Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR SAM
YOUNGER, MR
PETER WARDLE,
MR ANDREW
SCALLAN AND
MR ANDY
O'NEIL
13 NOVEMBER 2007
Q1 Chairman: Good morning. Could I welcome
the witnesses this morning for our first session on the Experience
of the Scottish elections. Would you please introduce yourselves?
Mr Younger: Thank you, Chairman.
I am Sam Younger, Chairman of the Commission. Alongside me are:
Peter Wardle, the Commission's Chief Executive; and at either
end we have Andy O'Neil, who is Head of the Commission's Office
in Edinburgh; and Andrew Scallan who is our Director of Electoral
Administration and Boundaries. I should add, Chairman, I do bring
apologies from Sir Neil MacIntosh our Commissioner in Scotland
who was unavoidably not able to be here today
Q2 Chairman: Thank you. Before we
start on the detailed questions, would you like to make any opening
remarks?
Mr Younger: I would be very happy
to say a few words with your permission, Chairman, thank you.
First of all, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity
to come and talk about the issues arising out of the Scottish
election. I would like also at the beginning to place on record
my thanks to Ron Gould who undertook the report, and it was one
that I think was widely accepted as thorough and authoritative.
It was an independent review, commissioned by the Commission in
order to carry out its statutory duty but carried out entirely
independently by Ron Gould and his team. We will be setting out
our views on the detailed recommendations in the report in some
detail by the end of this month; and of course will be happy to
come back and talk to the Committee again if that is appropriate
at a later stage once we have done that. I think it is fair to
say at this stage that we regard it as a very important report,
and indeed I think a wake-up call for a lot of those involved
in the planning and organisation of elections—not just in
Scotland but I think elsewhere. There are lessons for all of us
in it, for Government, for the Commission itself, for political
parties and for returning officers, but above all in terms of
the need to focus on the needs and perspectives of the voter.
We agree with many of the recommendations in the Gould report.
There are some which raise some very wide issues, both in relation
to Scotland and more widely, that I think are worthy of a good
deal more debate; but we welcome the opportunity on this occasion
to set out our thinking where it has got to at the present.
Q3 Chairman: Ron Gould's main conclusion—that
"voters were treated as an afterthought" in the May
elections—do you agree with this statement?
Mr Younger: I think it was a fair
statement based on the analysis he made. I think that is where
the lesson is for us all. There are criticisms of a number of
actions that were taken. The Commission is not exempt from those,
and I think in one or two areas we ourselves take those lessons
to heart. I think it is a very good reminder and it is something
that we seek to do in everything we do, to put the voter at the
centre of it, but clearly in one or two areas on those occasions
we failed to do that adequately, as indeed did others.
Q4 Chairman: What is the Electoral
Commission's role in taking forward Mr Gould's recommendations
and making sure that in future elections the voter's interest
is given the highest priority?
Mr Younger: Having commissioned
the report from Mr Gould and regarding it I think as a thoroughly
authoritative report with a lot of very valuable recommendations
and indeed, in some cases, options rather than recommendations,
the Commission will be doing everything it can to see that the
report is taken seriously, that the recommendations are taken
seriously and changes made where necessary to ensure that the
interests of the voter are best served. We of course can do that
ourselves in relation to those things which are within the Commission's
responsibility. We cannot do that obviously ourselves in relation
to others; but we will be looking to Government and others to
engage with us in those debates to make sure that what results
is the best possible deal for the voter in Scotland; but also
I think with a number of lessons which will be learned in terms
of voters elsewhere in the country.
Q5 Chairman: Since the publication
of this report Ron Gould has issued a letter of clarification
in which he restates his conclusions and emphasises that his intention
was not to assign blame to individuals or institutions. Do you
feel that there was a need for a letter of clarification? Do you
think that this report was misinterpreted by the media or by politicians?
Mr Younger: The report was published
and Ron Gould accompanied it with a press conference, at which
he stated what he then restated in his letter of clarification.
In that letter of clarification he said to us he was minded to
send us a letter to clarify, given the debate there had been;
and in particular to clarify that he was not intending to attach
blame to individuals or institutions. We discussed it; he then
decided that he was going to go ahead and do it, hence that letter
which is now part of his public record.
Q6 Chairman: Is it possible for you
to tell the Committee members how much money this inquiry cost
the taxpayer?
Mr Wardle: The overall cost of
the inquiry is around £300,000.
Q7 David Mundell: Can I just ask
you about Mr Gould's letter of clarification. Obviously you the
Electoral Commission were involved in the publication of Mr Gould's
report, and indeed involved in the publication of summaries of
the report, so you must have been quite clear as to what the implications
of the statements contained in that report were?
Mr Younger: We published the report,
yes, and it was in there to carry out the Commission's statutory
responsibility. However, it was very clear to us that this was
an independent report and we had no part in the framing of the
way it was put out. We published it but we did not interfere,
or seek to interfere, or seek to influence what Mr Gould said.
He said what was in the report; he gave his press conference;
subsequently he felt a need to provide some clarification, and
that is what he did, most of which, it seemed to me, simply reiterated
what he had said in the report and in his press conference.
