Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I say to Mr McLetchie that if this were a show trial, I would be heading to the gulag. I accept that I have lost the argument on decoupling, but my concerns about the decision remain. Many colleagues in the chamber and in local authority chambers across Scotland agree with decoupling, because they believe that it will enable the public to distinguish clearly between the work that is done here in Holyrood and the work that local authorities do. I am not sure that the Scottish Government will always welcome decoupling as warmly as it does now, given the problems that it has created for local government through the partnership that it has established with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—the famous hysterical concordat. Decoupling will allow us to give closer scrutiny to what local authorities have or have not done with the reduced funding that the Scottish Government has provided. I wonder whether the hysterical con will stand up to that scrutiny.
I add a note of caution on the recommendation. We should not forget that turnout at local elections was on a downward trend before 1999. Many people believed that the reason for the decline was that the first-past-the-post system discouraged voters from turning out; they tried to convince us that putting in place a proportional representation system would help to overcome the problem. However, we cannot trust that simplistic analysis. If having a PR system encourages voter turnout, turnout in the proportional elections to this Parliament should be higher than in the first-past-the-post elections to Westminster, but we all know that that has not been the case. There is a real danger of reduced turnout in local elections. I wonder whether the situation will change when local elections are again held separately, as that would be to the detriment of our local authorities.
For me, the most important recommendation in the committee's report and in the Gould report is that the administrative side of Scottish Parliament elections should be passed to the Parliament. I am in favour of such a move, but I do not believe that total control of those elections should be passed to the Parliament—I am pleased that the legislative part of the process will remain at Westminster. If the Labour Government, which introduced devolution in Scotland, still holds to the position in which it believed in 1996 and 1997, a quick response from the new Secretary of State for Scotland to reiterate its opinion is in no way a knee-jerk reaction—it is a restatement of a view that the Government has held for 10 years.
Would it not have been advisable and courteous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to await the outcome of today's debate first?
I do not think that that would have mattered, given that he was restating a 10-year-old policy that the Government has no intention of changing. I could have told the member what Jim Murphy's response would be yesterday, today or tomorrow, because it is a restatement of the Government's position. It surprises me that the member is so surprised about it. Given that the SNP has introduced so little legislation in the 18 months since the election, I understand that it is desperate to find issues on which to legislate, but this is a devolved Parliament and I believe that it should remain so.
I welcome the fact that parties will no longer be able to manipulate voters in the way in which some did last May by their use of the list system. Never again should such a thing happen. People should not be able to use the list system to massage the overinflated egos of their demagogic leaders. The Parliament and those who are elected to it should be respected once the outcome of an election is known. There can be no repetition of the episode that took place last May; that was not good for our reputation.
I welcome the debate, but it is now time for us to move on. I am sure that the general public wish to see us debate issues of much higher importance. If the interest that my constituents have shown so far is anything to go by, for all that the issue matters to them we could be debating whether Mars bar cake should be on the menu in the tea bar. The issue is important, and I am glad that we are having today's debate, but we should move on from here.
Every member who stood for election last year has their own experiences of the May 2007 Scottish Parliament and local government elections; David Whitton described some of his this morning. Based on my situation, I could stand in the chamber and state that everything was wonderful, as I was elected not only to the Scottish Parliament but to North Lanarkshire Council. However, that would be to do a disservice to the wider public. There was something amiss even with the process of people getting in their postal votes in time.
The Local Government and Communities Committee details in its report and states clearly that there is cause for serious concern about how the elections that were held on 3 May 2007 were conducted and about the technology that was used at counts throughout Scotland, which meant that the situation developed into a farce, especially at counts. Rejected ballots in both the local government election and in the constituency and regional votes that were cast in the Scottish Parliament election were significantly higher than in the 2003 and 1999 elections.
As other members have stated, the Gould report and the research that has been conducted by other organisations is relevant to both the Scottish Parliament election and the local government election, especially as both elections were held on the same day. As members may have noted when reading the committee's report, DRS Data Services, the company that was at the heart of the technology failures back in May 2007, supplied only written evidence to the committee—it never appeared to give oral evidence. For that reason, paragraph 172 in the report's summary of conclusions and recommendations states that any contractor that gains the contract for future provision of electronic counting should be willing to co-operate fully
"with scrutiny by Scottish parliamentary committees."
The high number of rejected ballots gave rise to much concern about the integrity of the process. There are a number of studies of the issue by the Electoral Reform Society, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Scotland Office. The Scottish Government also published a response to the Gould report.
In future, local government elections will not be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections. The decoupling of elections is the will of the Parliament, as expressed in a vote on 10 January 2008.
To place the debate in context, one need only examine "Scottish Council Elections 2007: Results and Analysis" by Bochel and Denver, published by the University of Lincoln in 2007. The research states that there was an increase in the number of rejected ballot papers in the local government election compared with previous elections, although the increase was not as great as that in the Scottish Parliament election. Bochel and Denver note that, given that most people were unfamiliar with the single transferable vote system, a rate of 1.83 per cent for rejected ballot papers did not seem unreasonable. However, it would be remiss of us not to compare the figure of 38,351 rejected council ballot papers in 2007 with figures for the previous two elections.
The recommendation to devolve legislative powers for the administration of elections should be welcomed. We should bring the process home to Scotland. In paragraph 44 of its report, the committee said:
"The Committee, having regard to the oral and written evidence which it received, endorses the resolution of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the Gould report."
The Gould report indicated the need for the establishment of the post of chief returning officer for Scotland. The committee endorsed that view in paragraph 53 and the Parliament also endorsed that view.
The committee gathered evidence on the design of the ballot papers that people who voted in person and by post used throughout Scotland on 3 May 2007. I welcome the committee's support for the Scottish Government's intention to examine options for ballot paper design.
In paragraph 58 of its report, the committee said that it should have a beefed-up role, to enable the Parliament effectively to scrutinise the conduct of elections. The role of the chief returning officer, if such a person is appointed, will be critical in that regard.
The proposal to randomise rather than alphabetise names in local government elections merits consideration. I realise that I might be accused of having a vested interest in that regard, given that my surname is Wilson rather than Allan. In the aftermath of the election, people—frequently defeated candidates—complained that the STV system favours candidates whose names are near the top of the ballot paper. More research into randomisation would be worth while, to ensure equality for all candidates.
I welcome the report and the general principles that are set out in it. I thank the committee members, clerks and people who provided evidence on the matter, so that we can try to ensure that there is no repeat of the problems of the 2007 elections.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and I commend the committee for its work in producing its comprehensive report.
There is no doubt that all members of the Parliament and members of councils throughout Scotland are honoured, because we owe our position to voters who turned up at polling stations, cast their votes and expressed confidence in us and our political parties. That is a unique and honourable position to be in. Therefore, we must ensure that we involve as many voters as possible in the process and that voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. I commend the committee's work to try to make the process more robust in future and to increase voter turnout.
