Angus Brendan MacNeil
Main Page: Angus Brendan MacNeil (Independent - Na h-Eileanan an Iar)Department Debates - View all Angus Brendan MacNeil's debates with the Scotland Office
Constitutional Law
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
I think the hon. Gentleman’s memory betrays him. If he had been paying particular attention to the helpful contribution of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in September, he would have seen that Mr Gould had said:
“The marking of yes or no on a referendum ballot is much easier to understand and carry out than the requirements of marking an STV ballot”—
a ballot under the single transferable vote. He also said:
“I do not believe that the same factors which led to voter confusion and the large number of rejected ballots at the last Scottish Parliamentary and Municipal elections would arise if both the Parliamentary Election and the Referendum were held on the same date.”
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome, as I do, the partial acceptance of the thrust of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru’s new clause 4 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which will allay the fears of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) about the 2015 election occurring on the same day as a UK general election?
David Mundell
I will, and I was pleased to read his contribution to the debate on the Bill on the day he refers to, as well as the contribution of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who also welcomed the consultation that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is undertaking in relation to the 2015 elections and the subsequent elections, every 20 years at which there might be a clash of dates.
David Mundell
That is a ridiculous suggestion. The Government will listen to the Scottish Parliament. Had the debate there revealed any new or different argument that was not reflected in the debate in the House, we would have considered it, but nothing new was said. Indeed, as I pointed out previously, less information was available from that debate than was available from the debate in this House. In addition, I have not heard the hon. Gentleman advocate the UK Parliament giving up its right to determine the UK voting system and dates for elections to the Scottish Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
To rewind, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) said that he did not often agree with the Minister. Will the Minister extend the olive branch further and say that he and the Labour party prefer Tory cuts to Scottish independence?
David Mundell
The people of Scotland prefer being part of the UK to Scottish independence, but we are not debating that this evening; we are debating the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman is better placed than many others to know exactly how these organisations operate. He will also know that Ron Gould, on whom so many Members place such emphasis, also recommended that overnight counts should be done away with. That was one of the proposals that the hon. Gentleman’s Government quite rightly rejected.
David Mundell
I have not placed the same emphasis on Mr Ron Gould as the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, Miss Nicola Sturgeon, who questioned Mr Gould’s competence because he had the audacity to challenge the wording “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on the ballot paper as it might have confused the electors. Miss Sturgeon thought that that was a ridiculous proposition.
Mr MacNeil
I simply repeat my question: has the Minister ever placed much emphasis on Mr Ron Gould?
David Mundell
Mr Ron Gould provided an authoritative report that is reflected in the order and in the subsequent Scottish Affairs Select Committee inquiry, but not everything that he said at the time was taken forward. As I said to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), the previous Government’s choice of proposals not to be taken forward was quite right.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I have been slightly distracted by a decoy from the Government Whips, but we in the Hebrides can forgive such decoy activities from Orkney and Shetland.
I am no lawyer—perhaps a reasonable crofter, but certainly no lawyer—but as it stands we feel that there are serious issues with the order. As the SNP’s lawyer put it:
“This order is a perfect example, of how NOT to write legislation.”
We have found no fewer than 27 individual problems with the drafting of the order. Some have been reported to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has accepted four of them. I shall not, for the benefit of the House, go through all 27 today. However, I shall give an overview of what has happened over the past months in relation to our Scottish elections.
Let me start by reiterating the fact that our Scottish elections should not be run from Westminster. Our elections are a unique part of Scottish democracy and, frankly, the way in which the legislation for our elections has been treated is nothing less than shocking. It gives me some delight—and perhaps a bit of schadenfreude—to think that the referendum that was going to eclipse our elections has now been eclipsed by a certain royal wedding. We wish them good luck and thank them for the bank holiday that is coming our way.
David Mundell
May I seek the hon. Gentleman’s clarification on which referendum he means? I had understood that there was to be a referendum in Scotland, instigated by the Scottish Government, that was to eclipse all other electoral activity in Scotland.
Mr MacNeil
The SNP would have treated the Scottish people with more courtesy than the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who have treated them with disdain by parking their tanks on the lawn of the date of the Scottish election—the first Thursday in May in 2011, a date that had been scheduled for many years.
This Government have ignored the strongest point of the Gould report into the 2007 Scottish election, which stated that, among other things, there should be a six-month period between the statutory instrument coming into force and polling day. We are already within the six-month period for the Scottish parliamentary elections and are thereby in violation of the strongest recommendation in the report. Why do we need six months? The report states:
“Throughout this report, we have pointed to problems that have arisen because the passing of electoral legislation has been unduly delayed. To avoid these problems, we would recommend a practice found in the electoral laws in other countries. These laws provide that electoral legislation cannot be applied to any election held within six months of the new provision coming into force.”
Even without the report, that is surely common sense. We have international practice and the Government are indeed fond of citing international examples. It is beyond me how they can fail to note that other countries use the six-month electoral law. When electoral legislation is rushed through at the last minute it is the voters who suffer.
