Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
DAVID CAIRNS
MP, MR GERALD
MCHUGH
AND MS
SHEILA SCOBIE
13 NOVEMBER 2007
Q160 Mr Devine: We were told because
of e-counting you could not have a recount. It was not the fact
of a returning officer saying in the past yes or no; this was
very clearly "I can't do this."
David Cairns: I do not know about
that. It is difficult to manually count an STV election—because
you are talking about a local council so it is an STV election
and the most complex system of STV is what they put in Scotland's
1,222 council seats. It would have taken weeks to have counted
it manually—literally weeks. It takes days in Northern Ireland
and they have only got 108 MLA seats on a simpler system of STV.
So, again, because you are dealing with the Scottish local government
elections, it is kind of outwith my sphere of responsibility and
the returning officers are the ones who in a sense are the referees
in this decision. I think that if we are looking at professionalising
returning officers—because I think if we are honest in most
of our areas the returning officer springs into life when there
is an election and then goes back to doing a day job in between
elections—what Gould is looking at is professionalising
returning officers and having people who are dedicated returning
officers who are working with the chief returning officer who
will have a higher level of standard and an inspection regime,
which I think goes some way towards addressing some of the general
concerns about the variation in performance of returning officers
which I have heard.
Q161 Mr Wallace: Just picking up
your point, Minister, one of the reasons that the returning officers
were not aware of some of the procedures when it came to electronic
counting, et cetera, was because the Electoral Commission did
not issue its guidance until quite late on. The Electoral Commission
has admitted that that guidance was issued late directly because
of the delays in legislation that had come out from the Scotland
Office. I think it is a bit disingenuous to come here and say
that that was dependent upon another piece of legislation in the
House of Lords. If I am not mistaken, in the last ten years your
Government has been in charge of the legislative programme, and
what comes out loud and clear in this report is that the legislation
pertaining to the Scottish Parliament elections was late, was
slow and at some stages in the consultation was not clear. What
is interesting is the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003 were
a success story. Then you had the same working groups, the same
group of people and, yes, it was slightly complicated by a change
to the local government elections, but it worked fairly well in
2003. I was standing down from the Scottish Parliament and that
is maybe why it did, but in general it worked fairly well so a
lot of these mechanisms have not had to be reinvented but seem
to hinge on the fact that the delay coming out of the Scotland
Office for these orders knocked into everything else. Case one
is that therefore the guidance issued by the Electoral Commission
was late and unclear and it comes down to your responsibility
in the Scotland Office for this legislation.
David Cairns: No, I simply do
not accept that. I am sorry to let the facts get in the way but
the fact that in 2003 there was no e-counting so there was no
advice issued on e-counting whereas in 2007 there was, so somehow
the precedent of 2003 is to be applied to 2007, is simply absurd.
Secondly, returning officers were involved in e-counting seminars
all the way through the summer of 2006. They knew there was going
to be e-counting. They were involved in discussions all the way
through the summer of 2006. If the advice from the Electoral Commission
was late, that is one thing; if it was unclear, that is a serious
allegation and one that really has to be taken up with the Electoral
Commission. I see no reason why it should have been unclear. I
have never sought from 4 May right up to and including this very
minute to say that there were no problems at all in the process
that we were involved in, and I accept the fact that because we
were so busy consulting and consulting and consulting the implementation
phase was too short, and we have set out steps as to how we are
going to avoid that in future, but on this particular instance
I do not think that is valid because everybody knew there was
going to be e-counting from a much earlier stage. It was not new
and it was not a surprise to anybody that there was going to be
e-counting. That was a decision that was flagged up way back almost
a year before the election, so I simply do not accept that this
is one of the things that was not known. The particular end design
of the ballot paper, yes, but the principles behind e-counting
and the kind of decisions that people were going to have to take
in e-counting were being discussed months and months before the
election. They were being discussed before the legislation was
even finalised.
Q162 Chairman: Do you accept that
you wanted to build a consensus with all the political parties
and that during this consultation and building of the consensus
you took bad advice?
David Cairns: I think we tried
to do the right thing.
Q163 Mr Hamilton: Say yes!
