Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Official Report 630KB pdf

---

Returning Officers (Payments)

We are slightly ahead of schedule, which is rare for this committee. Item 5 is evidence from witnesses in our short, focused inquiry to explore the purpose and appropriateness of providing payments or fees to returning officers for conducting elections in Scotland.

I welcome Malcolm Burr, who is chair of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers—SOLACE—Scotland; Mary Pitcaithly, who is convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland; Annemarie O’Donnell, who is chief executive of Glasgow City Council; Andy Hunter, who is chair of the Scotland and Northern Ireland branch of the Association of Electoral Administrators; and Ailsa Irvine, who is director of electoral administration and guidance at the Electoral Commission in Scotland. Thank you all for attending this morning—and for indicating that you do not want to make opening statements.

There has been a degree of public concern about the level of payments to returning officers. A number of you submitted helpful evidence covering the purpose of payment and the separation of powers and legal responsibilities between the role of local authority chief executive and the role of returning officer, all of which is clear. I note that, in his submission, Mr Hunter said:

“Any remuneration for any position should be regularly reviewed and evaluated and that of the Returning Officer should also be the case.”

Do the witnesses appreciate why there is public concern about the level of payments? Do you agree with Mr Hunter that now might be a good time to review payments?

Perhaps I can start, convener—and thank you for your welcome.

Public concern is an interesting concept in relation to elections, because 92 per cent of the public, I think, believe that elections are well run. It has certainly not crossed the desk of the organisation that I represent that there is significant public concern about the amounts that returning officers receive.

Of course, the amounts vary considerably, from £2,500 for a smaller rural constituency to higher figures. Without getting into the complexity of the role and all the material that we might come on to discuss, I think that I can say that the system has been in place for some time and has not been a matter of public concern for many years.

Any system benefits from review. Certain aspects of the system we are discussing come to mind. For example, the expectation that depute returning officers, who play a key role in the delivery of elections, are remunerated from the returning officer’s fee—of their charity, as it were—reflects a strange and antediluvian way of remunerating public servants.

Any system benefits from periodic review, and this system has not been reviewed for some time. SOLACE would certainly be happy to contribute to a review.

The Electoral Commission is concerned to ensure that there is public confidence in our democratic process. As Malcolm Burr said, such confidence comes through strongly; there are high levels of satisfaction with the service that is delivered, and we should not take that for granted or be complacent about it—it is down to a considerable amount of hard work.

However, it is not unreasonable to want to review the fees that have been set, to ensure that public confidence can be maintained. The commission would be more than happy to be involved in and to support that work.

Mr Burr does not think that there is concern about the issue. Do you think that there is concern? I suppose that people have to know that payments are made before they can be concerned about them, but my postbag suggests that people know about the payments and are concerned. To say that there is public concern is not to undermine exceptional performance in the running of elections in Scotland. It is good that you think that this is a good time to review the system, but do you understand that there is public concern?

Such concern has not been raised with the Electoral Commission. In the inquiries that we receive, we do not see evidence of a widespread issue. However, it is not unreasonable to look at the system, to ensure that public confidence can be maintained. We have high levels of public confidence, but we do not know exactly what sits behind those. If there are concerns, now is the time to look at the issue.

As members know, I frequently say that the basis of the work of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland is to try to do everything that will build electors’ confidence in the integrity of our system. I cannot say that anyone has raised the issue of fees with me. I think that the issue is quite well known—it has received quite a lot of media coverage—but it is not something that people raise with me. People have concerns about lots of issues to do with elections but not the specific issue that we are talking about.

However, if members are receiving expressions of concern about the issue, you are quite right to instigate some discussion about it, as you are doing. We would be quite happy to participate in the process.

The last thing that returning officers want is for the integrity of the election process to be undermined. All local authorities have job evaluation schemes, which we use to assess the worth of the work that staff undertake. Given the issue that we are discussing, I think that all returning officers, through SOLACE and the EMB, would be happy to participate in an evaluation of the role of returning officers.

