“Scottish Elections Review”
Before we move to the next item of business, members should by now be aware that the First Minister has requested that a statement be scheduled on the "Scottish Elections Review". I have used my powers under rule 13.2.2 of standing orders to allow a statement on that report to proceed in place of the scheduled statement.
The next item of business, therefore, is a statement by Alex Salmond on the Gould report. As the First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interventions.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise for not having been able to give prior notice of this point of order, but I did not know that the business had been changed. Will we have a statement on the First Minister's American visit and, if so, when?
That is a matter for the Government to bring forward to the Parliamentary Bureau.
Just to help Margo MacDonald, I should say that I will be delighted to make a statement on my visit to the United States if the Parliamentary Bureau is minded to accept it.
Yesterday, Ron Gould delivered his report on the systemic failure that blighted the elections to this Parliament on 3 May this year. I welcome the report and want to place on record my thanks to Mr Gould for his thorough and perceptive analysis: we accept all of his key recommendations in full. I was initially minded to order a judicial inquiry but, given the extent and thoroughness of the report, it is now my view that Parliament and the people would be better served by implementing its recommendations.
The report raises vital questions about the operation of a fair and robust voting system, which is the bedrock of any democracy. The denial of a democratic voice to tens of thousands of our citizens is scandalous. The report does not pull any punches—it concludes, among other things, that part of the reason for what happened was that those who were in charge at the time frequently focused on party advantage over the national interest. Its summary states:
"Through consultations, it became clear to the Review team that both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive were frequently focused on partisan political interests in carrying out their responsibilities, overlooking voter interests and operational realities within the electoral administration timetable."
The report also claims that voters in Scotland were "treated as an afterthought" and that Government ministers and others overlooked the interests of the electorate.
Let me be clear: what happened on 3 May is totally unacceptable in a democratic society and must never be allowed to happen again. The Government will do everything in our power to make sure that it does not. Today, Parliament must commit itself to rebuilding confidence in our electoral system, but we cannot do that on our own. It may seem absurd to many people, but the United Kingdom Government controls and runs the Scottish parliamentary elections.
It did not appear to me from his statement to the House of Commons yesterday afternoon that the Secretary of State for Scotland had fully grasped the gravity of all the issues that were under discussion, although he did accept that the UK Government has lessons to learn from the systemic failures that occurred. He also failed to accept Mr Gould's first recommendation—that the responsibility for both Parliament and local elections should be assigned to a single jurisdictional body, and that that body should be the Scottish Government. The report states:
"As long as the responsibilities for the decisions which have an impact on the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections are divided between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government, 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. As a result, we would recommend that exploratory discussions take place with a view toward assigning responsibility for both elections to one jurisdictional entity. In our view, the Scottish Government would be the logical institution."
In response, the Secretary of State for Scotland simply said:
"I am not persuaded that Mr. Gould's analysis … necessarily supports his conclusion."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 23 October 2007; Vol 465, c 166.]
Therefore, yesterday, after the statement I wrote to the Prime Minister to make clear our disappointment with that lukewarm reaction. I urged Gordon Brown to act quickly and positively on the report's key recommendations and to give a fair hearing to proposals that will enhance parliamentary democracy in this country, and I expressed the hope that, through discussion, we could work together to take forward all of the reforms that Gould has recommended. I should say that at today's Prime Minister's question time, Gordon Brown seemed to indicate that the UK Government had accepted Gould's recommendations.
I want to discuss the report in more detail. The Scottish Government accepts all the report's recommendations. We will take early action to consult on or, where we can, to implement all the recommendations that fall within our responsibility. As I have said, a central conclusion—which we absolutely support—is that our Parliament should be in charge of its own elections. That is such a basic and fundamental principle that it should go without saying; indeed, I am at a loss to understand why it was not written into the Scotland Act 1998 from the outset. We need to persuade the UK Government and the UK Parliament to act speedily to bring about that change. A number of other recommendations, including the proposal to establish a chief returning officer for Scotland and the proposal to separate the parliamentary ballot papers in future elections, also need direct action to be taken by the UK Government.
A number of recommendations are aimed directly at local government. For example, it will be for returning officers to take forward arrangements for any new contract for electronic counting of local government ballot papers when the current contract with DRS Data Services expires at the end of this year.