Members have referred to the important issues that the committee highlighted in its report. I have given considerable thought to the decoupling of local government and parliamentary elections. Michael McMahon and other members pointed out that decoupling the elections might reduce voter turnout at council elections, which would reduce the mandate that councils have. That is a strong point, but on balance I favour decoupling. I watched voters enter polling stations in 2007 and spoke to a number of voters from different political parties afterwards, and I am in no doubt that there was a good deal of confusion among people who had had to vote for a constituency MSP and a list MSP, and then for three or four councillors in a system that was being used for the first time. A confusing system puts voters off and we do not want to do that; we want as many people as possible to vote in elections.
For that reason, I support proposals to simplify ballot papers. The use of two separate ballot papers would be more straightforward and would be an easier system for voters to follow. Voter education is also important. We are talking about serious elections, in which members are elected to legislate on important issues in the Scottish Parliament and councillors are elected to manage large budgets. If we want voters to be aware of issues and to understand how to vote, we must invest seriously in voter education. The number of rejected ballot papers in 2007 is a matter of regret. In my constituency, there were 1,495 rejected ballot papers in the constituency election alone. I support moves to publish more electoral data, which I think will show that we have much to do in areas of social deprivation, where I think that turnout is lower and more ballot papers are rejected. We must address that issue.
Alison McInnes glossed over some facts about STV. She mentioned the increased number of candidates but did not talk about the three-fold increase in wards. The alphabetical bias in the STV system must be addressed before the next elections.
David Whitton talked about problems with postal votes. In my constituency some people did not receive their postal ballot papers until the day of the election or afterwards, so they were debarred from taking part in the process.
I support the restoration of manual counts for the Scottish Parliament elections. Transparency is important. The experienced election watchers among us are used to seeing the ballot boxes being opened and—this is my experience—all the Labour votes spilling on to the table. I make a serious point. Manual counts enable people to see how the votes are stacking up as the process goes on, which did not happen during the e-count, when my sight was blurring as I tried to follow what was happening on bar charts. I also support overnight counting. I am a traditionalist in that respect. People who work hard all day during an election are entitled to learn some results by 10 o'clock and the public and the media expect to hear the results as soon as possible.
I commend the committee for its report. I support Duncan McNeil's call for voters to be central to the process. The committee's recommendations would do much to ensure greater voter turnout in future elections.
The May 2007 election debacle was a dark day for democracy in Scotland. More than 85,000 votes were rejected in the constituency ballots and more than 60,000 votes were rejected in the regional ballots. The failings of the Scotland Office and the sloganising of the Scottish National Party have received fair and full criticism. The process was confusing and at times shambolic, and it is clear that the debacle could have distorted the outcome.
For clarity, will the member remind the Parliament of his party's position on the ballot paper and on decoupling the elections?
I will come on to those points. I do not believe that we should tinker with the system; fundamental change is needed.
The debacle in May 2007 was a serious failure of democracy. However, among those dark storm clouds was one silver lining.
In the 2003 local elections, Labour won 89.9 per cent of the seats by receiving 47 per cent of the vote. In Midlothian, 64 per cent of voters did not support Labour, but their parties won only 6 per cent of the seats among them. That was a failure of democracy, too.
The introduction of fair votes for our councils has swept away decades of stultifying single-party rule across much of Scotland. We now have proportional systems for local government, the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament. The sooner that Westminster catches up, the better. It remains deeply unfair that in a general election a Westminster Government can win a big majority in the House of Commons with a significant minority of the votes cast.
However, we have seen that the Scottish system remains far from perfect. The Gould recommendations should not simply tinker with the current flawed voting system for the Scottish Parliament—tinkering is simply not good enough. I will make the case for a fundamental change to the voting system for this Parliament.
The single transferable vote in multimember constituencies is now working in local government. It is the simplest, fairest and most effective system of PR. We should campaign for STV to be introduced for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
The current regional list system is flawed. It creates two tiers of MSP—the constituency MSP and the regional list MSP—with two different forms of voting. Nine years after its introduction, it remains complex and poorly understood. It allows regional MSPs to use their position to target and campaign against constituency MSPs. The closed regional party list system gives the political parties too much power.
Introducing the same fair voting system for all local and national elections would transform democracy in Scotland. In the Scottish Parliament, there would be only one kind of MSP: a constituency MSP. With STV, the local link would be stronger, not weaker. Power would be taken away from the political parties. MSPs could lose to more popular rivals in their own parties.
STV is fairer than the additional member system. It provides greater proportionality and allows each vote to count equally towards electing the best MSPs. It allows every person who votes to influence who is elected, even when their first-choice candidate wins too few votes and is eliminated. It is simpler and far easier to understand than the current mishmash of different and confusing voting systems.
Does the member regret the trebling in the failure of voting at council level in 2007, as compared with 2003 and 1999?
I regret any spoiled ballot. However, it is important to emphasise that the dramatic shift was in the failure of voting under the Scottish Parliament voting system. It is those 145,000-plus spoiled ballots that I am most concerned about in the context of this debate.
I believe in a stronger Scottish Parliament with new powers, including tax-varying powers. One of the most fundamental of those new powers must surely be the right of this Parliament to decide to introduce a simpler, fairer and more effective voting system.
I hope that that view will be supported by the Calman commission, as well as by the parties in the Parliament. There has been too much self-interest from the political parties on these issues for too long. We saw some of the consequences of that in May last year.
Fairness is fundamental to effective democracy and to restoring confidence in Scotland's still-tarnished electoral system.
Today's debate is welcome, although much of the ground covered in the Local Government and Communities Committee's report is not exactly new. Scotland's experience of the 2007 elections has been discussed several times in this Parliament. Despite what Michael McMahon seemed to suggest, the subject has been discussed widely by the general public in Scotland, too.
After all that discussion, and with the report in front of us, it is clear that, throughout Scotland, a consensus is emerging among our body politic that there needs to be much tighter management of the electoral process and, in particular, that responsibility for elections in Scotland should rest with the Scottish Parliament.
Nicol Stephen described the election last year as "a dark day". Given the Government that was elected, I am not sure that I agree with that statement, but I am sure that we can all recall the uncertainty that surrounded the elections of May 2007. I am sure that none of us wants that experience to be repeated. The committee's report, which builds on the Gould report, sets out a number of ways in which we can ensure that it is not repeated.
I will focus on a few key aspects of the committee's report. The report states that the post of chief electoral officer has operated successfully in Northern Ireland and considers how that could inform the establishment of a chief returning officer post in Scotland. The concept is not totally unusual: in 1997, in the devolution referendum, a chief counting officer for Scotland was appointed. Of course, we look forward to another constitutional referendum in Scotland in the not-too-distant future—one that will deliver Scotland's independence, which, naturally, would give this Parliament full powers over electoral law and regulation. It would also address Alison McInnes's concern about voter fatigue by removing an unnecessary tier of Government elections in Scotland. Perhaps that is an issue for another day. The report makes it clear that, if we had a chief returning officer for Scotland, that would help to establish lines of accountability among the diverse local authorities in Scotland and provide the oversight that was so clearly lacking in 2007.