Mr Hunter, I probably should have come to you first, because I plucked out one sentence from your evidence. Do you want to add anything?

10:45  

Not particularly. I concur with everything that has been said. As ever, when we are spending public money, we should ensure that that is done appropriately. That is partly why the sentence that you quoted is in the submission.

The issue is partly to do with public understanding of the role. It is not widely known about, and that is why some of the inquiries around the payments are made. That concerns the transparency of the system and people’s confidence in it.

That is helpful. Other members will follow up on the appropriateness of the payments.

At our previous evidence session on the issue, we discussed that fact that the job of a local authority chief executive is a pretty demanding one—I know that MSPs, myself included, correspond with local authority chief executives, and we are aware that it is a challenging job. We also discussed the fact that there are only so many hours in a day and that there are elections pretty much every year—sometimes twice a year.

My next question is for Mary Pitcaithly. In your submission, you set out a list of the tasks that make up what you call the returning officer’s

“Complex and Extensive Work Programme”

and say that the role is separate from chief executive duties. For brevity, I will read out only a few of the tasks on the list. The first bullet point concerns the co-ordination of a communications programme, followed by

“The publication of all relevant statutory notices ... The nomination process ... The production, dispatch and verification of postal votes ... The identification, booking and equipping of polling places ... The recruitment, appointment, training and remuneration of Presiding Officers, Poll Clerks and other polling staff”

and

“Securing a suitable count venue and its operational set up including cabling and media”.

I will stop there, but there are five other bullet points.

The next section of your submission concerns returning officers’ management responsibilities, which include:

“Commanding the required staff and resources to deliver a well-run election ... Drawing in the necessary support, skills and expertise from across the local council ... Overseeing the planning, project management and risk management of the election and incorporating lessons learnt from previous polls”

and

“Identifying any actions necessary to mitigate any issues arising”.

Again, I will stop there, but there are four other items on the list.

Given the demands that are placed on a local authority chief executive, and given the independence of the role of returning officer, surely something has to give from the day job. How do local authority chief executives do their day jobs, which they are pretty well paid for in the first place, as well as doing everything on those lists, for which they receive additional payments?

The day job is complex and demanding. However, when the requirements that are placed on us by the returning officer duty come into play—that is by no means just in the few weeks immediately prior to an election; we have responsibilities year round—we deal with them. In my case—I can speak only for me—that normally means working longer hours. Normally, I try to manage my work in a 60 or 70-hour week, so I would just work longer for the required period of time—I would give up my Saturday or Sunday or whatever time I normally try to protect in order to get some work-life balance.

I emphasise that I am not looking for sympathy. Our jobs are demanding and there is no doubt that the responsibilities and the accountabilities that come with the returning officer job add to the demands that are on us. However, we have people who work with us. We are not suggesting for a minute that we carry out, with no support, each of the tasks that you highlighted—that is absolutely not the case. I am very well supported in my authority by people who are doing the work either because it is their day job or because, as is the case with me, they have taken on responsibilities that are additional to their day job. In the latter case, we expect them to be remunerated for that. Normally, that remuneration comes from the maximum recoverable allowance, which is what Parliament allocates to each of us for the purposes of running elections. That can be done on the basis of additional responsibility payments, overtime or a particular fee that comes from the returning officer. There are all sorts of ways in which we ensure that the staff who do some of those day-to-day tasks are properly remunerated.

In your previous evidence session, minister, there was some suggestion that we were looking after ourselves and not taking care of the people who work for us. I suggest that that is not the case. I am anxious to ensure that the people who are involved in the elections at every level of the process—from those who work 15-hour days in the polling stations to those who work overnight in the counts—are properly remunerated.

I do not want to correct witnesses but, although I love the idea of being called “minister”, I am merely a humble back bencher.

I apologise, convener.

I assure you that “convener” or “Bob” will suffice, but thank you for that.

