Scottish Parliamentary Elections
I appeal to members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can proceed with the members' debate on motion S1M-212, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on Scottish parliamentary elections. Members who wish to should please press their buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with grave concern that 2097 votes in the Scottish parliamentary election list vote from the West Edinburgh parliamentary division were not counted as well as other irregularities elsewhere, and calls upon the First Minister to consult urgently with the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the outcome of the arrangements for counting these votes and to make a statement to the Parliament.
In addressing the issue of 2,097 votes in Edinburgh West that were not properly counted in the overall result in the Scottish parliamentary elections, I will express the case as concisely as I can to allow as many members as possible to speak.
It is a matter of great regret that those 2,097 votes were not counted in the overall result. I will address the background to the debate and the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible. I will then suggest three recommendations.
Regarding the count for the list in the Lothians parliamentary constituency, the facts are plain and unmistakable. Counting ceased at approximately
6.45 am on Friday 7 May. Before that, at approximately 5.54 am, 10 additional pairs of counting staff were asked to help. Because insufficient room was available in hall 3, the votes were taken to the pairs in an adjacent room. The votes were then counted and returned. However, a mix-up occurred between the person returning the votes and the superintendent in the hall. It appears that the superintendent made a human error in not recording 2,097 votes in the overall figure. However those votes might have been counted, it would not have affected the overall result nor come close to doing so. [Interruption.]
Order. Excuse me, Lord James. If members wish to conduct conversations, they should do so outside the chamber.
I am also informed that the error is extremely unlikely to have affected the order of the last three members elected, who were me, the Presiding Officer—Sir
David Steel—and Robin Harper. Incidentally, have to mention that on three other occasions I have been elected in Scotland with one of the three smallest majorities, so some of us are used to small majorities. I suspect, however, that the Presiding Officer is not so used to that situation.
Who is responsible? The Secretary of State for Scotland. He wrote to me on 27 October. The letter has been lodged in the Parliament library. He was informed about the debacle by the chief executive of City of Edinburgh Council, but chose not to make the information public. I would have preferred the information to have been made public. I have always believed that if a mistake occurs it should be put right as soon as possible.
The secretary of state wrote in his letter:
"Various provisions were made by order in implementation of Section 12 in The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 1999. But no power was given to the Secretary of State under this Order to order a recount."
If 2,097 votes from Edinburgh West were unaccounted for, they should be recorded in the overall result. It goes against the principle of natural justice if they are not counted. Indeed, if they are never counted, it will mean that the principle of one person, one vote did not exist in Scotland during the first elections to the Scottish Parliament. A mechanism must therefore be found and put in place to count them.
The fact that the order made under section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998 contains no powers to order a recount is a serious deficiency in the act, which must be remedied as soon as possible. After all, the people of Edinburgh West are being deprived of their right to have their votes recorded. I would be failing in my duty if I did not draw that to the attention of the Parliament. I will therefore respectfully submit to the secretary of state that a change to the legislation is necessary so that, in future, all votes cast in Scotland will be recorded properly in the overall result. That is my first recommendation. It is deplorable and a scandal that those 2,097 votes have not been recorded.
My second recommendation is that there should be a national review. After all, there were substantial differences between the number of votes cast for list candidates and for first-past-thepost candidates, not just in Edinburgh West, but in Glasgow Anniesland, Cunninghame South, Hamilton South and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. The matter requires careful examination. The secretary of state has agreed to a wide-ranging review, which I believe should have the status of a national review.
My third recommendation is that the counts for local authority and Scottish parliamentary elections should be held on separate days. If the Scottish Parliament and local government
elections are held on the same day, there is the potential for four counts on one day, if proportional representation is introduced for local government elections.
Frank Sibbald, the Scottish branch secretary of the Association of Electoral Administrators, wrote to the secretary of state about the elections. He said:
"Although the ship did not sink, it came uncomfortably close to doing so and did spring leaks in many places . . . In almost all cases survival was only achieved by considerable, if not unreasonable, personal effort . . . by election staff, and by some degree of luck."