I want to discuss the new ballot papers, which do not adhere to Electoral Commission recommendations and have not been properly user-tested. Forms J and K on the order do not exactly correspond to the form on page 20 of the Electoral Commission report, “Making your mark”, which was directed at Government policy makers. The Scotland Office says that it has used that information in drafting the forms in the statutory instrument, but the form on page 20 of the report is plainly far superior to what the Government have offered. Specifically, I am concerned about the spacing of the lines separating candidates and parties, which do not extend over the page. Also, the spacing of the words and emblems are not closely matched to the box. Those points might seem trivial, but if only 5% of voters make an error we have a serious problem, as we discovered in 2007.
The average voter is, perhaps, too busy with shopping, picking up the kids and the stresses of work to make absolutely sure that they are complying with what the Government intended. People are not going to have rulers ready to discern which line applies to which candidate and party. Surely, it is the job of this place, for now, to make such things as easy as possible for the voter and to remove potential bear traps.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the lining up of candidates and party affiliations. Does he recall that in the disputed American election of 2004, with the famous hanging chads in Florida, one problem was the design of the ballot paper on which the candidates did not line up with the designations?
Mr MacNeil
To be absolutely honest, I do not recall that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Presumably, when those ballot papers were being designed someone thought that would not be an issue but lo and behold it did become an issue in Florida and other areas.
The problems I am highlighting could have been avoided if the Government had followed the Electoral Commission’s suggestion of user-testing the new ballot papers. That has already been mentioned. As far as we can tell, the Government have not made any attempt to get the new ballot paper checked. Even the ballot paper in the ill-fated 2007 election was user-tested by at least 100 people. That number was small, given what happened, but better than none and better than what is happening now.
Without independent evaluation, we cannot be sure that the ballot paper will be easily understood and will not lead to confusion. In addition, we will, or could, have an AV referendum on the same day using a slightly different ballot paper and a different design altogether. As none of the ballot papers has been tested independently, we cannot assume that the vast majority—towards 100%—of people will understand these ballot papers, just as I cannot assume that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) would understand me if I started speaking in Gaelic. It might make sense to me, but countless others, including the hon. Gentleman, might be left in the dark.
This is not the first time that the Scotland Office will have heard our concerns. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks me to translate—he probably assumes that I am speaking in Gaelic already. [Interruption.] It is time he learned some.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is not a private conversation between the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and the Whip. If the hon. Gentleman addressed the Chamber it would help us all.
Mr MacNeil
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman tempts me unduly.
Since May, we have had difficulty in getting copies of the order. When we did so in June, they were lacking in detail, specifically the previously mentioned ballot forms. We were told we would receive a near final copy of the draft order by the end of June, but we saw nothing until the order was laid before the House on 25 October—the third day of the Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Of the 27 issues we have with the drafting of the order, I shall, as I said, highlight but a few. The heading for part 2 seems to have been lifted from the Representation of the People Act 1983. It is one thing to lift a title when it has something to do with the order, but when—as in this case—the title has little or nothing at all to do with our elections, copying it from the Act misses the fact that the order contains no provisions on the franchise. There is no separate Scottish parliamentary election franchise; the franchise for voting at an election to the Scottish Parliament is in section 11 of the Scotland Act 1998. Nothing in the order can add anything to those provisions, or take anything away from them, given the extent of the order-making power under section 12(1) of the Scotland Act. The franchise is contained in primary legislation enacted by the UK Parliament rather than in an Act of the Scottish Parliament or other secondary legislation.
The heading should reflect the actual content of part 2, not the legislation it happens to have been adapted from. In this context, the “Oxford English Dictionary” defines “franchise” as:
“The right or privilege of voting in public elections—especially for members of a legislative body.”
Provisions on the electoral register relate simply to the mechanisms for the exercise of the right, not to the right itself.
Under article 43, the translation of the new limits for Westminster elections could lead to unforeseen campaign finance consequences. We note that if the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill becomes law, there will be a combined ballot in May 2011. As highlighted by the Channel 4 News and Bureau of Investigative Journalism inquiry into certain expenses incurred in the 2010 general election, the attribution of expenses between different electoral events can be subject to a number of interpretations. That opens up the possibility that the expenses limit attributable to the referendum could be used to circumvent the limitation of election expenses at both candidate and party level—perhaps a loophole.
It has been noted that in the event of a combined election, with the main political parties in Scotland all making the necessary declarations to become permitted participants, the Conservative party may be able to spend £5 million, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties £4 million and the SNP £500,000. It is entirely possible that the PVSC Bill will not have received Royal Assent before 5 January 2011, which marks the start of the regulated periods for the Scottish Parliament elections. If that is the case, referendum expenditure at that point will be unregulated, as the referendum period under the Bill commences on Royal Assent. As I have said, the SI could create a massive financial loophole for campaign spending.
In article 88 of the draft order, it seems that the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body was not consulted regarding the date of Dissolution. In 2002, when changes being made to the 1999 order reduced the Dissolution period for the Scottish Parliament from 25 days to 21 days, that process was subject to consultation and, indeed, discussion. We are having trouble finding any evidence of the same happening with this draft order. As we all know, article 88 changes the number of working days in the Parliament. It is my hope that someone from the Scotland Office was in close contact with the Scottish Government or Parliament. Can we have some confirmation that agreement was sought from the Scottish Parliament or the Government for the change?
