First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on Delegated Legislation
Monday 1 March 1999
[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]
Draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 on Delegated Legislation
4.30 pm
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 1999 and the draft Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999.
Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to present the three orders to the Committee. The orders mark a significant stage in the preparation for elections to and the first meeting of the Scottish Parliament. The order relating to the general election and first meeting is made under section 2(1) of the Scotland Act 1998; it sets the date for the first election to the Scottish Parliament as 6 May this year. It also lays down that the first meeting of the Parliament will take place on 12 May at 9.30 am in the General Assembly Hall of the Church of Scotland on The Mound in Edinburgh.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): I am sorry to intervene so early. Constituents have suggested that election day should be a public holiday. What is the Government's view?
Mr. McLeish: That subject goes slightly wider than the scope of the orders. Suffice it to say that there will be sufficient celebration in Scotland at the opening: a public holiday might create further difficulty. I hope that celebrations will ensue, but I do not think that there is a need for a public holiday.
Although the order to which I just referred sets the day of the first election, the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 makes detailed provisions for the conduct of elections to the Parliament. It also makes provision for the special arrangements that will be necessary when the elections to the Parliament are combined with local government elections, as will happen on 6 May this year. Section 12(1) of the 1998 Act, whose provisions for elections were the subject of our lengthy debates during its passage through the House provides for the order.
Before talking a little more about the elections order, I should like to record our thanks to the representatives of the political parties and electoral administrators whom we have consulted during the past few months. I am aware that, because of such a broad spectrum of opinion, it has not always been possible to please everyone with every aspect of the arrangements, but I am confident that what we have will provide a sound basis for the arrangements for future elections.
The order reflects to a great extent existing United Kingdom electoral law under representation of the people legislation. We have not tried to reinvent the wheel.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): Can the Minister tell the Committee when the working party last met?
Mr. McLeish: I do not have that information to hand, but I shall endeavour to obtain it, and give it to the hon. Gentleman later in the debate.
I was saying that much of the content of the order reflects UK electoral law. Electoral law is sometimes criticised for being arcane, and hon. Members might be aware that a wide-ranging review of electoral practices is currently being undertaken by a working group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for deregulation, drugs and elections an interesting combination of portfolios. In time, no doubt the recommendations from the review will apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament as they do to the rest of the United Kingdom. But that is not our business today.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): So that we may be clear about which Minister the hon. Gentleman referred to, will he confirm that he referred to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
Mr. McLeish: The answer to the original question is no.
Mr. Bercow: What does that mean?
Mr. McLeish: The Minister is my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who has a fairly interesting workload day in, day out.
Modifications to existing practices have been necessary to take account of the additional member electoral system.
The order takes account of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, which allows the use of official party emblems on ballot papers, and controls the names that parties may use at elections so as to reduce confusion. The order also takes account of the recommendations made by the committee on Standards in Public Life chaired by Lord Neill. Those recommendations concern expenses that may be incurred by political parties during an election campaign, and I shall speak about those in more detail later.
I should like briefly to explain the provision that the order makes for detailed election arrangements and the changes that have been made to current practices. Earlier, I mentioned that we have taken into account the Neill committee's proposals on expenses to the extent allowed by powers under the Scotland Act 1998. The order imposes expense limits and penalties for constituency candidates on the same basis as applies to Westminster elections. The order imposes limits on expenses for individuals who are standing as independent candidates in the regional ballots. Those limits will be structured in a similar way to those imposed on constituency candidates.
The limits for an individual candidate are the aggregate of the constituency limits in the region. The order sets a limit of £1.5 million on party expenditure in an election. That limit is intended to cover all a party's campaign expenditure, which is not normally incurred in relation to a particular constituency candidate.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): Having read the draft order, I should be grateful for clarification on the following matter. When someone is standing for a constituency and a regional seat, can the relevant expenditure be claimed for both candidacies?
Mr. McLeish: The answer is no. Each constituency candidate will have an election agent, and a process will be undergone similar to that for candidates standing in Westminster elections. The £1.5 million limit set by the parties applies to the system that lists candidates' names. An entry must be given, not for each candidate, but by a person appointed to deal with the list system. So the two are quite distinct and separate.
We welcome the voluntary agreement reached by the main political parties in Scotland on the national limit on party expenditure and on some other matters covered by Lord Neill's committee, for which the order does not make provision. However, there have been some objections to the absence of limits at a regional level.
Lord Neill did not propose to make any attempt to sub-divide party expenditure into national and regional elements. However, the form of return proposed for expenses will show separately the expenses incurred by each regional election agent. Transparency is as effective a safeguard as we need against parties targeting expenditure on a particular region.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset): The question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) made me realise that I do not understand something in the order. What are the rules on the election expenses of a candidate who is, so to speak, a party soul for the region and who is also standing in a particular constituency? Is it an additive rule?
Mr. McLeish: Similar procedures to those adopted for Westminster elections will prevail for a candidate who stands in a constituency as an individual. There should be no problem about election expenses limits, as they will be dealt with by election agents. However, if as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) suggests a candidate is on the regional list system, the constituency expenditure is separate for accounting purposes. Anything else that is spent, is spent by the national party up to a level of £1.5 million. That covers
Mr. Letwin: What if it is an individual?
Mr. McLeish: An individual outwith the party system will have a person providing election expenses for him or her, and will be dealt with in a similar way to a constituency candidate.
Mr. Letwin: If such an individual should be a candidate in a regional list and in a constituency, will he or she add £90,000 to £60,000, or whatever the figure may be?
Mr. McLeish: No. We are discussing individuals who may be on constituency lists and party lists. We are also discussing people who are on constituency lists as individuals and independents. Such people will have to make a return under the constituency system, but I think that they will have to make a separate return as part of the regional list. I shall clarify that shortly.
Sir Robert Smith: Anyone who is on the party list can be promoted in that list by his party, even though he is also a first-past-the-post candidate somewhere within the region. Obviously, we are anxious that the £1.5 million may be used to back a candidate in one area if a party feels that it is the only area in which it stands any chance.
Mr. McLeish: The Neill committee considered the issue and decided against making any recommendations, so parties can spend up to a national limit on expenditure of £1.5 million. However, in the spirit of the voluntary agreement in Scotland, I sincerely hope that any party that wishes to spend that amount will be aware of the transparency of the returns of expenses. It may be an incentive for any political party if it could afford to do so, which I doubt to target all or a substantial part of that amount on one area.
| 
