Hansard

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 in putting together this report, which has allowed us to have this debate today. Although there will be many differing views and personal experiences of the problems that marred the 2007 elections, it is clearly in everyone's interests that we do our best to avoid a repeat of the failures.

As members know, local government elections have been held simultaneously with the Scottish Parliament election since 1999. However, at the election last year, there were two significant changes: the single transferable vote system and electronic counting were both used for the first time. Having watched the events from close quarters, members will need no reminding of the problems that occurred that night. At an early stage, it became apparent that there was a high number of spoiled ballots—higher than normal—and that there were problems with the electronic counting machines. In some cases, the problems extended the count into the following day. In the Lothians count, they even led to suspension.

In the two previous local government elections that were tied to the Scottish parliamentary elections, the number of rejected ballot papers accounted for 0.77 per cent and 0.59 per cent of the overall votes cast. In 2007, the number was as high as 1.85 per cent. The rate of rejected ballots varied from 1.11 per cent in East Dunbartonshire to 2.77 per cent in West Dunbartonshire.

The number of rejected ballot papers in the local government elections was considerably smaller than the numbers involved in the parliamentary election, in which the rate of rejection was as high as 4.07 per cent, but that should not be allowed to detract from the fact that the level of rejected ballot papers in the council elections was unacceptably high.

In light of the controversy that arose from the high level of rejected ballots, the Electoral Commission engaged Ron Gould, an international expert, to conduct an independent review. The resulting report was published in October last year and the Local Government and Communities Committee agreed to study its recommendations. The Scottish Affairs Committee of the House of Commons conducted its own inquiry into the Scottish parliamentary elections, and a report was published in May 2008.

Even though the remit of the Local Government and Communities Committee extended only to the local government elections, many of our findings will inevitably be relevant to the Scottish parliamentary election. We took oral evidence from Ron Gould in a videoconference; from the Electoral Commission; and from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Bruce Crawford, and his officials. DRS Data Services—the company that provided the electronic equipment for counting ballot papers—did not accept an invitation to appear, much to our disappointment. However, the company did supply written information.

We published our report in June of this year. In the report, we examined all the areas covered by the Gould report that were relevant to local government, and we made a series of recommendations. The minister responded to our report in August, and I would like to thank him for the positive way in which he received the committee's recommendations.

One of the main areas covered in the Gould report was the need for a unified structure for managing elections in Scotland. Gould recommended the establishment of a chief returning officer, and he recommended that the returning officer function at local level should be professionalised. The committee agreed that a chief returning officer post for Scotland should be established to secure a co-ordinated and unified approach to elections held in Scotland. I am pleased that the minister responded positively to that recommendation, and I look forward to seeing the results of the Scottish Government's consultations on how things might be done.

A successful model for the approach is already well established in Northern Ireland, where Westminster retains full legislative responsibility. The model enjoys the confidence of the voters and the political parties, and the committee feels that it would be worth further investigation.

There appears to be general consensus across the Parliament on the proposal that future local government elections should be decoupled from the Scottish Parliament election, so that they are not held on the same day. I want to make it clear that that would not guarantee that the problems experienced in May 2007 would not be repeated. However, the committee agreed that there would be organisational and administrative benefits as a consequence of less complex arrangements being required. Furthermore, decoupling the elections would enable attention to be focused more effectively on local issues.

However, the committee was conscious that there is concern about the level of turnout if elections are decoupled. There needs to be effective consultation and engagement with the electorate, effective research and more effective public information campaigns if the danger of lower turnout is to be avoided. The training of information officers should be more consistent and rigorous, and should include equalities awareness training.

If elections are to be decoupled, the committee recommends that the date of the next local elections should be determined by extending the current local government term, and the next, to five years each. Thereafter, local elections would revert to a four-year cycle.

Much has been said about the design of the Scottish Parliament ballot paper and the impact that it may have had on the level of spoiled papers. However, the high level of rejected ballots in the parliamentary election should not eclipse the high level of rejected ballots in the local government elections. The committee noted with concern that approximately 30,000 fewer people voted in the 2007 local government elections than in the Scottish parliamentary election, despite the elections being held simultaneously.

The committee had some concern that the lower level of rejected ballots in the local elections, compared with the Scottish Parliament elections, may have been due, in part, to voters believing that they had only one vote and so marking their local election ballot papers with an X or with a 1. Those papers will have been counted as valid, but it may be that some voters did not realise that they were able to vote for more than one candidate. Although it may not be possible to conduct research into whether that in fact happened in 2007, it remains a possibility that the wishes of some voters were not translated into correctly completed ballots. That reinforces the case for effective information campaigns.

The committee welcomes the Scottish Government's intention to examine the various options for ballot paper design and to consult on the options. The committee wishes to stress the importance of effective testing of the options for ballot paper design, and wishes to be kept informed of progress on the research.

The committee recommends that those consulted on ballot paper design should include disability rights organisations. It is essential that the ballot paper design leads to a ballot paper that is easy to complete and is a fair reflection of the views of all voters.

Voter registration is also an issue. Although it was not covered in evidence to our inquiry, registration is also a reflection of engagement in the political process. There is a need for effective campaigning to increase electoral registration.

During the course of its inquiry, the committee welcomed research studies that had been conducted into rejected ballots for the parliamentary election. The studies explored the relationship between the level of rejected ballots and both social disadvantage and ballot paper design. I welcome the commitment given by the Minister for Parliamentary Business that the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation that will allow post-election data to be released at polling station level for local elections. That will make it easier for variations of turnout by area to be examined more closely for local government elections.

Committee members' experience of participating as candidates in the 2007 elections was that the organisation of postal votes was inconsistent, even within constituencies, and that the support provided by information officers was variable. The committee noted in its report that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has raised concerns in its research that greater use of postal voting may make United Kingdom elections vulnerable to fraud. There is also the risk that systems of electoral administration may have reached breaking point as a result of pressures imposed in recent years.

Nevertheless, the committee acknowledged the value of the postal vote in allowing many more people to vote than would otherwise be the case. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government explores the greater use of postal voting as a means of improving voter participation, while bearing in mind the need to protect the integrity of the ballot. I welcome the Scottish Government's circulation of draft secondary legislation, which is intended to give effect to more secure postal ballots by means such as the introduction of personal identifiers. It is important that equalities considerations are taken into account as part of the process.

Accurate counting of votes is, of course, of paramount importance. That must be taken into account in any consideration of whether overnight counting should take place. Nevertheless, the committee's preference was that the overnight count should be retained for local elections, if at all possible.

Members may agree that there was variation in the display of spoiled ballot papers on the night of the 2007 elections. If electronic counting is to be used in future local government elections, the committee considered that there should be agreed national standards on the display of spoiled ballot papers on screens at the count.

I have referred to equalities issues a number of times during my speech and the matter was a central theme of the committee's inquiry. The committee recommends that the elections steering group includes representation from equalities agencies and organisations in its membership. The committee also recommends that the Scottish Government considers whether further research is needed on promoting equalities within the electoral process.

My key message is that the voters themselves should be at the heart of our electoral system. In 2007, we got it wrong because the complex ballots and time-saving counting methods were there to make things easier for those of us involved in the political process, not necessarily for the voters.

We must remember that elections are not the plaything of politicians. Ron Gould has said on the record that voters were treated as an afterthought. Let us not make that mistake again. After all, what is the point of an electoral system if not to help as many voters as possible to exercise their democratic right? Everything else is secondary.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Local Government and Communities Committee's 8th Report, 2008 (Session 3): Elections 2007 (SP Paper 120).