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

That is the point I made. Our view is that this is the appropriate way to proceed with the order. Clearly there is a disagreement here. The noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, asked why the order is made under Section 12(1)(a) of the Scotland Act and not Section 12(1)(b). The provision is about how the election is conducted, but Section 12(1)(b) deals with the questioning of an election and consequences of irregularities. We are clearly not dealing with irregularities. Although at first sight the draft order might appear to be concerned with questioning an election, that phrase has a technical meaning in electoral legislation. The 2007 order, which the draft we are debating will amend, adopts at Schedule 6 a provision contained at Section 120 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983. That provision relates to the method of questioning an election. It states that: "““No parliamentary election … shall be questioned except by way of””—" an election— "““petition””." The Electoral Commission and Mr Gould’s review are not questioning the election, in that sense, but examining how the election was conducted. So we are satisfied that it is correct to find vires for the order in Section 12(1)(a) and not Section 12 (1)(b). The noble Duke also asked: why UK extent? It is the same as the order it amends; the 2007 order has UK extent. He asked how access to the papers will be restricted. The order requires that copies of papers must be destroyed after scrutiny. Detailed arrangements will be for the commission and the sheriff clerks to decide. The noble Duke asked why this is not linked to a court order. It is true to say that the mechanism does not require a court order, but the instrument is subject to affirmative resolution that provides for the appropriate level of scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, wonders whether the commission’s review remit is wide enough. We believe it is. It is not limited to spoilt ballots; it will consider e-counting, postal votes, spoilt ballots and so on. The intention is that we fully review what happened and come up with the proper answers. There will then be an opportunity for discussion.