David Cairns: We tried to do the
right thing. I do not accept it was bad advice. I think people
who said that a single ballot paper was a good idea were not acting
maliciously or in any sense—
Q164 Chairman: I did not say maliciously;
I said bad advice or poor advice.
David Cairns: That we should go
back to two ballot papers—yes, I agree with that. It was
a mistake to have a single ballot paper, yes, I have said so over
and over again. It was a mistake that most people actually supported
and endorsed, but it was a mistake and nobody is denying at this
stage that that was a mistake, and we are going to go back to
having two ballot papers and a manual count, which means that
the unique set of circumstances which gave rise to what happened
on 3 May will not happen again.
Q165 Mr Davidson: The question of
splitting the two elections can either be done by shortening a
term, extending a term or by perhaps a period of transition so
that one of them is maybe extended for a one year and then a second
time for a second year. Do you have any choices or any options
that you are particularly favouring at the moment?
David Cairns: No because that
is a decision for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament.
We are responsible for the date of the elections to the Scottish
Parliament and we do not intend to alter that.
Q166 Mr Davidson: If they are not
being held on the same day you cannot necessarily make the assumption
that it is the local government one that is moved. It could be
that this time we move one to three years and the other to five
years and that would put it in space right away.
David Cairns: We have no plans
at all to do that.
Mr Devine: Why not?
Q167 Mr Hamilton: Any plans at the
moment to do that?
David Cairns: No plans at all
to do that. It was not our policy choice to combine the elections.
We set the framework for when the Scottish elections were and
it was a policy choice of the Scottish Parliament to combine the
elections. It therefore must be their policy choice to decombine
the elections.
Q168 Mr Davidson: I had forgotten
that it was the Scottish Parliament's decision to put the elections
on the same day.
David Cairns: Yes.
Mr Davidson: That is useful to know.
Q169 Chairman: Obviously somebody
has to decide that there are going to be elections on a different
date for the local government elections and the Scottish Parliamentary
elections. Ron Gould would prefer if there is a gap of two years
much. Even if it is accepted as one year then somebody has to
make a decision they want to increase the time limit for the council
elections to one more year or bring it earlier or perhaps to have
a lifetime for the Scottish Parliament of three years or two years.
David Cairns: I accept that somebody
has to decide and that decision is for the Scottish Parliament.
Q170 Chairman: For the Scottish Parliament?
David Cairns: No, for local government
elections. They were the ones who took the decision to combine
it. It was their policy choice that put the elections on the same
day, for reasons which I have said in terms of turnout—
Q171 Chairman: So in your view you
do not see any change for the elections for the Scottish Parliament,
that will be fixed on four years and if there is any change it
will be change for the local government.
David Cairns: Yes, and the First
Minister has already indicated that that is what he intends to
do. As I understand it, they are talking about a one-year extension
for local councils and, as I say, that is not my decision to make,
it is for the Scottish Executive. I think everybody agrees that
the elections should now be on separate days and it is now squarely
a decision for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament
to decide how they effect that by the day which they move the
local council elections to.
Q172 Mr Hamilton: One final point
because I do not think it has been clarified. I do accept the
point that the Scottish Parliament made the determination to bring
in not just on the same day but a different type of election,
which I think should have been taken on board and I have said
that in a previous meeting that took place. Professionalising
the returning officers—those returning officers are chief
executives of the local authorities and you cannot get more professional
than that. The question I would like to ask is: drawing a line
in the sand about the election result, I think that is important
that we draw a line in the sand, that decision has been taken—and
I raised this in the Chamber and I raised it because there are
people who still do not know—I believe strongly there are
people in the Scottish Parliament who should not be in the Scottish
Parliament and there are people who are not in the Scottish Parliament
who should be in the Scottish Parliament, covering all parties,
because of the debacle and what happened on that night. Surely
there is a mechanism by some group that they have to physically
check the votes that were cast over that period because to go
forward we need to know the answer to that issue? That to me was
a major issue and I have got to say I seek clarity on it and I
would appreciate it if you would give me a note on it. I believe
that you were not allowed to ask for a physical recount on that
night and I do not think that you are correct in your assumption
that you were entitled to ask for that recount. I think that is
not allowed and that is a big issue.
