23 May 2007
"Mr Deputy Speaker,
I beg to move the amendment that stands in the name of my Rt. Hon friend the Prime Minister and colleagues
Mr Deputy Speaker, the substance of today's debate is not whether, in light of the difficulties encountered in the Scottish elections, lessons will be learnt or answers given, but how this process will happen.
In the days following the 3rd of May there were calls for a whole variety of enquiries and reviews. Some called for a Judicial Inquiry. Others called for a committee of inquiry to be chaired by an international political figure such as former President Mary Robinson.
Today's motion from the Conservatives calls for yet another form of inquiry, a joint exercise - working with the Scottish Government.
Let me therefore begin by re-iterating the government's stated position. We have never suggested that we will not countenance further enquiries, but instead argue that on balance, it is the right course of action to let the statutory review being led by Ron Gould to report first, before deciding on the next steps.
The opposition motion before the House today calls for an independent review into the conduct of the Scottish elections, calls upon me as Secretary of State to accept responsibility and to apologise to the people of Scotland. As I will set out, there is a review independent of government, headed by an international authority on elections, in progress. As Secretary of State I, of course, accept responsibility for the actions and decisions of the Scotland Office and if this review finds fault with these actions and decisions, I will - of course - apologise.
Mr Speaker, this House established an independent Electoral Commission, and gave it the duty - in legislation - to carry out statutory reviews of elections. And, as I indicated in exchanges following my statement of the 8th of May, and again in a written answer to my hon. friend the member for Aberdeen South last Friday, only once we have the report can decisions on the next steps be best made, in light of the Commission's findings.
Let me remind the House today of the remit of the Commission, and why I believe it is only sensible to let it get on with its job before deciding what further steps may be necessary.
The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act (2000) established the Electoral Commission and tasked it, among other things, with the job of reviewing the conduct of elections and reporting back to both Government and Parliament with its findings and recommendations.
This duty was conferred on it by this House, without dissent. So far it has reported on general elections, European elections, the 2003 elections to the Scottish Parliament and elections to other devolved institutions.
The Commission's review of the 2007 Scottish Parliamentary elections is now underway. Prior to the elections the Scottish Government asked it to review, as it did in 2003, the conduct of the Scottish Local Government elections, for which the Executive has legislative competence.
This frankly makes sense. The decision of the Scottish Parliament in 2002 to move the date of the local government elections in order that they be held on the same day as the parliamentary elections had the effect of synchronising the two elections. The arrangements for these synchronised elections were this year overseen by an Elections Steering Group, chaired by Scottish Government officials, comprising officials from the Scotland Office, the Electoral Commission, COSLA, the Scottish Parliament and representatives of Returning Officers, Registration Officers and other electoral administrators.
The presence of the Electoral Commission on this steering group, as well as the wider role that they played during the preparations for the elections, has prompted questions to be asked about the appropriateness of the Electoral Commission carrying outs statutory review into the election's conduct, notwithstanding the fact that this duty could only be set aside by fresh legislation.
The Commission themselves have acknowledged, and sought to address these concerns regarding the work of the review. In particular, they have appointed one of the world's leading experts in the conduct of elections to "lead [the] Scottish elections review". I welcome this appointment.
Mr Ron Gould, who has agreed to take on this important role, is a former Assistant Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. He has participated in more than 100 election assistance missions in over 70 countries since 1984. Mr Gould is considered one of the leading world-experts on the organization and management of elections.
At the time of his appointment Mr Gould said: "I look forward to working with all those involved in the Scottish elections to enable us to develop a clear picture of exactly what happened and why."
The Commission's latest announcement on Monday 21 May set out the details of Mr Gould's planned approach.They have also confirmed that Mr Gould's team does not include anybody involved in the decision making processes associated with the Scottish elections.
The Scotland Office- both Ministers as well as civil servants- will co-operate with this review. Mr Gould will be able to consider the points made in this afternoon's debate, and I am sure it is also the case that Members of this House too may wish to submit evidence to the review.
While the Commission have said they expect the review to report in the summer, but this timescale will be ultimately determined by Mr Gould.
The commitment to impartiality as demonstrated by the Commission's announcement reinforces my belief that if I were to accede at this stage to the urgings of those who wish to establish a judicial or some other form of inquiry at the present time, then we would be in the position of having two parallel investigations into exactly the same events, examining the same issues, talking to the same people and reviewing the same decisions at the same time.
This does not seem to me to be the most sensible course of action, particularly when the Electoral Commission have said that the review is expected to have completed its work in just over twelve weeks time. I believe it is better to await this report and then to take decisions informed by its findings and recommendations.
Mr Speaker, after the elections on 3rd May, I came to the House at the first available opportunity to make a statement on the conduct of the elections in light of public concern.
In that Statement, I set out in detail the problems that occurred and the issues that need to be addressed. Briefly, these are: delays in sending out postal ballots; difficulties with some of the electronic counting machines; the unacceptably high number of spoilt ballot papers; and the decision to hold these two elections on the same day, especially in light of the new arrangements for local authority elections. These are the matters now being investigated by Mr Gould and his team.
I am aware that a number of colleagues are keen to contribute today and time is short, so I will not repeat all of the detail that I set out in my Statement.
However I do wish to update the House with some developments that have occurred since my statement. I indicated then, during exchanges with Hon members that "?a final tally is still to be reached on the number of spoiled papers." At that time, the final, authoritative figures were in the process of being collated.
Whilst there has been much speculation about the level of spoilt votes - figures of 5%, 7% and 10% have been quoted in the press and elsewhere - the actual figures have now been published.
Across both the regional and constituency sections, 3.47% of the total votes cast in the Scottish Parliament elections were rejected.
This breaks down as 60,454 spoiled papers in the regional vote, representing 2.88% of the total votes cast in that section, and 85,643 spoilt papers in the constituency vote, representing 4.07% of the total votes cast in that section.
This level of spoilt papers, together with the problems encountered with e-counting and the difficulties with the administration of postal votes, are the subject of Mr Gould's review.
A key concern of the Arbuthnott Commission was to enhance the understanding of the regional vote. The process that led from the Arbuthnott Commission first drawing attention to the combined ballot paper model used in New Zealand elections to the final design was both inclusive and consensual. Consultation was extensive and detailed. There were 29 responses to that consultation, and 3 late responses, that were also taken into account. Political parties, voters, election administrators, representatives of disabled peoples' organisations and all other interested parties were consulted.
Under the terms of the Scotland Act, I am responsible for laying the Order before Parliament that set the statutory requirements for ballot papers for elections to the Scottish Parliament. These are contained in the Election Order that were approved by both Houses, without division, in March of this year. As in other elections, including general elections, Returning Officers have statutory responsibility for implementing the rules covered in the Elections Order, and have scope to alter the design of ballot papers, provided they do not diverge from these statutory requirements.
Mr Deputy Speaker, these are all matters that will be covered in Mr. Gould's report so the government amendment asks the House to allow him do the job for which he is well qualified.
When he has finished his task we will be able to take stock and form a view about what further action is necessary at that time.
A statutory review, led by an independent expert, is already underway. The government has made clear it will co-operate with this review and consider whether further action is necessary. It is expected this review will be concluded in just over twelve weeks time. So I would ask the House to support the government's amendment."