More significantly, Gavin Anderson, the Government adviser on elections, told the City of Edinburgh Council on 28 October:
"The Association is very likely to take a very strong representation to the Secretary of State that, if the situation we had on 6 May—a combined poll with proportional representation—is repeated, he will be inviting administrative disaster."
Holding four elections on the same day would be asking for trouble that would make the recent difficulties over football admissions in Glasgow look insignificant.
My primary reason for asking for this debate is that the people of Edinburgh West and Lothians were responsible for electing me to this Parliament, for which I am extremely grateful. I feel a strong sense of dismay that 2,097 of their votes were not properly recorded in the result. I hope that assurances will be given that, in future elections, the people of Edinburgh West—and of Scotland as a whole—will be treated very much better.
Five members have indicated a wish to speak. All will be called if remarks are kept to three minutes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also welcome the fact that an independent inquiry into what went on at the Lothians count, and a review by the Secretary of State for Scotland, are being undertaken.
As the constituency member for Edinburgh West, I am in a slightly different position from the members elected on the Lothians list. I represent the people of Edinburgh West, whose votes were not counted in this first historic election, but at the same time I was not, as it were, elected by the failed system. I am involved in this but not involved.
Over the years, I am sure that all of us have irritated a number of people on doorsteps when we have given them the relative merits of voting for the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, the Conservatives or the Labour party—or indeed the Greens. In my history of political campaigning, the people on the doorsteps whom I have taken most umbrage at have never been the people who have told me that they choose to vote for somebody other than me, but those who said that they choose not to vote. That is the point at which I become extremely annoyed and remind them of the situation that existed in South Africa and the situation that was challenged by the women's suffrage movement. It is for that reason that what we are discussing today is an affront to me as an individual who has grown up in a democratic society believing that I have political freedom and political rights.
The people of Edinburgh West have a right to believe that when they cast their vote, their voice will be heard no matter whether it is a first-pastthe- post or a list vote. They have that right. They exercised it in great number and were let down by the system. We also owe it to the politicians who were brave enough to put their heads above the parapet, so that they knew what the result was on the day. There was a complete shambles.
I would like to concentrate, however, on what I believe to be a conflict of interest in having a council chief executive being the returning officer. Two weeks ago, the public relations committee of the City of Edinburgh Council was informed by Donald Anderson that the council leader was advised against an independent inquiry a matter of weeks after the debacle of the May elections. Who was the council leader given that advice by? By the very people who this inquiry is likely to show did not do their job properly.
Facts that were known after the election were kept from the elected members of the City of Edinburgh Council, and the whole thing shows that there is a conflict of interest between being a council leader and the returning officer at the same time.
My instinct would be to have the votes recounted. Donald Gorrie will pick up on the point that Lord James made, but we still have to sound a note of caution. Journalists from the Edinburgh Evening News have been photographed sitting on bags of the votes in question, which have not been under 24-hour lock and key and police supervision since 6 May. There will always be a question mark over those votes. There will not be a question mark over whether the people of my constituency went out and voted. They deserve better from the system. I hope that the secretary of state's review and the inquiry undertaken on behalf of City of Edinburgh councillors will show that this will not be allowed to happen again.
I welcome this important debate, but I do not think that the Lothians count scandal is necessarily the talk of the steamie. It does, however, go to the heart and soul of this place, because it concerns the democracy of the Parliament, and the Scottish Parliament does matter to the people of Scotland.
If we expect people to come out and vote, and if we want to encourage people—particularly young people—to use their vote, we have to ensure that every vote counts. That is the strong message: these votes must be counted regardless.
I was in a strange position. There was not just the one Lothians count at Meadowbank: there were two. I was perhaps the only member at the Bathgate count, where the same number of ballot papers was counted. Theirs was an exemplary count, which is an important point as there were different factors behind the problems that arose.
When I left Bathgate at around 3 or 4 in the morning, every vote had been counted. I arrived to find an utter shambles at Meadowbank. It is significant that, in the same region, there were two quite different experiences.
There are lessons to be learnt from the experience. An accident was waiting to happen at Meadowbank. When Alistair Darling was elected in 1997, the declaration took place at 4.30 am, which shows that there were problems then.