The decoupling of Scottish parliamentary and local authority elections must not be overlooked. Such a move is extremely important for local democracy and for the mandate of our councillors and the legitimacy of our municipal governments. A separate polling day for local authorities, preferably at the mid-point between two parliamentary elections, will, I hope, provide a clearer focus in communities on issues of particular concern. It is a matter of realpolitik that decoupled polls can, and do, serve as a mid-term verdict on a national Government, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, or something for a Government of any party—particularly the SNP—to be afraid of.
However, the primary rationale for decoupling the elections is, rightly, to ensure that our municipal governments are given the prominence that they deserve as a result of having their own election day. As the committee's report acknowledges, that is a good motivation for us to act. We should look to decouple the elections.
One change that has already been made in local government elections is the introduction of the single transferable vote, which has been an incredibly positive move. I have excellent relations with many councillors throughout central Scotland and there has been a positive reaction from constituents who are able to keep their elected representatives on their toes through the multimember system. The introduction of STV has changed Scotland's local political landscape for the better—it has changed beyond recognition—even if it did take a bit longer than expected to realise the extent of what had happened on that day in May last year.
However, the introduction of STV as a new voting system in Scotland has not been without its challenges. The committee report comments on the design of the ballot paper for the local elections. It is important to note that, although the rate of spoiled ballots in the local elections was unacceptably high, it was still lower than the rate of spoiled ballots in our parliamentary elections and in STV elections held in Northern Ireland. That suggests to me that ballot design was not the sole reason for confusion and problems. After all, it was the Scottish electorate's first experience of using STV. We can expect the number of spoiled ballot papers to decline in future elections as people get used to the system, particularly if elections are decoupled.
The committee report also recommends that we investigate the increased use of postal voting. Postal voting is already under way in Ohio and several other American states four weeks before the United States presidential election. Given that Scotland is smaller than many of those states, perhaps we do not need such a radical move, but we can certainly explore the idea further. I look forward to hearing any proposals that emerge in that regard.
There is no single magic bullet in the committee's report or in any of the other reports. The Gould report, which the Parliament endorsed in full, remains the benchmark. Key to Gould was the call for full power over elections to be devolved to Scotland—but only if that power is used to implement the range of other recommendations that we have been discussing.
Voters in Scotland need and deserve an electoral system that enhances our democracy and ensures the legitimacy of those who are elected. They used such a system in 1997 to create their own Parliament. Surely that Parliament should have the responsibility and opportunity to repay the trust of the voters with the power to legislate for and oversee the running of elections in Scotland. I hope that the next time that the issue comes before us in the chamber, we can make a real and lasting difference to the electoral process.
The opening speakers all emphasised the importance of putting voters first when designing electoral systems. That is important, and it is the right thing to do. Voters are being asked to make a choice, and we should make it as easy as possible for them to make that choice in the clearest of circumstances.
It is clear from everyone's experience and from the Gould report that last year's elections did not reflect the priority that should have been given to the needs of voters. There are a number of dimensions to that, including the design of the ballot paper and the fact that the combined ballot papers were confusing. The way in which they were put together made it even less clear to voters than in the two previous elections how voting in the regional list system might impact, or not, on the constituency vote. That was a source of confusion.
There was, bluntly, manipulation of the ballot paper, with the use of misleading or inappropriate ballot descriptions. On the description "Alex Salmond for First Minister", perhaps I sound like a sore loser, but Alex Salmond was not a candidate in the West of Scotland—he was not a candidate in seven of the eight regions of Scotland. If a ballot is for the election of individuals to a Parliament, the names on the ballot paper should be the names of the candidates, not other people's names. The description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" was a plain and blatant manipulation that should never have been allowed, and the Electoral Commission should hang its head in shame for allowing it.
The combination of the regional list and constituency ballots on the same paper was confusing. If we look at the evidence of the election in a cold, systematic way, we find that, rather than there being any difficulty with the local elections, the key problem was the number of spoiled ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament election. That was striking, given that we were introducing a radically new multimember seat system in the local elections. Voters actually coped relatively well with that new system under which there were relatively few spoiled papers—they managed to express their preferences. The problem, from the voters' point of view, was with the design of the ballot paper and with other aspects of the Scottish Parliament election. It is a fault of the Gould report that it does not focus closely enough on the specific problem; rather, it gallops through a series of other issues.
In some parts of Scotland, the regional list system is fundamentally flawed. It was all very well to introduce a combined system to bring about proportionality, but the reality in Glasgow, the West of Scotland and Lanarkshire is that people who vote Labour on the regional list get no reward. There cannot be validity in an electoral system under which thousands of people cast their vote but do not get someone elected as a consequence. We should adapt the system, if we continue with it, to ensure that any party that gets, say, 25 per cent of the vote automatically gets a list seat. That would marginally reduce the degree of proportionality compensation in the system, but it would make the system work a bit better in relation to accountability to the electorate.
The way in which the regional list system has been employed in the Scottish Parliament means that people who are rejected by the electorate in a constituency but who also stand on the list system get a golden parachute, in effect. If their party says that they are going to get in, they get in. Not only do they have a golden parachute; when they get in here, they are gilded stalkers—they are funded by the electorate to challenge the people who have been elected in constituencies for the next four years. That does not seem to be a properly democratic arrangement. If the voters decide that a member is out, they should be out. That is the way in which the system should work. The SNP and some other parties have chosen not to adopt that approach, however.
I fundamentally disagree with Nicol Stephen about the multimember system. Up and down Scotland, and certainly in my bit of Scotland, people complain about having three or four locally elected members. They cannot actually find the people who have been elected, whether they voted for them or not. Some people have disappeared—SNP councillors who were elected in my area have disappeared without trace; there are other ones who turn up and are bloody useless.
Order. The member must withdraw that remark.
I withdraw that remark.
There is an issue around voter fatigue. Not next year, but in future we will end up with voters being asked to vote every year, whether in European elections, UK parliamentary elections or Scottish parliamentary elections. If we are going to have a fixed-term system, it makes sense to move to a five-year fixed-term system, coinciding with the European Parliament elections. That would at least take one electoral process out of the way. We have to think of the voters first, but I am not sure that we have been doing that.
How infuriating that Des McNulty ended that speech with something—fixed terms—that I agree with him on.
I thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its report. Having heard a few members mention Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee, and having watched some of its sessions on television, I would say that the Local Government and Communities Committee's report is a far more balanced piece of work than the Scottish Affairs Committee was able to undertake. I saw some of the select committee's fire being turned entirely, and scathingly, on the Electoral Commission. Criticisms in that direction might be valid, but not a peep came from the committee in criticism of UK ministers, who also bear responsibility.
The select committee was also scathing about the principle of proportional democracy. We are well used to hearing that—I note some of the speeches that Labour members have made. Far be it from me to suggest that the Labour Party in the west of Scotland would ever elect anybody useless under the first-past-the-post system. As well as being scathing about the use of proportional democracy, some members of the Scottish Affairs Committee remain cynical about the very existence of this Parliament.
Duncan McNeil opened this debate on a more balanced piece of work. Initially he used the term "spoiled" ballot papers, but it was important that he corrected himself part of the way through his speech, and started to refer to "rejected" ballot papers. We all understand what a spoiled ballot paper is. It implies an intention on the part of the voter to say, "To heck with the lot of them"—an understandable sentiment, sometimes. Many ballot papers were not spoiled; they were rejected by an imperfect system.
