Chamber
Plenary, 09 Oct 2008
09 Oct 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Elections 2007
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 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.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
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 Com...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
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 ...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Bruce Crawford):
SNP
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 c...
David Whitton (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab):
Lab
We are here to consider the report into the circumstances surrounding the elections for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authorities that the Parli...
David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con):
Con
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 k...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):
LD
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 th...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
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 understa...
Alison McInnes:
LD
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...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We come to speeches in the open debate. Members have a tight 6 minutes.
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
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 L...
Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab):
Lab
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 R...
Bob Doris:
SNP
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 deb...
Duncan McNeil:
Lab
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 Scot...
Bob Doris:
SNP
The committee convener makes a good point, but if legislative responsibility were to be brought to this chamber that would happen quite naturally.Yesterday, ...
Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab):
Lab
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 i...
Bob Doris:
SNP
Would it not have been advisable and courteous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to await the outcome of today's debate first?
Michael McMahon:
Lab
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...
John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Every member who stood for election last year has their own experiences of the May 2007 Scottish Parliament and local government elections; David Whitton des...
James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
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 al...
Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) (LD):
LD
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...
Andy Kerr:
Lab
For clarity, will the member remind the Parliament of his party's position on the ballot paper and on decoupling the elections?
Nicol Stephen:
LD
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 fa...
Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Does the member regret the trebling in the failure of voting at council level in 2007, as compared with 2003 and 1999?
Nicol Stephen:
LD
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 ...
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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 expe...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
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 ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan):
SNP
Order. The member must withdraw that remark.
Des McNulty:
Lab
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, wheth...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
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...
Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
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 eviden...