Important practical suggestions must be made. No one has mentioned our electronic voting system. A strong case could be made to review the form in which the election took place. I suggest that electronic voting should be considered. When elections are held is important. I call for separate local government and Scottish Parliament elections—separate elections and counts are essential.
The key to the debate is the role of the secretary of state. Mr Aitchison knew that there was a problem on 12 May; Scottish Office officers were informed on 23 June. Then there was silence. Elections are at the heart and soul of this Parliament and of democracy. It is essential that we find out from the secretary of state his role, what he knew and how he behaved. If we have to ask the First Minister to do that, we will do so. congratulate Lord James on securing this debate. We must learn exactly what happened and what the role and responsibility of the secretary of state was. I am not satisfied that everything that could have been done was done to ensure that we were aware of the problem.
I am happy to endorse the comments that have been made so far. Like others who have spoken, I was the victim, if you like, of the incompetent management of the count at Meadowbank. I take the returning officer to task, as the conduct of the count was his responsibility.
Like Fiona Hyslop, I am concerned about the flow of information about this discrepancy between the returning officer and the secretary of state. Why was there such a gap? Was it in any way related to the fact that the same gentleman was going to be responsible for the European Parliament count during the intervening period?
The most complacent attitude that has come out of this issue is the one that says, "Well, it doesn't matter as it wouldn't have made any difference to the result." I know that many members who would prefer not to see me in this chamber will be disappointed—I should take that as some comfort—but, as others have said, that is not the principle.
In a democracy, it is not just the votes that are cast for the winners that count; those that are cast for the losers also count. The right to elect a Government is not the essence of a democracy; the right to throw one out is. The most important right in a democracy is the right to dissent and to have that dissent properly recorded at the ballot box.
I am disappointed to find, as Lord James said, that there is no statutory mechanism to order a recount. Could the secretary of state petition the Court of Session under the nobile officium? Where there is a lacuna in the law, that avenue might be available to him to redress this crime against natural justice—as far as people in Edinburgh West are concerned. I ask the minister to consult the Executive's legal advisers and to encourage the secretary of state to do so. That may be a way out of this impasse.
If I have some sympathy for those who were responsible for the conduct of these counts it is because I think that it was a major error to hold the elections for the councils and the Parliament on the same day. That major error of judgment was committed by the then secretary of state, Mr Donald Dewar, who should be held to account for it. I sincerely hope that we will not compound that error in future elections and that elections to our councils, under whatever system this Parliament finally decides, will be held separately, on a day when local government issues can be fairly addressed and when all votes, however cast, under whichever system, can be accurately recorded. I support Lord James's motion.
I came last on the last list to be declared, so I am in the enviable—or unenviable—position of being the very last person to be elected to the Scottish Parliament.
One of my complaints concerns the stress that we were all put under on that day for an extra 12 hours. I then suffered extra stress when the Edinburgh Evening News rang me to say that the election result might be invalid. I remember the horror that I felt; I was up in Aberdeen preparing for a debate—David McLetchie was with me—and we thought that we might have to go through the whole process again.
The Government should note that we are not calling for Tom Aitchison's head. He has been an extremely efficient and good chief executive for City of Edinburgh Council over the years. We want some action that will enable the voters of Lothian region and Scotland to have confidence in the way the system will work next time. If there had been a higher turnout on that day, we would have had total, utter and complete chaos rather than just chaos.
I back everything that I have heard so far. It is a matter of great concern to me, and to many people to whom I have spoken, that something went very badly wrong in the first election to the Scottish Parliament. I have not received a single word of apology from Tom Aitchison—no letter, no nothing. At the very least, we must have a statement to the Parliament to get the matter set right.
It is good that Lord James has raised this debate, because—as others have said—the vote is fundamental to democracy and if votes are not counted, that makes a mockery of the whole process.
I have one or two points that have not so far been raised. In fairness to the returning officer fraternity, they warned strongly that problems would arise as a result of having the elections and the counting on the same day.
I recollect that either my colleagues or I raised in the House of Commons the matter of not being able to have a recount. The establishment argument centred on the fact that the list votes would be counted in a number of different areas. It was not envisaged that thousands of votes would be lost, but if there was a close-run thing, the prospect of recounting in six or 10 different places was deemed so horrific that it just would not be done. That is not very satisfactory, but I assure Lord James that the matter was of concern and was raised in the House of Commons.