I now want to focus on what the Scottish Government wants to happen as a result of the report and what we will do to make it happen. The report highlighted the complicated systems and structures that have been created over the years to manage our elections, and it identified the complexity of the legislation and the fragmentation of roles and responsibilities as being critical obstacles to problem-free elections. I agree.
The report recommends that the legislation be rationalised and consolidated and that a chief returning officer be appointed to oversee both Scottish Parliament and local government elections. The Government agrees and wishes an early meeting with the UK Government to make that happen.
From what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, it appears that the UK Government believes that decoupling Parliament and local government elections will, in itself, solve the problems, but that is entirely to ignore a central conclusion of the report—that there should be a single jurisdictional body and a single line of political responsibility.
We will reconvene the elections steering group in Scotland. We will strengthen its role in the lead-up to the next set of elections in order to ensure that we deliver a clear timetable for action that is realistic and achievable.
On ballot papers, the report is specific. Even a limited preliminary testing sample in 2006 showed a 4 per cent rejection rate, which is precisely what happened on 3 May. Many people will find it astonishing that although the flaws in the system had been identified, nothing was done to rectify matters before the election. This Government will not repeat those mistakes. Ballot papers will be designed with the voter in mind and will be thoroughly tested well in advance of the date of the election.
I accept the recommendation that we look at options for allowing equitable positioning on the ballot paper. The report suggests a draw to determine ballot paper position as one option for levelling the playing field for all candidates, regardless of party. I support that recommendation.
I note the report's proposal that in order to prevent any confusion in the future, the registered names of all parties should appear first on all regional ballot papers. Although I do not necessarily accept that the fact that that practice was not followed on 3 May led to confusion among Scottish voters, I will support the recommendation.
Postal voting is an important feature of Scottish elections, especially for many of our rural and island communities, and for our less mobile residents who depend on a reliable postal voting system. Many of those people were let down at the May elections. The situation could have been much worse if many council election officials had not taken swift action, when they could, to ensure that absent postal votes were replaced. I will ensure that the recommendations in the report that relate to postal voting are acted on. Postal ballot packs must be better designed and better issued. It is just common sense that people must get them in good time to return them for their votes to be counted.
I also accept the report's recommendation that the closing date for nominations be brought forward, leaving a clear 23 days between close of nominations and polling day.
The report concludes that electronic counting, of itself, was not responsible for the extent to which ballot papers were rejected. However, there were problems with electronic counting on 3 May, so we need to rebuild confidence that the system can deliver on time and in a consistent manner. First, we need to ensure that we fully plan and risk manage the electronic counting element of future elections. Secondly, we must ensure that all doubtful ballot papers are adjudicated consistently.
Finally—and crucially—I return to the need for clear responsibility for elections and election policy. I absolutely accept the report's premises that decision making is fragmented and that the institutional arrangements for administering elections in Scotland are complex and overtly subject to political interference. The way to get rid of fragmentation is to give this Parliament responsibility for its own elections, which would be logical, fair and in the best interests of the Scottish people. I call on Parliament to support that key recommendation of the Gould report.
I also accept that combined elections do a disservice to local government and to local government candidates. Local politicians should be elected on local issues, which can get lost in the context of national issues in a combined election.
Presiding Officer, the people of Scotland will be appalled to learn from the Gould report the extent of the failures of the people who were responsible for running the last election. However, they will now care even more that we act to put things right. What happened on 3 May must never happen again; accepting the report and all its conclusions is the first step to ensuring that it does not.
As I indicated previously, the First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It will be helpful if members who wish to ask a question will press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Andy Kerr first, to be followed by Annabel Goldie.
I thank the First Minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Clearly, we all accept that there were significant problems with the elections in May—of course, that is why Ron Gould was tasked with examining the election process and why, I believe, we should seriously consider all his recommendations.
All major political parties supported the use of a single ballot paper, so does the First Minister, like the Labour Party, accept in retrospect that that was wrong? Why, in his statement, did he reject the view of Mr Gould that putting "Alex Salmond for First Minister" on the ballot paper could have caused voter confusion?
The First Minister's statement made no reference to consultation of other parties in Parliament. I take this opportunity to remind him that this is a Parliament of minorities. Does he therefore agree that all recommendations must first be considered on a cross-party basis if we are in the future to avoid accusations of partisanship?
