Hansard

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.