David Mundell MP Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party 83 Princes Street Edinburgh EH2 2ER 31st July 2007 Mr Ron Gould Scottish Elections Review 93 George Street Edinburgh EH2 3ES Dear Ron Please find attached the Scottish Conservative Party’s submission to the Scottish Elections Review. I trust that the points we make in respect to the various aspects of the review will be given due consideration. I welcome your appointment to lead the Scottish Elections Review and hope that with your guidance and expertise, together with colleagues, we will be able to establish why there was such a high incidence of rejected ballots and why so many voters were disenfranchised from voting in the recent Scottish Elections held in May 2007. I look forward to your report and considering any recommendations you may make to ensure that we restore public trust and integrity within our electoral system in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. Yours sincerely David Mundell MP SUBMISSION TO SCOTTISH ELECTIONS REVIEW The Scottish Conservative Party welcomes the opportunity to comment on the current Electoral Commission Statutory Review of the conduct of the Scottish elections held in May 2007 and recognises the appointment of Ron Gould as an independent chairman of this review. However, we still remain concerned that a full and complete inquiry should be undertaken which is independent of all stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission which was involved in the setting out of recommendations for the design of the single ballot paper used for the Scottish Parliamentary election, commissioned Cragg Ross Dawson to undertake research on the final design of the ballot paper, and is responsible for increasing participation in elections. The introduction of so many changes on the same day significantly contributed to voter confusion and a record high level of rejected ballots. The review must give serious consideration to the impact of this decision to better inform future changes to the electoral process and to reassure the public of the integrity of the electoral system. Given the structure of the review, we would like to provide comment on the following key areas: 1) LEGISLATION: We are sympathetic to the view that existing legislation relevant to elections does not adequately deal with the introduction of new voting systems, the proliferation of political parties, and technological advancements which have changed, and will continue to change, the operation of elections. We believe that proper consideration should be given to reviewing current legislation to ensure it is fit for purpose. 2) COMBINED ELECTIONS: Holding both elections on the same day had a significant impact on the number of rejected ballots and contributed to voter confusion. Scottish Conservatives have led the debate on decoupling the elections and have sought to bring about this separation on several occasions through the tabling of Members Bills in the Scottish Parliament (firstly by David Mundell and then by David Davidson when David Mundell was elected to the House of Commons). As part of the consultation process for that Bill, there was considerable external support: • 60% of respondents supported decoupling • The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as well as 11 out of 17 local authorities who responded • The Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland The Arbuthnott Commission also recommended that the Scottish parliamentary and local council elections should be decoupled on the basis that: “(it would) reduce the complexity of voting, potentially reduce voter confusion and help keep the number of invalid votes to a minimum. It would also reduce administrative complexity in the planning, management and counting of elections, and enhance the transparency of the electoral process, especially allowing attention to be focussed on local issues.”1 David Mundell highlighted the possibility of more rejected ballot papers when two different voting systems were introduced on the same day in a Westminster Hall debate on the Arbuthnott Commission report: “The point about ranking candidates on the same day is that on one ballot people are asked to place an X and on the other they are asked to write 1, 2, and 3. We have clear evidence from elections in Northern Ireland – I had the opportunity to see the count in the last Assembly elections – of large numbers of people who understand that they have more than one vote but who, despite 20-odd years of operating that system, put two Xs on the ballot paper, making it invalid. Even if we accept the argument for STV, which I do not, what can be the purpose of holding such an election on the same day if – as was again shown in the London mayoral elections – having two separate systems exposes us to the risk of a disproportionately large number of people spoiling their ballots?” Local and Scottish Parliament elections should not be held on the same day because we need to ensure that there is an opportunity to have a proper debate on local issues and services delivered by councils as part of a general trend towards greater autonomy at a local level. Annabel Goldie MSP, Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has committed the party to introducing another Member’s Bill to address this issue. 3) BALLOT DESIGN: While Scottish Conservatives did not protest about the use of a single ballot paper for the Scottish Parliamentary elections, we are concerned about decisions made to remove instructional information from the ballot papers distributed in the Glasgow and Lothian regions, which recorded the highest number of rejected ballot papers. It is a tenet of our democracy that people will be afforded the same opportunity to vote in an election whether they are living in Aberdeen or Edinburgh. It is very clear that this did not happen, moreover the sample ballot papers presented to political parties and the public were not the same as the final ballot papers used and distributed in these two regions. The Review must establish the following: • When the decision was made to alter these ballot papers in these two regions? • Who took the decision to alter these ballot papers, and who signed off the decision? • As the person ultimately responsible for the Scottish parliamentary elections, the role of the Secretary of State needs to be explained. 1 Putting Citizens First: Boundaries, Voting and Representation in Scotland, Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, 2006, page 50 • What was the basis of this decision, and as many have suggested, was it anything to do with technical considerations of electronically counting votes which required a limited number of candidates to appear on the ballot papers? Scottish Conservatives also express concern about the phrasing on the other regional ballot papers, telling voters they had two votes, but not clearly specifying one in each column. Scottish Conservatives are also unsatisfied with the lack of extensive research undertaken to address voter understanding of the ballot paper design. We believe that limited quantitative research to 100 people is grossly insufficient to guarantee an acceptable level of understanding, particularly for voters with sight difficulties, disabilities, language barriers, and those living in high levels of social deprivation as defined by the Strathclyde University Report published by Dr Christopher Carman and Professor James Mitchell (which has been submitted to this Review). The Scotland Office and the Electoral Commission should have been satisfied that these issues were adequately addressed by testing any proposed new ballot papers in a more robust and extensive way. 4) POSTAL BALLOTS: An increasing number of voters are opting to apply for a postal ballot in the belief that their democratic right to vote will still be honoured even though, for whatever personal reason, they are unable to visit a polling station on Election Day. It may never be possible to determine decisively the exact number of postal ballot papers not submitted due to the papers never arriving or arriving too late. It is clear that several issues contributed to the delay of delivering ballot papers to those voters who had requested them: • Local authorities centralised the printing and distribution of postal ballot papers, and the papers did not arrive in the mailing centre until too late • Some local authorities undertook to hand deliver, by use of taxis or whatever means, ballot papers to residential homes, however some chose not to offer this service • Requests by voters to courier/send ballot papers to holiday destinations were denied, even though these papers should have arrived prior to their departure Scottish Conservatives believe that more research is required into the turn around being achieved for postal ballot papers, believing that more resourcing is the answer to this problem rather than extending the period between declaration of candidates and the Election Day. One of the key aims of the Electoral Commission is to increase participation in elections, yet it single-handedly failed to deal with the complaints lodged in advance of the elections when it became patently clear that postal ballot papers were not going to arrive on time. At least four political parties, including the Scottish Conservatives, contacted the Electoral Commission, to seek verification of when these issues would be rectified and in every instance were advising people that it would be sorted out in time. This was clearly a commitment they could not have delivered on. 5) ELECTRONIC COUNTING: It is very clear given the difficulties faced at a number of counts and the subsequent confusion surrounding many decisions, that e-counting presented real challenges to returning officers, agents, candidates and political parties. A proper investigation is required to determine whether sufficient planning and testing of the machines was undertaken, if the above stakeholders are to ever have faith in the future use of e-counting and DRS as a provider.