Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010

My Lords, despite the blistering attack by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, on the order and on the Explanatory Memorandum, we welcome the fact that the Government have continued the work of the previous Government in implementing the recommendations of the Gould report and the inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee. This is particularly so after the unfortunate experience in the 2007 Scottish elections to which the Minister has alluded. There are, however, two aspects on which I wish to hear the Minister’s answers: first, the decision to combine the referendum with the Scottish parliamentary elections on the same day; and, secondly, the delay in bringing forward this electoral legislation. As he is aware, both these aspects do not gain the support of the recommendations of the Gould report. The combination of the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary elections at least runs the risk of creating voter confusion similar to that identified by Gould in the 2007 election arising out of the combination of local government and Scottish parliamentary elections. Gould reports such a combination as a disservice to the electorate. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s answer as to why the UK referendum on alternative voting on the same day does not detract, to some degree, from the Scottish parliamentary issues and candidates, and, indeed, vice versa. The other area of dissonance with the Gould report on which I also wish to hear the Minister’s answer is in respect of the delay in bringing the order forward. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton on this point. I, of course, understand the crowding-in effect that can afflict government business; however, as the Government have made much of the aspiration to move to more efficient governance, I would observe that they have not met the Gould recommendation that electoral legislation should not be, "““applied to any election held within six months of the new provision coming into force””." Given the unfortunate aspects of the 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections, it might have been hoped that the Government would have adhered to what Gould identified as, "““a practice found in the electoral laws in other countries””." Is there a reason for this approach? As there was an opportunity to take a major initiative to rationalise Scottish parliamentary election legislation, I would be interested to hear why this recommendation has not been followed. On the drafting infelicities to which my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton has already alluded, I took the Minister’s answer to be an acceptance that there is a systemic problem in the drafting. As my noble friend put it, this seems to be a symptom of a real problem in the process. Again I will be interested to hear the Minister’s answer to this analysis. I can well understand my noble friend’s disappointment in discovering so many infelicities as it was he who approved the task of consolidation of electoral legislation, the whole point of which is to bring everything together in a more understandable formation of legislation. I also share my noble friend’s astonishment at the failure to consult the Law Society of Scotland. I also draw the Minister’s attention—he may be aware of this—to the fact that the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland can also provide useful views in relation to constitutional matters. I, like he, am a member of that body. Perhaps I may mention one further matter. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Browne about the unworthiness of the attack in another place that was made on the right honourable gentleman Douglas Alexander. I think most people would agree that he was one of the most able Secretaries of State for Scotland to serve Scotland. In relation to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, that a guide might be provided in relation to this legislation, I respectfully wonder what it might look like. I share his concerns about the Explanatory Memorandum as possibly providing light. I wonder whether a guide would, in the same way, run the risk of not really providing much more in the way of light. The hope that this is never prayed in aid in construing legislation is a hope that is not always fulfilled.