Finally, Mr Gould was explicit that all parties must share the blame and he specifically criticised the use of the phrase "Alex Salmond for First Minister". The Labour Party has accepted responsibility for our part in the frustration that was felt across Scotland following the May elections: the Secretary of State for Scotland apologised yesterday, Douglas Alexander has apologised and, today, I apologise on behalf of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament. However, the criticisms apply to all parties and, of course, particularly to the use of the Scottish National Party's "sloganising" agenda. Is the First Minister also therefore prepared to apologise to the Scottish people?
Well, I am surprised—and no less delighted that he is standing in—that Andy Kerr is asking me the questions today.
I say to Andy Kerr that, in the early days of 1955, Robert Salmond did not name his first-born son Alex with a view to his getting further up the ballot paper in the Scottish elections in 2007. Party descriptions and strategies have been used by many parties in elections, normally without causing mass confusion among the electorate.
I noticed that Andy Kerr used the word "partisanship", which is exactly the accusation that Gould levels against ministers in London and, indeed, ministers who were in this Parliament. However, there is a distinction: on the one hand, political parties have been known to advance partisan arguments—it is called politics—but on the other hand, people who become ministers are expected to rise above that when they are planning free and fair elections. [Interruption.]
Order.
That is why it is crucial that we implement all the recommendations of the Gould report. I did not detect from Andy Kerr's questioning any sign that the Labour Party in Scotland would implement and support the very first recommendation in the report—that this Parliament should be responsible for its own elections. I have to say that anybody who thinks the contrary must subscribe to the theory that Big Brother knows best—or, in this case, that Wee Brother knows best.
I, too, thank the First Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I do agree with him that we must rebuild confidence in our electoral system.
The root cause of all the problems on 3 May was the holding of two elections on the same day. Surprisingly, and regrettably, the First Minister relegated that most important aspect to a footnote in his remarks. It is perfectly clear that a different voting system, electronic counting and a combined ballot paper were always, individually, going to be challenges, but chaos was frankly inevitable when they were all put together through having two elections on the same day. That, not the manufacturing of some illusory spat with Westminster, is the kernel of the problem.
Does the First Minister agree that, if Labour and the Liberal Democrats had backed the Scottish Conservative bill in the Parliament in 2005 that would have decoupled the elections, the mayhem would have been avoided? What mechanism does the First Minister propose for a decoupling bill and what is the timescale? We certainly owe it to serving councillors and our councils to enable them to plan for the consequences of decoupling.
The proposal to make Parliament responsible for both sets of elections is the first recommendation in the Gould report. That was not manufactured by me, by the SNP or by the Government—it was Gould's first recommendation. He was appointed by the Electoral Commission, not by me, and the Electoral Commission drew up his remit. The report is independent—certainly, it is independent of the Government. It is incumbent on all of us not just to pay close attention to the recommendations, but to be prepared to implement all of them, rather than just to pick and mix the ones that we like or do not like.
Gould does not argue that the key problem was there being simultaneous elections for local government and Parliament; to an extent, he argues to the contrary. However, he recommends that the elections be decoupled and I support that recommendation. One difficulty is that having two voting systems on the same day makes the process of explaining the elections all the more difficult, particularly when a new system is being introduced, because two explanations have to be made for the two elections. Although Gould praises the VoteScotland campaign for its efforts, that is a substantial difficulty.
I intend to act quickly and to consult on proposals with a view to introducing legislation to decouple the elections for local government and the Scottish Parliament. I will do that in plenty of time, so that all the parties can agree on when it will be best to hold the local government elections. That is a recommendation of the Gould report; all of us who are interested in making progress on restoring confidence in parliamentary democracy in Scotland should support it.
I agree that responsibility for the elections should pass to the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Office has very few tasks to perform, yet on its single remaining executive task, it failed. That is why the people of Scotland were entitled to hear an apology from the former Secretary of State for Scotland. The scandal puts a black mark against Douglas Alexander's ministerial competence and leaves a question mark over his future ministerial career.
However, the First Minister should also apologise. His decision to rename his party as "Alex Salmond for First Minister" is strongly criticised in the Gould report. Ron Gould, in his thorough and perceptive analysis, called it "sloganisation" and a "naming strategy" to
"achieve a higher position on the ballot paper."