Consensus has built up around a number of areas in the debate, but others remain contested. I agree with Jamie Hepburn and the majority of MSPs, who have endorsed the idea that this Parliament should control the legislation governing its own elections. The UK Government disagrees, however. Whichever position one takes on that question, we can all recognise that there are two Parliaments and two Governments involved, with three levels of government involved in the administration of the four sets of elections that we take part in. All of us, whatever our view on the balance in that involvement of the different Parliaments and Governments, should agree that there is a need for better administration. Whether that means having a single returning officer for Scotland or adopting the Electoral Commission's proposal for a management board—both those ideas have some merit and should be examined—we should agree on the principle that we wish there to be better administration. Whichever Government controls the elections to this Parliament, both Governments will continue to be involved, and the situation must be made clearer.
There is concern about electronic counting. I agree with James Kelly, who spoke about concerns over the system not being transparent. The system is not necessary, either; nor is it cheap and, after last year's elections, it is clearly not reliable. Bruce Crawford said that we should look for silver linings in last year's debacle, and I would regard the death of electronic counting as a silver lining.
There is clearly a will to ditch the highly dubious combined ballot paper. Constituency and regional elections are separate systems that elect different groups of people. Indeed, citizens who vote in the Glasgow regional election are perfectly entitled to elect someone who might be rejected by a particular Glasgow constituency. The proposal to drop the combined ballot paper in favour of having separate ballot papers is a good one. However, we should also consider randomising the order of candidates on the ballot paper and banning sloganising from it. I agree with the argument that no one should be listed on the ballot paper unless they are a candidate, which would prohibit the inclusion of wording such as "Alex Salmond for First Minister" and "Convener Tommy Sheridan". Only the candidates' names should be on the ballot paper.
The Conservatives proposed early in the previous parliamentary session that we should decouple the parliamentary and local elections, and I was happy to support that proposal. Decoupling would give greater clarity to the issues in local elections. However, the argument about turnout could cut both ways. I believe that a greater focus on local elections would help turnout to be not only high but meaningful.
The proposal to decouple the elections raises the issue of the electoral cycle. Aside from by-elections that arise from sad or exceptional circumstances—the overcanvassed residents of Glasgow Baillieston experienced such a by-election recently—we have an almost continual electoral cycle. With local, national, UK and European Union elections, we have an election almost every year. Proposed elections to health boards and the possibility that Westminster may implement its decision to support an elected second chamber could add more layers of voter participation. That is a good thing rather than a bad one, and it is certainly not an argument against decoupling elections. However, there is a clear case for having fixed terms for all elections. For example, we could have a democratic event on the same day every year and make it a public holiday. Everybody could rely on that to know when an election was coming, and we could call it democracy day, or what you will.
If we all agree that the voters must be at the centre of the system, there should be a place for members of the public to take part directly in the decision-making process.
I, too, thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its report on what I would call the chaotic 2007 elections; I also thank all who gave evidence to the committee. I echo other members' calls for the Scottish Parliament to be responsible for elections to the Parliament.
I have found the debate interesting, except for Michael McMahon's and Des McNulty's speeches, which I thought were bitter, vinegary and full of sour grapes. I see that they are sitting together now, which is perhaps the best place for them.
As other members have said, the DRS equipment created an immense number of problems during the 2007 elections. I will give my experience of that. When I arrived at the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre on the night, the first thing that I saw was people running about with cans of WD40—I thought that it was used only on motor cars when someone could not get their key in the lock—and spraying it on machines. The response of everyone in the SECC was, "Goodness me—what the heck is happening now?" We could not believe that they had to use cans of WD40—incidentally, they had to send out for them—to ensure that the machines were working properly.
That was an absolute disgrace and it shows that the electronic vote counting machines were not satisfactory at all. Voters were annoyed by the amount of rejected ballot papers, but all the candidates who were in the SECC that night were annoyed when we saw ballot papers clogging up the machines and people pulling them out from the other end. The system did not work and, like Patrick Harvie, I hope that that is the end of that type of vote counting system. It does not work and it is no good to anyone at all.
After the elections, almost half the local authorities had to claim reimbursement from DRS after encountering a number of issues involving technical difficulties with the equipment or supplies being delivered late or not at all. For example, DRS had to reimburse the City of Edinburgh Council more than £100,000 for the late delivery of ballot papers, which of course contributed to there being more than 10,000 spoiled ballots. Clackmannanshire Council's reimbursement was even greater than Edinburgh's because the necessary staff to operate the equipment were not supplied.
The situation was outrageous, not only because of the amount of money involved—the amount I spoke about is just the tip of the iceberg—but because of a catalogue of errors, some of which I have mentioned. The overall impact on the elections was huge, and I conclude that we should not use such electronic machines in the future.
Duncan McNeil said that it was unfortunate—to say the least—that DRS did not turn up to give oral evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee. That was indeed unfortunate, because DRS should have been there, even though it submitted an explanation to the committee on paper.
I turn to the separate issue of equalities. I commend the committee for considering that issue in its report and discussing its role in the election process. As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I believe that it is important that everyone should have the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights. In that context, I note that the Local Government and Communities Committee's report referred to research that found that there were inequalities in the election process, which was unfortunate for voters whose ballots were rejected.
David Whitton and James Kelly touched on the University of Strathclyde investigation, which was conducted by Dr Christopher Mason—sorry, he is a Glasgow Liberal Democrat councillor, as McNulty knows. I should say that the investigation was conducted by Dr Christopher Carman and Professor James Mitchell, who found a close relationship between the number of rejected ballot papers and the social context of a constituency. Relevant factors were the percentage of adults without academic qualifications, the percentage receiving unemployment benefit and the percentage reporting that they were not in good health. Those factors had not previously been considered together. I recommend that the findings of that report are taken on board.
As other members have said, the University of Strathclyde report also found that the percentage of rejected ballots was higher when there was a greater number of parties on the ballot paper, which obviously confused a number of people. There is no explicit recommendation to fix that problem, but the evidence clearly calls for the ballot paper to be redesigned. I remind members that the number of rejected ballot papers in some areas was the same as or higher than the elected member's majority.
The committee's report contains many recommendations. Although I do not have time to mention them all, those recommendations, together with the Electoral Commission's suggestion that we should involve people with visual impairments in the design of the ballot papers and other suggestions, are welcome and necessary if we are to ensure that everyone is able to vote and that people's needs are met—not just for politicians' sake but for the electorate's sake. We have a democratic duty to ensure that everyone can vote.
The Local Government and Communities Committee gave its view on improving equality in the election process by addressing the issue of candidates' names appearing in alphabetical order on the ballot paper, which might help people with literacy difficulties, for example. The committee also recommended including representatives from equalities agencies and organisations in election steering groups. That is a good suggestion because we must ensure that everyone is included.
Jim Murphy should think again and ensure that the Scottish Parliament has control over its own election process.