I am a sort of nut on voting systems in general, so I know that Lord James has a strong record of close contests. I have won 15 elections and lost eight, so I have quite a lot of experience both ways. We must do these things better in future and in our consideration of voting methods for local government elections we must bear in mind disasters of this sort. The sooner we can experiment in better methods of electronic voting, the better. If I am a bit incoherent, it is because the voting system in the House of Commons led to our voting at 1.15 this morning.
I will begin by making two corrections of fact. I am sure that the errors were unintentional, but they are worth pointing out none the less. First, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton suggested that Gavin Anderson was a Government adviser. I do not think that that is the case. He is one of a number of administrators who helped to draw up the legislation.
Secondly, Margaret Smith confused the role of the chief executive and a leader of the administration in Edinburgh; I am sure that she did so entirely by mistake. I think she intended to say that it was not appropriate for the chief executive and the returning officer to be the same person. We should put that on the record as well.
That is correct.
Thank you. These are important issues; there is no doubt about that. If votes go missing, that is a matter of concern.
I remind the few members who are left in the chamber that parliamentary elections—including elections to this Parliament—are a reserved matter, so we do not have ministerial responsibility for them. I recognise, however, that concerns have been raised. It is proper and right that members should raise them.
I am sure that the first words most of us uttered after our returning officer declared that we were elected were words of thanks to the returning officer and his staff for the work that was done in delivering the election. Those are not simply customary platitudes. We can rightly say that we rely on a relatively small but dedicated band of people who, time and again, put in a tremendous amount of work and effort to ensure the continuation of the democratic process.
It is only right that we should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the achievement of the returning officers throughout Scotland for the work they did on 6 May. While we recognise that it was achieved only as a result of great sacrifice— as was said, there is no doubt that count
arrangements were under great strain—it is important that we do not overlook the task that officials were asked to perform on that evening. It is to their credit that Edinburgh is the only place where a major discrepancy arose.
As I am sure members are aware, electoral legislation is framed in such a way as to place statutory responsibility for the conduct of an election with the returning officer. The legislation provides that an election or a return to Parliament can be challenged only in the courts. Ministers are rightly kept out of the process. The returning officer in Edinburgh has already investigated what went wrong on 6 May and has proposed a number of changes to the practices that were in effect on that date. Many of the changes were in place for the elections to the European Parliament—which has also been mentioned—and which I am pleased to say passed without incident, despite their being proportional representation elections. Members will also have seen in recent press coverage that the returning officer has now agreed with his council that an independent inquiry should be set up to examine what further lessons can be learnt.
I am interested in the recommendations that may be made. Everyone here this evening is interested in the democratic process. How will the recommendations be implemented, given what the minister said about such matters being reserved to Westminster? Will a recommendation be made through this chamber to the Secretary of State for Scotland, or will one come through a committee? How can we effectively achieve the end that I think we all desire?
I will come to the bulk of those matters later. If members feel sufficiently strongly about the report from City of Edinburgh Council, or about any report from the secretary of state, they are at liberty to raise those issues here in Parliament and to have them discussed if that is merited.
Members will be aware that, after an election count, ballot papers are sealed up in sacks and deposited with the sheriff clerk by the returning officer. As I understand it, a court order is required to reopen the sacks and such an order can be granted only as a result of an election petition or a prosecution. Those provisions are set out in the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999, which was made by the secretary of state under section 12 of the Scotland Act 1998. The order does not empower the secretary of state to have the ballot papers recounted.
I also understand that under that order the time for submitting an election petition has now passed. It would appear, therefore, that there is no way the ballot papers can be recounted, but that is for others to confirm on the basis of their own legal advice, on the basis of this debate and on the basis of any other information that might come to light.
Pursuant to that point, and taking up Mr McLetchie's suggestion, have the minister's legal advisers considered the possibility of petitioning the powers of the Court of Session under the nobile officium? In that petition, the Electoral Reform Society might be invited to supervise a recount of the votes. Perhaps some other mechanism could be used to remove this stain from the first Scottish parliamentary general election.