That led to a misconception, which was a reason why so many voters left one parliamentary ballot paper unmarked. Thousands of people lost their votes because of a tactic to put the SNP under the letter A, rather than the letter S.
The whole mess surely makes the case for the introduction of the single transferable vote for the Scottish Parliament elections. The STV system worked well for local government elections and would work well for the Scottish Parliament elections. Will the First Minister support that?
It was, of course, open to the Scottish Liberal Democrats to describe their party as "Nicol Stephen for Deputy First Minister" or as "Nicol Stephen for First Minister" but the Liberal Democrats did not, for one reason or another, think that that would be an advantage in the election campaign. The rules on descriptions in elections were drawn up by the Electoral Commission. Earlier, I mentioned the suggestion that my name and the christening tactic had been part of a strategy. That really did not happen, way back in 1955.
I turn to the substance of the question. A decision on the single transferable vote—which I am inclined to support—is not justified by the report. There is nothing in the Gould recommendations to suggest that the present two-ballot system—the additional member system—cannot work effectively. We have had two elections without the problems that we had in the most recent election. The arguments for STV must stand on their own merits and not rest on the Gould report.
However, I agree with Mr Stephen on the question of responsibility and the line of responsibility. I remind him that the criticisms that have been made of Government ministers are specific and damning. The consultation showed that the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive
"frequently focused on partisan political interests … overlooking the interests of the voter and operational realities"
of the election timetable. I gently remind Mr Stephen that he was the Deputy First Minister in that Executive.
We come now to back-bench questions. The shorter they are, the more we will get into the nine minutes that are available.
I welcome the First Minister's acceptance of all the recommendations in the Gould report. In particular, I seek his assurance that candidates and agents will in the future have the democratic right to examine rejected papers. That right was refused them last May.
I draw the First Minister's attention to the apology that was issued this morning by Douglas Alexander, who had the primary ministerial responsibility for the fiasco. Does the First Minister agree that an apology is not sufficient in this instance? When someone uses ministerial power to try to manipulate an election for their own party, it should be a matter for resignation, not just for an apology.
I am more interested in the future of Scottish elections than in the future of Douglas Alexander. The future of Douglas Alexander is a matter for the Prime Minister.
I want to put forward a hypothesis. Let us imagine that the Lord Chancellor has introduced a new voting system for a UK general election, and that that voting system, the lack of preparation and the lack of a timetable—and all the other things that are identified in the Gould report—have led to the rejection of more than one million ballot papers. That would be the proportionate figure. Does anyone seriously believe that a UK Government minister who did that in a UK general election would stay in office? Does anyone believe that it would be tenable for any minister under those circumstances to refuse to accept the first recommendation of an independent report into the elections?
Has the First Minister read the very last paragraph of the Gould report? It says:
"In all fairness, however, it is important not to lose sight of the many positive aspects and good intentions of those involved in assembling and conducting the 3 May 2007 elections."
The paragraph continues:
"Much credit is due to all involved in the election for the degree of success achieved despite the hurdles involved."
The First Minister blames people: he rises to the occasion, as always, by lowering himself to party political propaganda. Two can play at that game.
I have received a letter from the chairman of the Electoral Commission, which says that one of the top three complaints that the commission received was—I do not think that members will find it difficult to guess it—the use of the phrase
"Alex Salmond for First Minister".
Why, for once in his lifetime, will the First Minister not do what Andy Kerr has done, what Douglas Alexander has done, and what the Prime Minister has done, and apologise for his failings?
I am glad that the Electoral Commission is receiving Lord Foulkes's letters.
When Lord Foulkes starts bandying about phrases such as "party political", I know that he is on very weak ground indeed. He would do well to reflect on the fact that one of the unintended but welcome consequences of the SNP vote having increased by 10 per cent in both the constituency and the regional ballots in the election is his presence in the chamber.
As the First Minister has done, many members of the public will accept the logic in the suggestion that this Parliament should be responsible for its own elections. However, does the First Minister accept that there will be people—perhaps it would be uncharitable to say that they are more cynical than I—who would suggest that that change in itself would not remove the possibility of political, shall we say, jockeying for position? Does he accept that one of the reasons why the public can have confidence in the report is that it was conducted independently? Given that, and if the First Minister is successful in persuading the UK Government to move power for conducting elections to this Parliament, what role does he envisage for building independent scrutiny of management of election decisions by people who are not part of party politics?
