Hansard

There was a time when the American electoral system might have been held up as a good example here, but I am afraid that those days have gone.

There is precedent for movement on this matter. The UK Government has recognised real concerns about the coincidence of elections, and yesterday the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform wrote to the First Minister and others to ask for views on a proposal to avoid a clash of dates in 2015. We will consider the proposal with others in this Parliament and respond shortly, but I point out that it relates only to 2015. The UK Government does not yet accept that similar problems will be caused in 2011—which is regrettable, given that those problems are palpably there.

The UK public went to the polls in May 2010 and, after some negotiation, a new coalition Government came to power with talk of a new way of doing business. On his first visit to Scotland on 14 May, the Prime Minister called for an

“agenda of respect between our Parliaments”,

saying:

“This agenda is about Parliaments working together, of governing with respect, both because I believe Scotland deserves that respect and because I want to try and win Scotland’s respect as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”.

The fact that our elections are taking place in May next year should have come as no surprise to the new UK Government. After all, the Scotland Act 1998 provides that elections to the Scottish Parliament will be held on the first Thursday in May every four years. Given that the provision has been in place for more than 10 years, a simple check would have enabled the UK Government to realise that. Alternatively, it could have picked up the telephone, written a letter or sent an e-mail. However, despite knowing the date of elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK Government still chose to hold a referendum next May. I fail to see the respect in introducing legislation that will create a clash of dates and interfere with elections to this Parliament. On such evidence, Mr Cameron needs to try harder on that agenda, because he is not delivering so far.

I am sad to say that, to make matters worse, neither Scottish ministers nor this Parliament were advised of the UK plans in advance. As politicians, we have a vested interest in elections, and, as members of this Parliament, we have a vested interest in the Scottish Parliament’s status, and the UK Government’s actions run counter to both those interests.

More than anything else, though, elections must belong to the voters. More important than our concerns as politicians is the impact that the clash of dates next May might have on the voting public. Their needs must be paramount and the UK Government’s proposals undermine the integrity of the campaign process and our elections as well as unnecessarily complicating matters for our voters.

Of course, it will not just be a question of different ballot papers on election day. With two separate electoral contests, one UK-wide and the other specific to Scotland, will come two simultaneous sets of quite different campaigns. There will be national and UK-wide yes and no campaigns for the alternative vote referendum, with the possibility of individual organisations running separate and additional referendum campaigns. In addition, we will have campaigns for individual MSP candidates and for their parties based on the Scottish Parliament’s responsibilities.

Given the strong influence of the London-based media and in view of what happened earlier this year in the general election campaign, there is a real risk that the AV referendum will eclipse the debate on issues that are key to the Scottish parliamentary elections. Voting reform might be an academic issue for many voters, which might be reflected in the interest in the referendum, but the Scottish Parliament is the decision-making body for many of Scotland’s key issues. For the majority of Scottish people, the predominant issues in the campaign will be our economy and jobs; the strength of our health and education services; the strength and resilience of our communities; and the future of this great nation. For our part, we should be encouraging the public to have views on those key issues and to use their votes accordingly. I am sure that we can all see the risk of multiple messages causing confusion and limiting the quality of debate and engagement that Scotland needs.

We are all aware of the difficulties in 2007 when the Scottish Parliament and local government elections were held on the same day. Following that experience, the Electoral Commission asked Ron Gould, the international elections administration expert, to conduct an independent review, in which he concluded that separating the elections would prevent national issues from dominating local government campaigns and would give greater prominence to local issues. Moreover, he believed that separation would also minimise the potential for voter confusion caused by two elections being held at the same time for different institutions and using different voting systems.

In the light of those findings, the Scottish Government introduced, and the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed, legislation to separate local government and Holyrood elections. Now, in spite of that material and co-ordinated effort, the UK Government is recreating and imposing the same problem, thus negating earlier time and effort and undermining the focus and clarity that we have earned.

Under the current proposals, each voter will receive two ballot papers; the referendum will add a third. The public will be asked to vote for a constituency MSP and a list party or candidate and then to specify whether they wish the alternative vote system to be used.

As things stand, it is for the UK Government to act to avoid the difficulties that a clash of dates would cause in May 2011. The Scottish Government has made clear its opposition to the proposals for a combined poll next year. We have also made it clear that we are prepared to engage with the UK Government to find a way round the problem. It wants to talk about 2015; why not 2011 as well? In the absence of any reciprocal willingness to work with us, I urge the UK Government to hear the compelling arguments and simply change the date of the AV referendum, especially given that the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution recommended that the secretary of state’s responsibilities for the administration of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

The UK Government has said that it will introduce a bill shortly to implement the Calman recommendations, but a restricted interpretation of the Calman proposals would still see Westminster being responsible for deciding the electoral system to be used for Holyrood elections, the franchise at parliamentary elections, the number of MSPs, the electoral boundaries to be used and the timing of the elections. In that case, the Scottish Government would be responsible simply for preparing the regulations under which elections to this Parliament were run, and it would then be for this Parliament to approve the regulations. All in all, that cannot be right, and we will continue to urge the UK Government to transfer full legislative as well as administrative responsibilities for elections to this Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with real concern the UK Government’s intention to hold a referendum on voting reform for UK Parliament elections on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament and other devolved institutions in May 2011; regrets the UK Government’s failure to consult the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament on this matter, and calls on the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to agree a new date that will avoid a clash with elections to this parliament.

15:07