No apologies, no major probe, no resignation over poll fiasco

DOUGLAS Alexander was yesterday abandoned by Labour MPs angry over his handling of the Holyrood election fiasco that saw as many as 100,000 ballot papers rejected last week.

The Scottish Secretary was looking increasingly isolated last night after it emerged he did not read a Scotland Office research report containing evidence that the combined ballot paper he chose for last week's Holyrood election could confuse voters and cause them to spoil their ballots.

The revelation came as the Scottish National Party stepped up the pressure on Mr Alexander, calling for his resignation.

Yesterday's row came as MSPs gathered at St Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh for the Kirking of the Parliament ceremony. Attended by Prince Charles and Scottish church leaders, the event on the eve of the first meeting of a new parliament, provides a religious blessing for the session.

The Scotsman revealed yesterday that before November, when Mr Alexander made the decision to use a single ballot paper in this year's election, the Scotland Office commissioned independent, focus-group research into draft ballot papers.

That research found that the previous system of two separate papers was "less likely" to lead to the errors reported last week, where voters wrongly made two crosses in a single column.

MPs yesterday summoned Mr Alexander to the Commons to account for the debacle. In the debate, he angered many of his colleagues by failing to apologise for the spoilt-ballot affair and by refusing to order an independent inquiry.

The minister confirmed that the report by market researchers Cragg Ross Dawson had been passed to the Scotland Office in August by the Electoral Commission. Mr Alexander accepted the report found that the separate ballot paper system was "less likely" to mislead voters than his choice. But he said the overall conclusion of the report was supportive of the single ballot paper used last week: 46 of 100 people interviewed chose that design.

Passing the report to the Scotland Office, Sir Neil McIntosh, the Scottish Electoral Commissioner, wrote a letter saying that the research found a single-paper ballot was the popular choice. He did not mention voter error. In the Commons, Mr Alexander told MPs he was now putting "the research findings as received by my office" in the Commons Library. He said: "I do not accept the characterisation of those findings as set out by The Scotsman. Instead, I would take the view set out by Sir Neil McIntosh."

It later emerged that Mr Alexander had not read the research report before he made his decision to replace the separate ballot papers used in 1999 and 2003 with a single paper. The choice of single ballot paper was endorsed last year by all the other major political parties.

Last night, David Cairns, Mr Alexander's deputy at the Scotland Office, revealed that while he had read the report, Mr Alexander had only discussed the document orally. "I read that report," Mr Cairns told BBC Radio Four. "I discussed that report with the Secretary of State, but it was a report sent to me."

David Mundell, the Conservative shadow Scottish secretary, last night said Mr Alexander was trying to use Mr Cairns to shift the blame over the ballot paper decision. He said: "Ultimately, this is Douglas Alexander's responsibility. It is time he faced up to that and issued the apology that people in Scotland want."

And privately, one Labour minister last night told The Scotsman that Mr Alexander's behaviour was "outrageous and pathetic". He said: "Douglas is trying to make out David Cairns should carry the can for this when he took the final decision that led to this cock-up."

In the Commons, Angus Robertson, of the Scottish National Party, insisted the buck stopped with Mr Alexander, calling for him to quit, saying: "The Secretary of State has not fulfilled his responsibilities."

Despite the SNP attack, not a single Labour MP spoke out in Mr Alexander's defence during the hour-long debate. Several were sharply critical of the conduct of the elections.

Mark Lazarowicz, MP for Edinburgh North, said that "great damage has been done to confidence in democracy" by the spoilt ballots. John Robertson of Glasgow North West said: "This is not democracy."

Many Labour MPs are concerned that Mr Alexander is depending on the Electoral Commission to investigate the decisions leading up to last week's debacle, even though it was directly involved in some of those decisions.

"I have grave concerns that people are going to be reviewing the electoral system when they are part of that system," said David Hamilton, Labour MP for Midlothian.

Jim Devine, Labour MP for Livingston, demanded an apology from Mr Alexander and expressed concerns about the commission's ability to be impartial. But Mr Alexander said: "I fail to be convinced by the arguments."

Q & A: What we asked, what he said

1) Is it true that the "mock votes" report was carried out "at the request of the Scotland Office"?

Mr Alexander said it was.

2) The commission says a copy of the report was passed to your office. Is that true?

Mr Alexander said it was passed to the Scotland Office last August.

3) Did you or anyone in your office read the full report before November 2006?

Mr Alexander's deputy, David Cairns, last night said that while he had read the document, Mr Alexander had only discussed it.

4) Given its role in adopting a combined ballot paper, how can the Electoral Commission hold an impartial inquiry?

Mr Alexander said he was "not convinced" of the argument for an independent inquiry.

BIG FOUR ACCUSED

THE main parties in Scotland were last night accused of a "stitch-up" in agreeing the controversial design of the ballot paper for the Holyrood elections to squeeze out the smaller political groups.

Labour, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives all backed plans to have a single ballot paper, a system which has been blamed for the more than 100,000 "spoiled" papers.

Last night, all four parties stuck by the explanations for their stance - given to the Scotland Office in its consultation on the new system in 2006 - and denied that they had acted to gain party political advantage.

The Tories said they had supported putting the constituency vote on the left-hand side of the ballot paper- a move that some believe might have avoided confusion.

But Colin Fox, the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, which failed to get any MSPs elected, said: "This was a stitch-up by the big parties to put the list candidates right next to the constituency candidates, to try to get larger votes for their own political needs. The voting system was like something out of a banana republic - only we haven't got a republic and we haven't got any bananas."

A spokesman for the Greens, who saw their MSPs cut from seven to two, said: "It is appalling that so many voters were disenfranchised.

"The Scotland Office minister, Douglas Alexander, has a lot to answer for in his decision to redesign the ballot paper because it is the Holyrood ballot paper redesign that is at the root of the problem, not holding the local government vote on the same day.

"It is no secret that the intention was clearly to diminish the vote for smaller parties by putting the second vote first. If Mr Alexander intended confusion, he certainly got it - by the ballot-boxload."

He added: "We will watch the various independent legal cases with interest."

Observers draw parallels with Florida shambles

AN ELECTIONS watchdog is calling for electronic scanning machines to be installed in every polling station in Scotland to prevent a repeat of the spoilt papers fiasco.

Robert Richie, the executive director of Fair Vote, who has compared the problems encountered in the Scottish parliamentary and council elections with the "hanging chads" scandal in Florida, which soured the presidential elections in the United States seven years ago, said that there were major lessons to be learned from the Scottish experience.

The American Fair Vote organisation, which was an official observer in Scotland last week, dismissed the claim that voters were confused by having to vote using two different systems - one for the Holyrood parliament and one for councils - as "totally illogical".

Mr Richie said there were different voting systems in some states in America. However, he said that if the ballot papers were properly designed, then there were few problems with voters becoming confused and papers being spoilt.

But the US-based group, which will submit a report on Scotland to the Electoral Commission, is likely to recommend installing scanners at polling stations.

The machines would draw voters' attention to a "mistake", allowing them to resubmit a corrected ballot paper.