Hansard

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.