David Cairns: If you are talking
about a physical recount of an STV—
Q173 Mr Hamilton: Not STV, the Scottish
Parliament elections I am talking about.
David Cairns: There were physical
recounts. There was a partial recount in Aberdeen, so recounts
did happen on that night. What is at stake, as I understand it,
is that different decisions were taken in different parts of the
country. What I mean by professionalising is not that they are
not professional people but most chief executives are professional
accountants or housing people or whatever and I am not aware of
any chief executive who has come through the electoral returning
officer route, so it is about maybe saying is it appropriate that
it is chief executives of councils who have got everything else
that they should be doing who are doing this job. You may say
the fact a chief executive is doing it is a sign of how significant
it is. You might say the councils are saying this is how seriously
we take it, it is the chief executive who is doing it. I think
what Mr Gould is saying is maybe the time has come for people
to just do this and not do anything else, particularly if we are
moving to a situation where we are going to have elections virtually
every year.
Q174 Mr Davidson: I quite fancy the
idea of a job every four years and you get a huge wodge of money
in the meantime.
David Cairns: It would not be
every four years because we are going to move to a situation where
we are going to have a Westminster election—
Q175 Mr Hamilton: They will have
one job a year if they are lucky.
David Cairns: This raises a very
interesting point which maybe we do not have time to explore in
detail which is about the way in which in Scotland, unlike in
England, we have got this very fine distinction between the registration
officers, the people whose responsibility it is to get people
on the register, and the returning officers who actually administer
the elections. In Scotland, we have these joint valuation boards
who have got a number of other things to do and in the midst of
that they are responsible for the maintenance of the electoral
register. I think as part of the discussions that we will now
have about whether you are going to have a chief returning officer
is the time to discuss whether or not we should still have this
division of responsibility. In fact, the job of the returning
officer could—and I am saying could because I do not want
to pre-empt what we are going to look at—involve year-round
things like getting people onto the register, and I know Mr Devine
has been particularly concerned about this because it is nobody's
full-time job to do this. The evaluation boards are doing other
things.
Q176 Mr Hamilton: Minister, I have
got to say to you £24 million for the Electoral Commission
and you are looking at increasing that to bring other people in?
David Cairns: No, I think a very
important point is that the recommendation in the report for a
chief returning officer takes power away from the Electoral Commission
and gives it to a CRO, and I think that there is mileage in looking
at all of these issues in the round, particularly this odd distinction
that we have in Scotland (as I say it does not apply in England)
between those whose responsibility it is to get people on to the
register and those whose responsibility it is to actually administer
the elections. I definitely think that is something we should
be looking at as part of this ongoing process.
Q177 Mr Davidson: As part of the
ongoing exercise, would it be appropriate to return to a view
of whether or not proportional representation should be replaced
by first-past-the-post for some of these important elections,
which is something which I am sure the membership of this Committee
would support.
David Cairns: I look forward to
reading your report on that matter with interest. It is not our
decision to have proportional representation for local council
elections; that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
David Mundell: I do not have anything
further to add to that other than to reiterate again only one
party voted for the introduction of STV and indeed the same party
voted for my Bill in the Scottish Parliament to split the elections.
What I wanted to confirm before we conclude, Chairman, was that
we will discuss the issue of Mr Alexander's attendance at the
next meeting.
Mr Hamilton: Could I ask the Minister
to inform us by note of the number of recounts that took place
by area.
Q178 Mr Davidson: And when they were
asked for. Sorry, I think this is an important point. It is not
just a question of when recounts were held; it is also an issue
of when they were asked for and refused, and that would apply
presumably to all of the elections, including the local authority
ones.
David Cairns: We will get that
information to you.
Q179 Mr Davidson: Can I seek clarification
as well. One of the points that you made was that you thought
that Ron Gould had actually examined all the ballot papers that
were ruled out?
David Cairns: No I do not think
he examined all of the ballot papers. He looked at samples of
them; he did not examine all of them.
| 
