Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2007

I have some probing questions. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has highlighted the issue of whether this provision should have been founded upon Section 12(1)(a) of the Scotland Act or Section 12(1)(b). My understanding is that (1)(a) refers to electoral processes, while (1)(b) refers to irregularities. The elected representatives in Scotland expect this matter to be resolved by the Electoral Commission getting to the bottom of what happened. If any obstacle is put in their way, there will be a lot of dissatisfaction. I declare an interest. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and I were among the last three to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. We had to wait another 24 hours for, if I may say so, another substantial mistake at the polls. In fact, 2,000 votes were not even counted. When I wrote to the Secretary of State, John Reid, about that, he replied that he had no powers to intervene; he could do so only if there were a court action. Will the order make it less likely that people will have to contemplate court actions? I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Steel, Robin Harper, the first Green MSP, or I had any desire whatever to be involved in an expensive court action. As we were all convincingly elected, the only thing such an action could have proved is that one of us might have been elected before one of the others. As we all got in, that did not seem to matter to any of us. If in practice the order means that court actions would be less desirable and less frequent, that would be a service. As these powers have been given to the Electoral Commission in Scotland but not in England, is that not an inconsistency? Is it not undesirable to have a different form of election north and south of the Border?