1 Introduction
1. On 3 May 2007, combined elections were held in
Scotland, electing members to the Scottish Parliament and all
32 of Scotland's local councils. It quickly became apparent that
the number of spoilt ballots cast in these elections was unusually
high. Later in the night, difficulties with the electronic counting
machines led to the count being suspended in some constituencies.
In response to these problems, the Electoral Commission engaged
Ron Gould CM to conduct an independent assessment of the elections.
The Gould Report was published on 23 October. The Committee held
two evidence sessions after the publication of the Gould Report
to discuss what went wrong and consider options for the future.
The first was with The Electoral Commission and David Cairns MP,
Minister of State at the Scotland Office and the second with Ron
Gould and his colleague Michael Boda.
2. The Scotland Office is responsible for legislation
and administration concerning elections to the Scottish Parliament.
This Committee's inquiry was therefore focused on the conduct
of these elections, as far as they can be distinguished from the
general running of a combined election. The Scottish Executive
has responsibility for local government elections and the Scottish
Parliament Local Government and Communities Committee is engaged
in an ongoing inquiry into the conduct of these. The Ministry
of Justice deals with UK Parliament elections and elections to
the European Parliament, which were not part of the 3 May ballot.
3. The Gould Report was debated in the Scottish Parliament
on 10 January 2008. A resolution was passed welcoming the report,
and specifically the recommendations to transfer responsibility
for the Scottish Parliament elections to the Scottish Executive
and to decouple the two elections. The resolution also called
upon the UK Government and the Scottish Executive to have regard
to the reports both of this Committee and of the Scottish Parliament
Local Government and Communities Committee before implementing
any new arrangements.
4. In this report we examine the findings of the
Gould Report and consider in turn Mr Gould's recommendations for
future reform. Some of these recommendations have already been
accepted in principle by the Scotland Office and by the Scottish
Executive. Although there are a number of 'quick fixes' that can
be applied to prevent a repeat of the 3 May problems (e.g. separating
the regional and constituency ballot papers and decoupling the
elections) our evidence strongly suggests that there are deeper
problems with the way elections are administered, both in Scotland
and across the UK, which, if left unaddressed, could again create
difficulties in the future. Furthermore, any changes to the way
in which elections are carried out must be accompanied by rigorous
research and testing. As Mr Gould told this inquiry, the absence
of such research and testing was a major failing that led to the
problems of 3 May.[1]
5. The results of the 3 May elections have not been
challenged by any party. Recognising, however, that some seats
were won with very small margins, we asked Mr Gould 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, but there is a challenge process
available to every candidate, every party, which could have been
pursued which was not pursued, and therefore the results were
officially accepted".[2]
Although no political party has pursued this matter in the courts,
challenges were made on the night that were overruled. It is not
our intention in this Report 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.
1 Q 222 Back
2
Q 223 Back
|