There are two issues. First, if the UK Government can be persuaded to accept the recommendations of the report—as the Prime Minister seemed to imply it would at Prime Minister's question time today—an important first step would be a parliamentary debate and vote to accept the recommendations of the report in this Parliament.
Secondly, Gould's suggestion about removing the possibility of political influence from ministers in running the election—or "partisanship" as it is described throughout the report—through the appointment of a chief returning officer seems to me to be a valuable one, which should be considered and implemented. The consequences that would flow from that would give the process additional protection from partisanship and political manipulation.
Does the First Minister agree that a good Scots word to describe the conduct of the election campaign in May is "boorach"? The people who suffered for it were the people of Scotland.
I, too, am interested in a number of the recommendations in the report, and I am grateful that the First Minister has indicated that he will accept them. Not the least of those, as he has already mentioned, is the need to have a chief returning officer. It was simply unacceptable not just at this election but at previous elections that the whole process was so fragmented, and that individual returning officers were allowed to make decisions. How quickly will he have discussions with the UK Government about its role in the matter? Will he seek from that Government a timetable to introduce the recommendations and changes in the Gould report?
I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday, immediately after the Secretary of State for Scotland's statement in the UK Parliament. I have no idea whether his comments at question time today were in any sense a response to that letter, but I hope that we can move forward by agreeing to accept the recommendations of the report in full as opposed to trying to pick and mix the ones that we like and reject the ones that we do not like.
The report is, on any terms, totally independent of this Government and Parliament. It was commissioned by the Electoral Commission under the commission's terms of reference. It is a comprehensive report and, although many of us in all parties may not be as enthusiastic about some recommendations as we are about others, surely the test is to accept the recommendations in their totality. If we do that, we can and will restore faith in parliamentary democracy in Scotland.
I understand that Michael McMahon has deferred to Duncan McNeil. This will be the last question.
While—predictably—we debate today who is to blame and avoid blaming ourselves, as a Parliament we cannot avoid the responsibility for putting things right. I believe that we should proceed on a cross-party basis. In my capacity as convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I have written to Ron Gould and the Electoral Commission, inviting them to give evidence on the report.
The First Minister will be aware that the remit of the Local Government and Communities Committee is such that it can focus only on local government elections. Would the First Minister support an extension of the committee's remit to allow it take evidence on the Scottish Parliament elections and produce a report that the whole Parliament could debate? Our Parliament needs to face up to its responsibility and to put things right. I seek the First Minister's support for widening the committee's remit.
The first thing to do is to have a parliamentary debate and allow Parliament to put forward its position as a response to the Gould report. I say with due respect to the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee that if we have a full parliamentary debate, accept things as parliamentary matters and are guided by the majority view in the chamber, we will not go far wrong.
I say to all parties and all members that we will not, however, do ourselves a service if we look to implement only some aspects of the report. If we are to implement changes in time to decouple the local government and Parliament elections and to implement the recommendation on a single line of accountability over Scottish elections, we will have to move quickly. One of the things that went wrong with this year's elections was that things were done in haste at the last minute, which led to spatchcock legislation and proposals.
Let the parliamentary debate take place as soon as the Parliamentary Bureau would like to schedule it—we will see what the majority will of Parliament is. For my part, as First Minister, I hope that Parliament will implement all the report's recommendations.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not wish to challenge the chair but, in such a debate, which concerns Parliament and not merely one party—or even all the parties—and in which we are considering the effect on Parliament's composition of how the elections were conducted, we should have found time to hear an independent voice. Parliament's founders meant for more independent voices to be heard. It is arguable that the conduct of the election and the electoral procedure militated against that.
I am sorry. It is not only independent voices that were unable to be heard. Many other members had pressed their buttons, but I am afraid that time militated against my calling anybody else.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask you to reflect on the time that is allocated to statements in order to ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for all members of Parliament to ask questions. The 30-minute statement allowed little time for back-bench questions—indeed, no questions were taken from the back benchers of either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. That is not an acceptable position. I hope that you will reflect on that.
I will certainly reflect on it.