Q8 David Mundell: Indeed. So it was
quite clear to you the way in which the report was subsequently
interpreted was the obvious way in which the statements contained
in the report would be interpreted?
Mr Younger: I think it is fair
to say that we took the view, as Ron Gould did, that we would
follow him in saying that he did not wish to assign blame to individuals
or institutions; and that we wished to look to the future. I think
that is what I would say in response to that.
Q9 David Mundell: There can be no
suggestion that anything that appeared in the report was not what
was intended to appear in that report; and that the statements
in the report were quite clear; and that Mr Gould, in the letter
of clarification, makes very clear that he confirms all the conclusions
and statements in the report?
Mr Younger: Indeed, that is what
he said in the letter of clarification.
Q10 Mr MacNeil: Given that Mr Gould
felt the need to send a letter of clarification, which some people
might argue did not actually achieve that aim at all, do you think
a Committee such as this would be within our rights or would be
wise to ask Mr Gould to come in front of us and explain both the
report and the letter of clarification?
Mr Younger: I think you would
be entirely within your rights to do so. Clearly there are some
logistical difficulties in relation to Mr Gould, but I see no
reason why the Committee should not do so. It is important for
me and for the Commission, having commissioned an independent
report and he states what is in his report, that that is independent.
I would not seek to put words into his mouth, or take words out
of his mouth.
Q11 Mr Davidson: I think it is helpful
that you endorse the idea that he should come back and speak to
us on this. Can I just clarify—why was he paid in euros?
Mr Scallan: It was at his request.
He does lots of international work and I think euros was his preferred
currency.
Q12 Mr Davidson: We are not to draw
any conclusions from that at all?
Mr Scallan: I cannot begin to
imagine what conclusions you might draw. I think it was just his
preferred method of payment.
Q13 Mr Davidson: I welcome the fact
that, as I say, he is coming back, but I am slightly confused
about his letter. His letter read as if it was an apology for
a misunderstanding. How did that occur? If it is correct that
the letter says exactly what he says in the original report, why
did he have to write it again? Is it apologising for a misunderstanding?
Mr Younger: In the end you would
have to ask Mr Gould that. My view is that what he wished to reemphasise,
and what he reemphasised at the top of that, was something he
had said in his report and had said in his press conference, that
he wished the debate around the report to be forward-looking and
did not wish what he was doing to assign blame to individuals
or institutions. That was why he chose to make the clarification.
Q14 Chairman: What my colleague is
saying is, if it was exactly what was in the report and exactly
what he says in the letter, what was the need for issuing the
letter?
Mr Younger: As he said, there
was a fair bit of debate that went on and some of that debate
was thinking in terms of who was responsible, and blame. I do
not want to put words into his mouth, but I imagine he felt he
needed to clarify that this was a report that he wanted to be
taken as forward-looking and how things were done in future, rather
than to be taken in terms of what institutions or individuals
might have been to blame for what happened in the past.
Q15 Chairman: Committee members are
very keen to request him to come for an evidence session here,
but unfortunately he is not very keen to come here. What do you
think the Committee members should do to ensure that we are able
to ask him the questions?
Mr Wardle: Perhaps I could come
in. I know that Mr Gould is very keen to be of whatever assistance
he can give. I know that other parliamentary committees who have
approached him have had a very positive response. I am sure there
have been some logistical problems with this particular time and
date, but I am quite sure that he is willing to cooperate with
any parliamentary inquiry; and indeed that was a discussion we
had with him when he was first engaged to carry out this work,
that there would clearly be some important follow-up work in terms
of appearing before parliamentary committees to explain the work
he carried out. I really do not think there is any reluctance
on Mr Gould's part to engage in the ongoing debate.
Chairman: Obviously this is a matter
of concern to all of us, that there were election problems, then
the report was published and then he has to issue a letter of
clarification as well. It is only right for the Scottish Affairs
Committee to have an evidence session with him. We intend to write
a letter to him, and if he is busy before Christmas we have no
problem waiting for the beginning of next year; but definitely
we do want to have an evidence session with him.
Q16 Mr MacNeil: Just on a position
of information, and I do not know if you are able to tell us this
or not, but was there any suggestion of any political interference
or prompting between the report and the writing of the letter
from any political party or any political person?
Mr Younger: None at all.
Q17 David Mundell: Just to go back
to what you were saying before in terms of the letter, it is quite
clear this letter could not be interpreted as exonerating any
named individual in respect of anything that happened in relation
to the Scottish elections, could it?
Mr Younger: I do not think it
alters anything that he wrote in his report. I think what it was,
as he emphasised there, was a statement that said he did not wish
the report to be debated in terms of assigning blame to individuals
or institutions, but wished it to be interpreted as wanting to
look at the future and looking at the recommendations he made.
Q18 Mr Wallace: Mr Gould's contract
between you and himself says that one of his duties, on page 11,
is "A presentation to Scottish stakeholders on the completion
of the review". Would you consider us Scottish stakeholders?
Mr Younger: Indeed.
Q19 Mr Wallace: Therefore, for him to
be in line with his contract would you not therefore say that
part of that is to present to the House his findings?
Mr Younger: Yes.
| 