As the most recent addition to the Local Government and Communities Committee, I congratulate my new colleagues on a comprehensive report. The problems that were experienced at the 2007 local government and Scottish Parliament elections have been recounted many times. However, the committee took a step back, reviewed the problems and sought to suggest how to solve them and, crucially, give back confidence to the electorate. That is important to those of us who believe in the democratic process. We must show people why it is important that they vote, although obviously we will put our own party-political gloss on that. However, if voters feel that the effort of casting their vote might be wasted, they will not do it, which would be a major problem.
The first issue that I want to address is the provision of information officers. I completely support the committee's recommendation that there should be more consistent and rigorous training of information officers, including equalities awareness training. Such training should also be provided to returning officers—an issue to which I will return, if I have time. My experience on polling day was that the information officers did a good job. I saw people refuse their help, but those who took a couple of minutes surely found them a great help. Indeed, I wonder what the results might have been if information officers had not been available. However, for obvious reasons, the information officers concentrated on the new STV system for the local government elections; the implications of the change in the order in which the votes appeared on the Scottish Parliament ballot paper perhaps were not fully recognised.
I share the committee's concern that the number of local government election spoiled ballot papers might not reveal the full story, given that ballot papers having only an X or 1 were counted. I am disappointed that, in his letter of 17 September, Mr Crawford—who unfortunately has just left the chamber—stated that he could not make the ballot papers available to be analysed in more detail. I agree with Mr Crawford that we need to look to the future, but it would be easier to do that if we understood past mistakes, so that we can provide information to voters to avoid such mistakes being repeated.
One of the most worrying aspects of the problems that were experienced—the committee evidence bears this out—is the correlation between disadvantaged individuals and communities, low voter registration and higher numbers of spoiled ballot papers. The issue is highlighted in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which quotes the research of Dr Christopher Carman and Professor James Mitchell, to which Sandra White referred. However, it is worth noting that the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust research indicates that there is no evidence that possibly gimmicky remedies, such as electronic voting or voting via the internet, telephone or text message, raise turnout. Indeed, the benefits of postal voting also even out after a while. That tells us that, if we want to increase voter participation, we need a consistent effort to show people why their vote is important. I support the committee's view that work should continue on finding ways of encouraging participation and engagement.
Although the committee did not take evidence on voter registration, attempts to increase voter registration must be part of the package. In my constituency, a scheme run by West Lothian Council will ensure that every school pupil in secondary 5 or 6 will be provided with information on the electoral process. With the aim of promoting wider youth participation, the scheme will explore how young people can influence the decisions that affect their lives. A staff member from West Lothian's electoral registration office will attend with the live register to enable students to register immediately. It is important that voters see their participation as having a purpose, so the scheme will try to show that that is the case. By taking that first step of registration, young people could be encouraged to vote and—who knows?—they might go home and encourage others in their family to register. Members will agree that West Lothian Council is to be congratulated on that initiative.
Ballot paper layout is also important. Clearly, the change to having one sheet of paper for the two Scottish Parliament votes had an effect. With the local government ballot paper, some people were put off by the need to use numbers. I am not alone in having seen ballot papers on which voters had clearly found it difficult to use numbers. In some regions, as a result of ballot paper length, clear instructions were omitted from the ballot paper. That caused problems, as Carman and Mitchell point out, therefore I support the committee's call that the layout of the ballot paper must be subject to consultation, which must include disability rights organisations.
In conclusion, the committee's report flags up a whole host of issues that need to be addressed—many of which have been raised today—including the decoupling of the elections, postal votes and overnight counts. There is much agreement across the parties on how to solve those problems. As democrats, we all want people to understand the importance of their vote. The correct procedures must be put in place to give people confidence to exercise their right to vote in the knowledge that it will count. I believe that we can arrive at the correct procedures. The bigger challenge, which I hope will engage us in much more discussion in future, will be to ensure that people register and use their vote.
Let us just put this on record: after the organisational stuff-up—from here on known as the great debacle—of last year's elections, we now have proof positive, if proof positive were needed, that the Scotland Office could not organise a Saturday night stushie on Sauchiehall Street.
The fact is that the original unsavoury coupling in 1999 of Scottish Parliament and local government elections was designed purely in the hope that electors would simply cast all their votes for the same party in both elections. That cobbled-together affair was organised on the basis that democracy was simply a rubber stamp that would deliver more of the same. However, the Scottish people took a left turn and abandoned the unionist script. It will never read the same again.
On having two ballot papers, did the Scottish National Party not expect that those who voted SNP on the constituency ballot would also vote SNP on the list?
I would be perfectly happy if everyone voted SNP in every election. The fact is that when people vote SNP, at least they know what they will get—a party that stands for the people of Scotland. [Interruption.] I thank people for that applause.
I congratulate the Local Government and Communities Committee on the hard work and honesty of its report. I congratulate the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, the Gould report team and even the majority of the Scottish media on their reports. However, in the name of open, transparent, civic democracy, I condemn the intransigence of the Westminster Government and its cipher that is the Scotland Office. The grandly titled House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee—no doubt presided over by the imperial wizard of that ilk—rejected almost every recommendation in the Gould report.
Can the member explain where his speech refers to the Gould report and the committee report that we are considering this morning? When will he get to our report?
I find it enjoyable that, once I had congratulated the Local Government and Communities Committee, its convener stood up just to draw further attention to himself. I am speaking about the fact that democracy in this country is being done down by the British state. Even though we have a Local Government and Communities Committee, its Labour members are happy for that to happen and would prefer that nobody brought the issue into the public domain.
The fault lies with one of their own—Douglas Alexander and his body politic—so it would not be right for Labour members to admit that another body could deliver a better system. That could be done through the Scottish Parliament, with the guidance of the Local Government and Communities Committee.
Despite the fact that the Westminster committee's report on the 2007 elections refers to dithering, things not being satisfactory, a poor communication process and
"a shocking lack of accountability",
the best conclusion that the Westminster committee could summon about the Gould report was:
"The proposal to establish a Chief Returning Officer for Scotland deserves further consideration".
In defence of my comments, I would never suggest that the people outside this Parliament have no interest in democracy. In that, I am unlike some members on the Labour benches, who believe that we should not even be talking about this issue.
This Parliament has proven itself in the eyes of the Scottish people to be the representative body that they trust to stand up for them and to speak on their behalf. Our systems are open and transparent and our committees are accessible and overtly democratic. The Westminster Parliament—to which some MSPs still owe fealty—is a closed shop and, like the Crown in Parliament, an anachronism in the 21st century. As the Gould report states, the electoral process for the Scottish Parliament must be in the hands of those who are elected to sit here. Success or failure—it should be for the people to decide. This is the people's Parliament.
I remind people in the public gallery that it is not appropriate to applaud. Do members find that funny? It is not appropriate for those in the gallery to applaud.
We now move to winding-up speeches.
The 2007 Scottish Parliament election was one of the highlights of my life. I was immensely proud to get the opportunity to represent my home town of Dunfermline in the Scottish Parliament. However, I am acutely aware that my enthusiasm is not shared by many people in Scotland or by some at Westminster. No matter what or who was at the heart of the problem, we should not forget that more than 38,000 people's ballot papers were rejected in last year's local government elections—they were the ones who really lost out. Over and above that, almost 150,000 people had their Scottish Parliament election papers rejected. Although there is no evidence that that would have changed the overall result, it is just possible that such a significant amount of rejected ballot papers would have made a difference in some contests, including my own.
