Summary
The results of the 3 May 2007 elections have not
been challenged by any party. Recognising, however, that some
seats were won with very small margins, we asked Mr Ron Gould,
who conducted an independent review of the elections, whether
he was comfortable that everybody who now serves in the Scottish
Parliament deserved to be there. He responded "Frankly, no,
I am not comfortable with that".
We were deeply concerned by the events of 3 May.
Scotland has a long democratic tradition that must not be undermined.
In this Report we examine the findings of the Gould Report and
consider how best to take forward its recommendations so that
the problems of 3 May are not repeated. It is not our intention
to challenge the results of last year's elections, which have
been universally accepted, nor would it appropriate to do so,
but we would wish to emphasise the importance of this inquiry.
What might at first seem to be petty administrative matters, easily
overlooked by Ministers, can have important consequences for the
democratic process as a whole.
Mr Gould has stated that his intention was not to
ascribe blame to individuals or institutions. Whilst we agree
that the focus must now be on moving forward and strengthening
electoral procedures for the future, we do not believe that no-one
was to blame for the problems of 3 May. There were failings on
the part of the Scotland Office, where lengthy delays disrupted
election planning and led to weak contingency arrangements. The
Electoral Commission did not do enough to warn of potential problems
with the ballot.
We have considered whether, in future, responsibility
for running the elections should rest with one body. It would
be possible to transfer responsibility to the Scottish Executive
or to create a post of Chief Returning Officer, as proposed by
Mr Gould. We do not consider that overall responsibility for elections
to the Scottish Parliament should be transferred to the Scottish
Executive. This is not necessary in order for elections to proceed
smoothly in future. However, there may be a case for organisational
changes on the ground in Scotland, including reformed structures
of accountability. In this context, the proposal to establish
a Chief Returning Officer for Scotland as a single point of accountability
deserves further consideration, although its creation would have
implications for the way in which elections are run across the
UK. What is important is that there should be a clear line of
accountability for each aspect of election planning and organisation.
It may be possible to achieve this by strengthening and realigning
one of the existing bodies, rather than creating a new post.
The use of e-counting has been subject to particular
criticism. Although electronic counting may have the potential
to produce results more quickly, in these elections it did not
operate efficiently or transparency. Any future proposals must
place the needs of the voter and the interests of transparency
far above the limitations of any given technology.
Some of Mr Gould's recommendations have already been
accepted in principle by the Scotland Office and by the Scottish
Executive, including holding the Scottish Parliament and local
government elections at different times and producing separate
regional and constituency ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament
elections. These actions may seem to provide easy solutions to
some of the problems of 3 May, but our evidence strongly suggests
that there are deeper problems with the way elections are administered,
both in Scotland and across the UK. If these remain unaddressed,
the same difficulties could recur in future elections. Although
certain proposals can be implemented immediately, others will
require significant further research. Any changes to the way in
which elections are carried out must be accompanied by rigorous
testing. As Mr Gould told us, the absence of such research and
testing was a major failing that led to the problems of 3 May.
The independent review of the Scottish elections needs to be seen
as an opportunity to restore fully the integrity of the electoral
process, and not to bring about a 'quick fix' by accepting only
the simplest and least controversial recommendations.
Throughout our inquiry, witnesses have indicated
that the problems underlying the 3 May experience are unlikely
to be unique to Scotland. The Scotland Office therefore needs
to co-ordinate its action with other government departments as
well as bodies such as the Electoral Commission and local electoral
officials to ensure that the integrity of the UK's complex electoral
landscape is restored.
|