The entire process has been devoid of political party consultation, which, believe it or not, is important. Our parties, across the House and the devolved legislatures, have the experience and knowledge to help draft election legislation. Would the Government not consult the construction industry on legislation related to it? Why then have we had such a hard time in getting information and consultation on this particular order?
One might wonder why we need to be consulted. Surely the lack of political parties in the elections process would be welcome. However, the Gould report stated:
“Electoral legislation—especially in a fragmented legislative environment—is nuanced and dense. Understanding is usually built up through years of experience ‘on the ground’, whether as an administrator or a party activist. This understanding is difficult to develop on a purely intellectual level, which is why practitioner input is vital.”
The Government have rushed through Parliament all aspects of the legislation relating to elections in Scotland. This has led to the drastic addition of critical amendments on the hoof. We have not been able to study these issues properly, and we can expect that more amendments will be pushed through the House of Lords before the process is over.
Mr Reid
I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech and I am trying to work out what he finds wrong with the order. All I can deduce is that a line on the ballot paper is not long enough and that he finds the heading of part 2 incorrect. Is there anything of substance that he finds wrong with the order?
Mr MacNeil
Usually I welcome interventions. I am reluctant to slam the hon. Gentleman, but if he had listened to what I was saying 30 seconds ago, he would know that I was speaking about the lack of consultation of those who had developed knowledge and practice in elections. That lack of consultation has led to weaknesses in the order.
Even though the draft order was laid before the House on 25 October, it has not become law. Even though the Electoral Commission considers that the combination polls are on track, it still says that
“delivering well-run polls on 5 May will be a major challenge”.
Yes, we received a copy of the draft order ahead of time, but it was lacking in the things that were most important and was, therefore, only partly helpful.
Finally, we understand that this is an affirmative order and cannot be amended on the Floor of the House. That is indeed a problem for if we could, I would be more than happy to amend the instrument and vote for it, but since it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, I am afraid I might have to leave it.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I have taken part in all our constitutional debates on the Floor of the House, and I yet again welcome to his place the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has taken a very keen interest in these matters. I am glad that he takes an interest in what, in theory, should be a Scottish-only affair, but it is disappointing that, yet again, the Deputy Prime Minister has not deigned to grace us with his presence. Nor, indeed, has the Secretary of State for Scotland, so I can only wish him a speedy recovery, because I cannot think of any other reason why he would not want to take part in this debate.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland responds, I trust he will confirm that, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, he has actually read the Gould report. Hon. Members will recall that, when the Deputy Prime Minister did on one occasion deign to turn up, he was forced to admit—[Interruption.] The Minister might have read the report of the report, as the Deputy Prime Minister admitted to doing. The Gould report raises some serious concerns, but I do not wish to labour the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) made so eloquently.
Mr MacNeil
My memory could be defective, but I somehow feel that in a previous life, in another role in this House, the Minister used to emphasise and put great weight on parts, if not all, of the Gould report. Perhaps he will clarify that later on.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
There are many issues of substance in the order. We want to be very co-operative with the Government, as has happened in our relationships with Governments in the past when we have had to ensure that we had successful Scottish Parliament elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said, the problem is that we have got off to a very bad start, particularly regarding the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, the problems with which have already been indicated.
I have to tell the Government that the determined view in Scotland is that the Government are showing something of a pattern in their attitude to the Scottish parliamentary elections, and perhaps in their attitude to Scotland. I am disappointed about that given that I know the Under-Secretary very well and have, I think, worked with him reasonably constructively in the past. I am disappointed by his attitude to last week’s Scottish Parliament debate, of which he seemed so disdainful and dismissive. That was not his attitude in the past, and it is beginning to be symptomatic of this Government’s attitude to the Scottish Parliament, where substantial points were raised in that debate.
The core of this argument is that, as been acknowledged, an enormous mistake was made in the elections of 2007. Essentially, people believed that the arrangements for the elections were devised to suit the politicians, not the voters. I say in all sincerity that we are in danger of making that mistake again. This is illustrative of the attitude to the Scottish Parliament debate, where we were trying to point out that there are issues of substance. The best way to resolve them is through dialogue and constructive engagement. The fact that the coalition Government made this decision without even cursory reference to the Scottish Parliament or the elected Government of Scotland raises serious and continuing questions about their approach. That undermines our confidence in the Government’s ability to resolve the problem.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful. Given the problem that the hon. Lady is highlighting, does she not feel that that power should reside with the Scottish Parliament, not here?
Margaret Curran
I know that that has been under discussion for some time, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows our views on that. However, I wish to stick to the core argument.
I make a plea to the Government, who have a real opportunity. If they are prepared to engage with key parties and listen to the different perspectives, perhaps we can come to a shared resolution. Their intransigent attitude of asserting rather than engaging in argument is leading to enormous difficulty, which will be confirmed next year. I plead with the Minister to try to resolve the problem rather than just weep at it when it occurs, and I ask the coalition Government finally to engage with the Scottish Parliament on matters as important as the elections to that Parliament.