Members have made a number of good points. First, Duncan McNeil talked about the problems with the electronic vote counting system, which he blamed on spoiled ballot papers. In my experience, the problem was that the electronic counting system could not cope with the volume of papers. It was not properly tested. The Government and others should look into that further.
Bruce Crawford, for the Government, spoke about whether jurisdiction should lie with Scotland or London. He made a good point about the hat trick that has been scored in the Scottish Parliament with the Government, the committee and others backing the proposed changes. Unfortunately, London Labour is not listening today, or any other day.
Mr Crawford also touched on the important point about the security of the ballot paper. I am happy to hear that changes are being made to the design of the ballot papers. I am sure that all sides in the Parliament think that there should be separate ballot papers. How those papers are laid out is a subject for much greater debate.
Mr Crawford also mentioned the electronic counting. He was quite happy with it for STV in the council elections, but he had doubts about its use in other elections. The system could be more robust—it certainly needs to be tested more robustly—but I would not discount its use in other elections because, if it is a good system in future, it should be considered for use in other elections.
David Whitton made a very good point about there being more rigorous training, which is a must. However, Mr McLetchie claimed that the number of spoiled ballot papers had gone up since 2003. He was very selective with his statistics, because there were fewer spoiled ballot papers in the local elections than there were in the parliamentary elections. He also claimed that voters did not understand how to vote under the STV system. That is a moot point from the Conservative party, the majority of whose members benefited from the STV system.
Does the member accept that the true scale of spoiled ballot papers or confused voting in the STV system was not disclosed because there was a failure to properly assess the number of instances where the voter had marked a cross rather than a 1, and had thereby not only misunderstood the voting instructions but denied themselves the opportunity to rank candidates in order of preference?
I do not accept Mr McLetchie's point. It is unfortunate, however, that the ballot papers and scans have been destroyed, as they would normally be six months after an election. It is therefore difficult to go back to counter or otherwise Mr McLetchie's argument, important though he might feel it is.
Alison McInnes made a number of points. She said that the citizen was one of the last to be considered, which is the case. Although the Scotland Office has a lot to answer for, the successful local government STV elections gave voters more choice. In addition, Scotland should be in control of its own elections, which should include having a chief returning officer.
Bob Doris spoke about how the Gould report is a toolbox. That is a good point, and we should consider it closely. Most sides in the Parliament are happy to take on the Gould report's recommendations.
Des McNulty admitted that the current system is flawed, so I ask him and his colleagues what is wrong with moving to STV, which is much more widely accepted at a national level as being a better system?
The Liberal Democrats believe that lessons can be learned from the significant problems of last year's elections, from the Gould report and from the Local Government and Communities Committee's report. London Labour failed the Scottish electorate. It failed to test the ballot paper properly, to provide suitable explanation in advance to the electorate and to test the new electronic vote counting system robustly. It should accept that it failed the Scottish public and change Westminster's legislation to give Scotland the chance to show that it can run its own elections well.
Having listened to the excuses of Labour and the Tories on retaining the discredited first-part-the-post electoral system, I think that they are just scared of STV and of being held to account properly by the electorate. However, it is not just Labour and the Tories who have been discredited; the SNP was disgraced by the Electoral Commission, Ron Gould and others for using the title "Alex Salmond for First Minister" on regional ballot papers. Only the Liberal Democrats have come out of the fiasco with any credibility. We have long since supported the single transferable vote, which offers the most effective and robust form of ballot.
With the Liberal Democrats' share of the UK vote at a mighty 12 per cent, every party in the Parliament is frightened of taking them on at the ballot box.
I congratulate the committee on the report, which is a good piece of work. The convener gave a good account of the report in a measured and practical speech.
A number of particularly good issues come out of the report, but I want to draw two useful minor issues to members' attention. The first is Ron Gould's oral evidence. He gave us an excellent report in November last year, but the committee report is particularly useful because the committee had the chance to quiz and question him to get further and better particulars.
I think that the chamber would unite in saying that it is deeply regrettable that DRS Data Services did not give oral evidence to the committee. A written statement is not as useful to the committee as allowing it to probe and ask about what went wrong. It was a case not of finding someone to blame but of establishing what went wrong and what can be done in future to ensure that it does not happen again.
The Conservatives have a number of substantive issues to raise. The first is something that we have believed in for a long time: the decoupling of Scottish Parliament elections from local government elections. We have been saying that since 2002. A member's bill was introduced in 2004. We predicted that serious issues would result from the 2007 election, although we did not predict their scale. I am pleased to note that other parties now agree with us.
For two reasons, it is good news for us all that the Government has decided to introduce a decoupling bill. First, it will allow us to focus more closely on the local government elections instead of them being overshadowed by the Scottish Parliament elections; it will allow voters to consider what the different parties are saying within their respective areas; and it will allow candidates in those areas to put forward their policies and proposals without being overshadowed by national policies and proposals. As a result, voters in local government elections will be able to make a far more informed choice based on local policies. For that reason, decoupling the elections is a positive move. Secondly, it will prevent a lot of the confusion that we saw in May 2007. The Gould report makes at least four references to confusion, and we can prevent it by decoupling the elections.
There is certainly the potential for a lower turnout initially, although that is not definite. We will have to put in extra effort to ensure that voters are aware of what is going on, but focusing on local government elections alone might get over that potential problem.
I hope that Mr McNulty had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he proposed that Scottish Parliament elections be coupled with European elections, and that he is not desperately in favour of that. The coupling of those elections would create even greater problems, and the excitement might be too much to handle in a single day.
I return to the use of the STV system for local government elections, which was not the big success that the Liberal Democrats like to portray it as. Under normal circumstances, the use of STV would have been described as disastrous, given that it resulted in a trebling of the voting failure rate from 0.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent. That compares favourably with the failure rate for the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, which was 4 per cent, but it compares very badly indeed with what has happened in any other Scottish election in living memory.
We agree on the need for decoupling, but does the member not agree that the increase in the number of rejected ballots at the local government elections might have been the result not of the use of a new system but of the use of two different systems on the same day? Is not the answer decoupling rather than criticism of STV?
It is probably a bit of both. Decoupling will solve part of the problem, but if one looks at the results of elections in other countries, one finds that the number of voting failures or spoiled papers is much higher in elections in which STV is used than it is in first-past-the-post elections.
As Mr McLetchie pointed out, the figure of 1.8 per cent relates to the number of rejected papers, but we do not know how many people voted with a single X, which is perfectly valid, but did not realise that they had the option to make a second, a third and a fourth choice, and so on. Anecdotal evidence suggests that that number might be high. We need far better education in that regard, and we need to give a firm no to the use of STV for Scottish Parliament elections.
The ballot papers need to be examined, too. One of the biggest problems with the ballot papers was the lack of testing. Only 100 ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament election and 100 papers for the local government elections were tested. However, the biggest scandal of all is that not a single piece of testing involved coupling—not a single elector was given three votes to use on two ballot papers and asked to test how the proposed system worked. We must put the elector at the heart of voting and test the papers in advance.
