Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010

I am not sure about the confluence of interests between a European election and local elections; they are somewhat far apart. However, I take the noble Lord’s views that referendums are somewhat different. Of course, he will no doubt give us an explanation of why the Government in which he served brought together a referendum with local elections in 1998. On what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, said, I indicated in my earlier remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that I have fought two elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and 2003, both against the backdrop of war. It did not impede the people of Scotland from being able to address and identify what the issues were in the election. The fact that there is a concurrent referendum campaign in May next year will in no way impede them from evaluating from what the parties are putting before them—nor, indeed, from making up their own minds as to whether they wish the alternative vote system to be used for future elections to the other place or not. I fully understand the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, as I am sure that he wishes to be in the Scottish Parliament today to express his support for the Scotland Bill. He has amendments tabled for later stages in Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and I rather suspect that this argument has got some way to go yet. On the timing, the order will not be made until within six months. Nevertheless, the order was also laid within the six months. Subject to the typographical errors in the draft, it will be the same order that had been laid and circulated to political parties, returning officers and electoral administration officers. Therefore, while the form did not meet the six months, the substance certainly did. I hope that noble Lords will accept that. The timetable was set in motion by the previous Administration. I have no criticism of that, but it was always going to be very tight. That links into consultation. I am able to inform the House that the Law Society of Scotland was not consulted. As far as we are aware, it has not been normal practice to specifically consult the Law Society for Scotland on electoral matters. None the less, I hear what has been said on that point. I can give some further detail as to the consultation that took place. Much of it focused on the consultation—possibly instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—following the receipt of the report from Ron Gould. Focus groups were held with members of the public in late May and early June 2008, including those with special needs such as the visually impaired and those with learning difficulties, to find out the view of the members of the public on election issues that directly impacted on voters. Representatives from the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Association of Elected Administrators, the Scottish Assessors Association and the Electoral Commission were fully involved in the consideration of the amendments to the 2007 order. The Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament was consulted on the changes to the returns book and the increase in the minimum period for the dissolution. In accordance with Section 7(1) and 2(g) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 the draft order was sent to the Electoral Commission this year on 6 April for statutory consultation. The commission made a number of observations that were considered when finalising the order. The draft order was sent to the electoral administrators on 14 April and to members of the Electoral Commission’s political parties panel on 11 June 2010. The reason why it was not sent to political parties before then was because of the election and the purdah period. Copies of the draft order, as I have already indicated, were sent to returning officers, main political parties and the Electoral Commission on 25 October. It is always possible to improve. I accept and acknowledge the considerable forensic skill that someone like Mr Michael Clancy brings to dealing with these matters. I take on board the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and reflected in the comments from my noble friend Maclennan of Rogart. In terms of the errors that have been identified, I suspect that it is always a possibility when you are consolidating that those parts of the order that have never given rise to any difficulty in the past simply get rolled forward and more attention is paid to the bits that are new and are being incorporated. I rather suspect that that is what happened. It does not excuse it. Given that the Scotland Office sets out as one of its key objectives the efficient running of Scottish elections, I will draw my noble friend’s remarks and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary State for Scotland and ask what can be done to have a thoroughgoing review before this responsibility is handed over to the Scottish Parliament, assuming the provision is enacted in the Scotland Bill. I do so without commitment, though I commit to ensuring that these remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend. My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart also mentioned the possibility of a handbook. I suspect that will not be possible as such between now and then. However, I am advised that the Electoral Commission will bring forward a guide that will be based on the detailed statutory provisions that are here. Some of the complexity that he referred to is due to the fact that much of this reflects what is in the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended and, no doubt, as amended as amended. With regard to the possibility of the referendum being held on the same day, anyone who is familiar with the provisions of the Bill—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is—will know that the rules for normal parliamentary elections are set out in primary rather than secondary legislation. There will be ample opportunity to discuss these in detail at a later stage. Finally, to clarify a point made by my noble friend Lord Maclennan, the amending order will come at a later stage. Assuming the House approves this draft order, the order which will be made will be the draft order, as amended, with the typographical error sheet attached. Any future order will obviously have to go through a proper consultation process comprising statutory and other consultees. We take on board the point made by the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates that it cannot happen before the election. Whatever comments have been made, I think we all wish these elections in 2011 to be successful in their operation and administration. We have different views on what success means in terms of political outcome—that will be a matter for the electorate to determine—but we have a responsibility to ensure that we try to get the administration right. Adopting the recommendations that have been made, which were set in train by the previous Administration and brought to fruition with the order before the House today, will pave the way for successful and efficient elections. I commend the order to the House. Motion agreed.