Chamber
Plenary, 09 Oct 2008
09 Oct 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Elections 2007
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 do. Voters are being asked to make a choice, and we should make it as easy as possible for them to make that choice in the clearest of circumstances.
It is clear from everyone's experience and from the Gould report that last year's elections did not reflect the priority that should have been given to the needs of voters. There are a number of dimensions to that, including the design of the ballot paper and the fact that the combined ballot papers were confusing. The way in which they were put together made it even less clear to voters than in the two previous elections how voting in the regional list system might impact, or not, on the constituency vote. That was a source of confusion.
There was, bluntly, manipulation of the ballot paper, with the use of misleading or inappropriate ballot descriptions. On the description "Alex Salmond for First Minister", perhaps I sound like a sore loser, but Alex Salmond was not a candidate in the West of Scotland—he was not a candidate in seven of the eight regions of Scotland. If a ballot is for the election of individuals to a Parliament, the names on the ballot paper should be the names of the candidates, not other people's names. The description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" was a plain and blatant manipulation that should never have been allowed, and the Electoral Commission should hang its head in shame for allowing it.
The combination of the regional list and constituency ballots on the same paper was confusing. If we look at the evidence of the election in a cold, systematic way, we find that, rather than there being any difficulty with the local elections, the key problem was the number of spoiled ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament election. That was striking, given that we were introducing a radically new multimember seat system in the local elections. Voters actually coped relatively well with that new system under which there were relatively few spoiled papers—they managed to express their preferences. The problem, from the voters' point of view, was with the design of the ballot paper and with other aspects of the Scottish Parliament election. It is a fault of the Gould report that it does not focus closely enough on the specific problem; rather, it gallops through a series of other issues.
In some parts of Scotland, the regional list system is fundamentally flawed. It was all very well to introduce a combined system to bring about proportionality, but the reality in Glasgow, the West of Scotland and Lanarkshire is that people who vote Labour on the regional list get no reward. There cannot be validity in an electoral system under which thousands of people cast their vote but do not get someone elected as a consequence. We should adapt the system, if we continue with it, to ensure that any party that gets, say, 25 per cent of the vote automatically gets a list seat. That would marginally reduce the degree of proportionality compensation in the system, but it would make the system work a bit better in relation to accountability to the electorate.
The way in which the regional list system has been employed in the Scottish Parliament means that people who are rejected by the electorate in a constituency but who also stand on the list system get a golden parachute, in effect. If their party says that they are going to get in, they get in. Not only do they have a golden parachute; when they get in here, they are gilded stalkers—they are funded by the electorate to challenge the people who have been elected in constituencies for the next four years. That does not seem to be a properly democratic arrangement. If the voters decide that a member is out, they should be out. That is the way in which the system should work. The SNP and some other parties have chosen not to adopt that approach, however.
I fundamentally disagree with Nicol Stephen about the multimember system. Up and down Scotland, and certainly in my bit of Scotland, people complain about having three or four locally elected members. They cannot actually find the people who have been elected, whether they voted for them or not. Some people have disappeared—SNP councillors who were elected in my area have disappeared without trace; there are other ones who turn up and are bloody useless.
It is clear from everyone's experience and from the Gould report that last year's elections did not reflect the priority that should have been given to the needs of voters. There are a number of dimensions to that, including the design of the ballot paper and the fact that the combined ballot papers were confusing. The way in which they were put together made it even less clear to voters than in the two previous elections how voting in the regional list system might impact, or not, on the constituency vote. That was a source of confusion.
There was, bluntly, manipulation of the ballot paper, with the use of misleading or inappropriate ballot descriptions. On the description "Alex Salmond for First Minister", perhaps I sound like a sore loser, but Alex Salmond was not a candidate in the West of Scotland—he was not a candidate in seven of the eight regions of Scotland. If a ballot is for the election of individuals to a Parliament, the names on the ballot paper should be the names of the candidates, not other people's names. The description "Alex Salmond for First Minister" was a plain and blatant manipulation that should never have been allowed, and the Electoral Commission should hang its head in shame for allowing it.
The combination of the regional list and constituency ballots on the same paper was confusing. If we look at the evidence of the election in a cold, systematic way, we find that, rather than there being any difficulty with the local elections, the key problem was the number of spoiled ballot papers in the Scottish Parliament election. That was striking, given that we were introducing a radically new multimember seat system in the local elections. Voters actually coped relatively well with that new system under which there were relatively few spoiled papers—they managed to express their preferences. The problem, from the voters' point of view, was with the design of the ballot paper and with other aspects of the Scottish Parliament election. It is a fault of the Gould report that it does not focus closely enough on the specific problem; rather, it gallops through a series of other issues.
In some parts of Scotland, the regional list system is fundamentally flawed. It was all very well to introduce a combined system to bring about proportionality, but the reality in Glasgow, the West of Scotland and Lanarkshire is that people who vote Labour on the regional list get no reward. There cannot be validity in an electoral system under which thousands of people cast their vote but do not get someone elected as a consequence. We should adapt the system, if we continue with it, to ensure that any party that gets, say, 25 per cent of the vote automatically gets a list seat. That would marginally reduce the degree of proportionality compensation in the system, but it would make the system work a bit better in relation to accountability to the electorate.
The way in which the regional list system has been employed in the Scottish Parliament means that people who are rejected by the electorate in a constituency but who also stand on the list system get a golden parachute, in effect. If their party says that they are going to get in, they get in. Not only do they have a golden parachute; when they get in here, they are gilded stalkers—they are funded by the electorate to challenge the people who have been elected in constituencies for the next four years. That does not seem to be a properly democratic arrangement. If the voters decide that a member is out, they should be out. That is the way in which the system should work. The SNP and some other parties have chosen not to adopt that approach, however.
I fundamentally disagree with Nicol Stephen about the multimember system. Up and down Scotland, and certainly in my bit of Scotland, people complain about having three or four locally elected members. They cannot actually find the people who have been elected, whether they voted for them or not. Some people have disappeared—SNP councillors who were elected in my area have disappeared without trace; there are other ones who turn up and are bloody useless.
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...