I very much welcome the committee's report and the good ideas that it contains, of which we are largely supportive and on a number of which we suggest further consultation.
I congratulate Duncan McNeil who, in opening the debate, brought up some interesting issues to do with the Northern Ireland model, in which the UK retains full legislative responsibilities but administration has been devolved to Northern Ireland. We support that model.
He pointed out that the core of the debate is about the electorate and the need to ensure that they are never again let down in the manner in which they were in 2007. He mentioned the need for further research, voter registration issues and the need for data on the electoral process to be made available at a more local level. He expressed concerns—which I share—about the undermining of the postal vote through bad practice. We must ensure that we retain the postal vote as a key mechanism for people to take part in elections.
I am interested in the use of personal identifiers, which I have discussed with the minister and on which I think that he has, in keeping an open mind on the issue, adopted the right approach. At the end of his speech, Duncan McNeil reminded us that voters must be at the heart of the system.
I thought that it was a good debate, until Mr Kidd spoke. I cannot recall hearing him speak in the chamber on a previous occasion—I consider that to be a blessing, given the speech that he made today. I am sure that the voters of Glenrothes will be interested in his dark attacks on Westminster. I remind him that when the most recently elected SNP MP went to the Houses of Parliament, he voted Tory in his first three votes. Many interesting points can be made in that regard.
Ignoring Mr Kidd, I give credit to Mr Crawford for the openness of his engagement with all parties and for his willingness to accept considered views on the matter. He spoke about the need to draw a line under the events of 2007. We all want to do that and to learn the lessons, but what irks me and members of my party when members of the SNP say, "Get on with it," is that we need to understand that all parties in the Parliament agreed to the format of the ballot paper that was put before the electorate in 2007 and that only the Tories—as they have told us many times—said that they were in favour of decoupling.
No.
I realise what Tricia Marwick will say about that.
I understand that there was significant support in the Parliament as far as the key issues were concerned. It is simply untrue to say that what happened was all the responsibility of the UK and the Scotland Office, as the Lib Dems have sought to do. Two of the key decisions on the elections were made in Scotland. We all now realise that those were the wrong decisions and that they affected voter turnout. We are all prepared to draw a line under what happened, but we must understand that, on those key points, we in the Parliament—albeit in different ways—have collective responsibility.
David Whitton was correct to remind us of some of the bad memories of the period in question. He also reflected on Mr Gould's conclusion that no single party was to blame. Indeed, the "Alex Salmond for First Minister" issue was one of the few issues in relation to which Mr Gould raised significant concern about the role of a political party, so we should understand that we are not all lily white in the role that we played in the arrangements for the elections. Once we have done so, we might be able to move on more effectively.
Mr McLetchie mentioned the "frenzy of activity" that surrounds the election issues. It is correct for us to conduct further research and to commission reports, but how we use that information will be the measure of our ability to respond to some of the big issues.
We understood that the position that Bob Doris took would be a key part of the SNP's line of attack, but Michael McMahon got it perfectly correct—we have a devolved Government and a devolved Parliament, and we understand the relationship that exists. In that context, Mr Murphy should be credited for his quick response to Bob Doris. It should be acknowledged that the response was always going to be what it was, because that is the position under the devolution settlement and it has been set out on numerous occasions. It was a bit rich of Bob Doris to criticise a UK Government minister for responding quickly.
Nicol Stephen rewrote history completely; it was as if he was not party to any of the decisions or discussions in question. In my view, he misrepresented his personal role and that of his party.
I return to some of the report's key points. Michael McMahon was right to highlight some of the dangers of decoupling. At various points, many Labour and Tory councils have been wiped out as a result of the lack of popularity of the national Government, so I am not quite sure about the faith that is placed in decoupling. However, given that, as James Kelly said, confusion was a key issue, we support the separation of the elections. That said, there are other concerns that we must address, such as how we ensure that local government issues come to the fore during local government elections and that councillors are not simply held to account for the performance of whatever national Government happens to be in place at the time. We are happy to support the other big recommendations, despite the concerns that I have expressed. I look forward to the minister's closing speech.
During the debate, a number of members have referred to the fragmented and antiquated nature of the legislation that we in Scotland are dealing with. I will paint a picture to show just how antiquated and fragmented it is. Three arms of central Government are involved in elections in Scotland—the UK Ministry of Justice, the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government—as well as 32 local authorities, 32 returning officers, eight regional returning officers and 15 registration officers. There are 18 pieces of primary and secondary legislation on the subject, and the steering group that deals with such matters is made up of nine other groups and needs six sub-groups to support it.
That is not a landscape in which we can run successful elections. It is a matter of common sense to have one authority that has responsibility for consolidating the legislation and decluttering the background. Anyone, regardless of their political views, would agree with that—it is certainly the view that was widely shared in January 2008. However, as things stand, that is not going to happen.
Some people talked about the Scottish Affairs Committee and its influence on the outcome of the UK Government's decision. I do not want to be disrespectful to that committee, but it took no evidence from any Government minister from Scotland, any Scottish Government officials or any MSP before it made its recommendation to the UK Government. If we were looking for a reliable and robust process of intellectual argument, there was a serious flaw, which is evident in the outcomes.
I am disappointed that Jim Murphy, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has not agreed that the Scottish Parliament should have powers over the administration of elections in Scotland, even though, in January 2008, every party in this chamber agreed that it should. Bob Doris expressed his disappointment at the lack of movement on the part of the Scotland Office in that regard. Anyone who is a democrat, wants the situation to be sorted out and is committed to Scotland clearing up the mess that was visible to everyone in 2007 could do nothing other than sign up to the idea that this Parliament should have that responsibility. There can be no other intellectual end to that argument.
I will continue to press that matter, but I recognise that we are where we are and that we must get on with decluttering the landscape around elections, especially from the local government perspective.
We have already said that we agree in principle with the post of chief returning officer being brought into being. David McLetchie raised a fair point, however, when he suggested that having a chief returning officer for only local government elections in Scotland does not make sense. Surely, given the landscape that I described, it would make sense to give that chief returning officer responsibility for other elections in Scotland. Despite the fact that Jim Murphy turned down Bob Doris's suggestion, there is a glimmer of hope in that correspondence, as Mr Murphy offered the opportunity of discussing the matter further. I am keen to discuss further with him the issue of whether the chief returning officer should also have responsibility for the other elections that are held in Scotland.
Alison McInnes talked about the Electoral Commission's suggestion that an elections management board, led by an elected returning officer, should be established—that will be fed into the consultation exercise. My initial reaction is that the proposal is complex and cumbersome and is a management response that deals with the symptoms identified by the Gould report rather than with the fragmented nature of the electoral landscape. It does not offer a clear, democratic solution for how Scotland should move forward. Under the Electoral Commission's proposal there would not be a great role for the Parliament, and it is important that the Scottish Parliament ensures that it is the place where people see that accountability lies. However, I will engage positively with the Electoral Commission to see whether any common ground can be found.
