Chamber
Plenary, 09 Oct 2008
09 Oct 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Elections 2007
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.
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.
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...