I understand from the legal advice that I have received so far that no mechanism to hold a recount is open to the Parliament or its agencies. If MSPs or members of the public have information that contradicts that advice, the Executive would have to examine it. However, the matter is covered by reserved powers and is more properly for the consideration of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I shall return to that matter, in passing, later.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the matter needs to be reviewed seriously. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that he intends to undertake a wide- ranging review into the conduct of the election on 6 May. That is standard practice after an election, and it was promised before the election took place. It is particularly appropriate in these circumstances, given the fact that the elections were the first ever in Scotland to be fought under proportional representation.
The problems that were faced by the returning officer in Edinburgh make the investigation and review all the more appropriate. The City of Edinburgh Council has agreed to submit a report on its own investigation into the matter to the secretary of state, who has said that he will take account of it in his wider review.
As part of his review, the secretary of state will consult all returning officers and organisations such as the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. He will also consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and all the political parties. He has stated that the problems in Edinburgh will be taken into account as part of that review.
Ministerial responsibility lies in ensuring that the statutory duties that are placed on a returning officer are deliverable and that the task that they are charged with is not too onerous. That is what the secretary of state's review is, and should be, all about. Given the individuals and organisations
that he is consulting, I am confident that he will receive full and frank views on what was asked of staff on 6 May, and that lessons will be learnt for future elections.
Is the minister—as the minister who is responsible for this matter—prepared to pass the Official Report of this debate to the Secretary of State for Scotland so that he can consider the views that have been expressed in this debate when he undertakes his review? The Parliament might be able to pass a motion on that without notice, or it might require the permission of the Presiding Officer. I am sure that it would be useful to the secretary of state if the minister made that undertaking.
After the debate is concluded, we will draw it to the attention of the secretary of state and the City of Edinburgh Council, who will take a close interest in the subject of this discussion.
The notion that different elections should be held on different days to prevent such circumstances arising in the future has been mentioned. There is some way to go in advancing that argument before it can be proved that it would help to deal with the sort of problems that were experienced on 6 May.
In the past, elections for national Parliament and local government have taken place on the same day. Although the Scottish elections were proportional representation elections, which made them slightly different, the votes were counted on two separate days. That was the case in Edinburgh and throughout most of the rest of Scotland, so I do not think that having the elections on the same day could cause problems with the count. However, that is a matter for the reviews to examine.
The European Parliament does not permit its elections to be held on the same day as other elections in any of its member states. There must be a reason for that. The reason is that it causes confusion in the counting process. That is a good European example that we should follow.
I do not want to speculate on the reasons for the way in which the European Parliament made its electoral arrangements. If that is the case, it will come out in any future review.
The anticipated difficulties that were highlighted before the elections took place were, by and large, focused on the difficulty of explaining to electors how they were expected to use their ballot papers to vote, accommodating the volume of electors through different parts of polling stations and finding sufficient space in polling stations to accommodate all the ballot boxes. Several criticisms were raised in advance of the elections, but most of them did not—I cannot recall any that did—relate to the conduct of counting the ballot papers. If I am wrong, I am happy to accept that, but I am not aware that there were any further problems.
Will the minister give way?
I shall give way for the final time.
Is the minister aware that we were informed that all local authority ballot boxes had to be checked on the day of the election to ensure that parliamentary votes had not been deposited in the local authority ballot boxes? That procedure places additional pressure on those who are conducting the voting and the count.
We are in danger of straying from the subject of the review. I ought to point out that the ballot papers were different colours, so checking which ballot papers were in which boxes should have been a relatively straightforward, if time-consuming, task.
Will the minister give way?
I will not give way again as I have done so often enough already.
To conclude, I echo the concerns about the elections last May that have been expressed throughout the chamber. I think that those concerns are legitimate. However, I am sure that, between them, the returning officers and the secretary of state will thoroughly examine what went wrong and that lessons will be learnt in time for the next elections to this Parliament.
That concludes the debate on the vote in the Edinburgh West parliamentary division. I now close this meeting of Parliament.
Meeting closed at 17:40.