A number of members referred to turnout and decoupling. Michael McMahon started off in fine spirit in that regard and showed a maverick tendency that is unusual in a business manager. I was really quite impressed by his candour and wondered whether we were seeing the emergence of a new Michael McMahon. Unfortunately, he quickly reverted to type. It was a glimmer, however—although perhaps not a gilded glimmer, to borrow Des McNulty's word—and I hope to see more of that.
I heard no real argument from the Liberal Democrats about why the elections should not be decoupled. I know that the Conservatives support the proposal and I acknowledge Tricia Marwick's role in leading the SNP's efforts to decouple the elections. I wonder whether the reason why the Liberal Democrats are determined that decoupling should not take place is that they cannot put the people on the ground to enable them to be as effective as they need to be in elections. It is time to get away from such narrow political thinking and start to put in place an electoral system that delivers for the people.
David McLetchie mentioned that the Arbuthnott commission in 2006 and the McIntosh and Kerley commissions in 1999 all considered the issue and recommended that the elections should be decoupled. From that perspective, it is time that the Liberal Democrats woke up and smelled the coffee.
I say to Patrick Harvie that, if we are going to have a public holiday to count STV ballots by hand, we had better prepare for a holiday lasting four or five days, as that is how long it will take.
Will the member give way?
I cannot, as I am in my final minute.
A few members talked about party descriptors. It is incredible that some Labour members—and, obviously Jim Tolson—are still using that matter as a fig leaf to cover up their failure to win the election in 2007. The voters knew exactly who they were voting for. They were voting for a new Scotland and a party that wanted Scotland to improve and move forward and wanted to improve the quality of life of the people of Scotland. I would have thought that, after a year and a half, certain members of this Parliament might have got over their private grief and moved on. The people of Scotland certainly have.
I call Alasdair Allan to wind up on behalf of the committee.
The committee would like to thank the chamber for what has been, on the whole, a positive debate that has featured many useful contributions. [Interruption.] Mr Neil's sneeze was not one of the more useful contributions, but there were many others.
All members will cherish their own recollections of the chaos on election night, and we have heard many of them recited this morning. I am not sure whether all of them have met Mr Whitton's stringent criteria for interesting stories, but, for my part, I must say that the council staff in Stornoway acquitted themselves extremely well, although there was a 12-hour hiatus between the counting of the votes from Lewis and Harris and those from Uist and Barra, which certainly heightened the sense of drama. That hiatus was a result not of the computer failures that other members have referred to but of an erroneous forecast for fog, which led to the helicopter not turning up, which just proves that we cannot prepare for every eventuality.
Many other colourful episodes from around the country have now entered into political legend: the widespread failures of computers and counting machines; the ballot box that fell into the sea; the returning officer who failed to add up one party's list vote and came extremely close to announcing an erroneous result; the scarcely believable spectacle that other members have mentioned of a representative of the company that was tasked with organising the process going on television to say that things were going "incredibly well"; and, of course, the voter who lost the place altogether and attacked one of the rather flimsy new-style ballot boxes with a handy golf club.
Greater than the sum of all those individual farces, however, was the level of voter confusion that the design of the ballot papers seems to have caused. It is worth saying that the committee surprised itself with the degree of consensus that it was able to muster, on the whole, when assessing evidence relating to the parliamentary and council elections and in assessing Mr Gould's recommendations.
The committee, like the country, felt instinctively uneasy about the sheer number of discounted votes in 2007, and felt even more uneasy to discover that, in some parts of the country, the question whether a possibly spoiled paper should be rejected was being adjudicated by a computer, without any human intervention. As Mr John Wilson and Mr Doris pointed out, the number of spoiled papers in the local government vote, while higher than in previous local elections, was lower than the number of such papers in the parliamentary vote. That is surprising, given that the local elections were using an entirely new voting system.
Serious concerns have been raised about our democratic system, but we should be careful not to overstate them, real though they are. Mr Stephen strayed into overstatement in some of his language; indeed, I felt at certain points of his speech that I was listening to a description of the infamous presidential election in Liberia in the 1920s, in which the winning candidate claimed a majority that was estimated to be around 10 times the population of that country. The committee thought that the real concern was not that significant numbers of voters had voted for someone else by mistake, but that voters had been denied the opportunity to participate at all. That is a serious matter in any democracy. The committee made its recommendations in light of those problems. It is pleased that the Government has already acted on most of what it recommended, and the minister confirmed the Government's intentions.
The committee's convener provided a comprehensive outline of our recommendations, but it is worth recapping the report's main themes. A key theme is that national and local elections should be separated, a view that seems be shared almost across the chamber. In that context, I make a mental note not to quote out of context and cheaply at any point in the future Mr McLetchie, who said that separation is desirable. National and local elections need to be separated, and not just for practical reasons, although such reasons are considerable. The committee's report clearly shows, as Mr Hepburn said, that there is a growing feeling that councils deserve to be assessed by the voters on their merits.
The committee agreed with Mr Gould's recommendations on the fractured nature of election administration in Scotland and supported the creation of a single chief returning officer post for all elections in Scotland. It also recommended that, if practicable, sub-ward level information on the 2007 local government elections should be released. Members will know that when the Scotland Office released equivalent information on the Scottish parliamentary elections, it proved to be veritable meat and drink for the many political anoraks in Scotland, to whom Michael McMahon referred.
Mr Kelly mentioned voter confusion. Like many members, I have spoken to many voters who failed to fill out half of their parliamentary ballot papers simply because they read at the top of their paper that they should make one mark. That illustrates the confusion that reigned in many parts of the country.
The committee also recommended that the Scottish Government explore the greater use of postal voting, and it is keen to hear more about the Government's proposals on personal identifiers.
It is difficult to talk here, as it was in the committee, about any of the recommendations that I have mentioned and stick within the Parliament's own responsibilities—that is, it is difficult to consider only local government elections. Believe me, I am straining every politically consensual sinew that I have not to stray into a debate about reserved powers, but Gould, the committee and the minister have all said that there must be far more cohesion in the organisation of different elections in Scotland. That means that the Scottish Parliament must have more of a role in running Scottish parliamentary elections. Numerous members have made that point.
The committee was content with a motion that the Parliament passed on 10 January, which stated:
"That the Parliament welcomes the Gould report, including the recommendation calling for the further devolution of executive and legislative powers to the Scottish Government and the Parliament for the administration of its own elections".
The committee thought that there could be no clearer view of the Parliament's position than that. The Parliament did not open up such tempting questions as whether it should have increased powers over its own composition, the extent of the franchise or the use of STV—Mr McNulty colourfully raised that issue. It simply said that, like any normal Parliament, the Scottish Parliament should be able to administer the operation of the election process, and that to do that, there should be an increase in the relevant executive and legislative powers available to it in Scotland. The committee was content to associate itself with that sentiment because it recognised that council and parliamentary elections in Scotland must be seen as a single democratic process to some extent and that they should certainly be administered as such.
It is clear that it is now time to move on and ensure that we get things right the next time round. The report shows that there is the will in all the parties that are represented in the Parliament to do just that. In that spirit, I commend the report's findings to the Parliament.