I have one more point to make before we hear from other witnesses. There are only so many hours in a day and the last time I checked there were only seven days in a week. Lots of people sitting round the table know what it is like to work long hours and to work on Saturdays and Sundays. You could say that that is the gig that we signed up for, but there are no additional moneys for doing that, and nor should there be. Frankly, we are well paid. I believe that local authority chief executives are very well paid for their job. I get the point that there are additional responsibilities; I am merely pointing out that surely something has to give. There must be some part of the local authority day job that is delegated to other officials.

That is not my experience at all. We carry on with our day job and we add to that the additional responsibilities and tasks that have to be done. I cannot recall a situation where a significant part of the day job had to be delegated to somebody else.

But delegation happens more often during election time.

That is genuinely not my experience. I do not have a whole team of people working for me to whom I can delegate tasks. I certainly do not delegate any more than I normally do in the reasonable process of delegating responsibilities in the day job. I do not have to do that more often in the run-up to an election. I do not know whether my colleagues want to add anything to that.

I am curious to hear from the other witnesses. I absolutely take at face value what you are saying, Ms Pitcaithly, but I find it hard to come to terms with the fact that you have all those additional duties that I read out, yet nothing gives in the day job, for which you are well paid. I commend you on that being the case. What is the experience of others round the table?

I agree with Mary Pitcaithly. I am a committed chief executive, and I am also a committed returning officer. I have one officer in Glasgow City Council who has the word “election” in his title—he is my election co-ordinator. You might be familiar with him, convener. I have a number of colleagues who step in to election roles during preparations to assist me in the running of elections, as Mary Pitcaithly has highlighted. However, I do not delegate any of my chief executive role to anyone. That is my role and my role alone in my organisation.

I am not looking for any sympathy, but you have to make personal sacrifices in the run-up to and preparation for elections, particularly when there is more than one poll, as we had this year. Maybe MSPs round the table have similar experiences. Those are the sacrifices of a returning officer. Personally, I make those sacrifices to ensure that the elections for which I am responsible are run with transparency, robustness and full integrity.

The ultimate legal responsibility always sits with you as returning officers, but is some of the work delegated to officials? I think that you were referring to Mr Miller.

Yes. Mr Miller is my election co-ordinator. For the Scottish parliamentary elections, we have a significant electorate in Glasgow across eight constituencies. I have to plan the training for my poll staff, who number around 1,100. I have a number of staff who carry out training on my behalf. I prepare that training and I attend, but I cannot be in seven training rooms at the same time every night over six nights, so I have staff who conduct the training on my behalf.

I have a number of constituency managers who help David Miller and me to identify appropriate polling stations. I have 501 polling stations across 202 polling places. That is a significant exercise that I could not undertake on my own. You start to build your election team in your planning for elections, ensuring that you are using the right resources in the right areas to identify what needs to be put in place to ensure that you deliver the election on the day with precision accuracy.

I will bring in Alexander Stewart in a moment, but I want to check something first.

There were reports in the media that some returning officers had given fee moneys to charity or passed down some of the moneys to other staff. I am not seeking to compel you to say whether that is appropriate, to say what you do, or to say that you prefer not to share that information. However, are there any comments on those media reports?

I think that I would be like most people, in that I would not want to say anything about my charity giving in public; it is not something that we do to get public kudos. However, I normally share my fee with the depute returning officers who work for me.

Okay. Are there any other comments on that?

That would be my position, too, in that I have on occasion shared the fee with depute returning officers.

I think that people around the table will appreciate that I receive the highest fee in Scotland as a returning officer. Like Mary Pitcaithly and Malcolm Burr, I have been asked that question on a number of occasions and I have always responded on the basis that I do not want to disclose what I do with my fee. However, I advise the committee that a number of people and organisations benefit from the returning officer fee.

Obviously, I am not a returning officer, so I cannot answer the question directly. However, any fees that are delegated down to the depute returning officer are clearly marked. The accounts have to be returned by returning officers and therefore that part of the way in which they use the fee is, or can be, made public.

I will carry on with some of the conversations that we have started, including those started by the convener’s questions. Some local authorities have a chief executive, and some, but not all, have deputy chief executives. In some cases, the returning officer is the chief executive. The deputy or assistant chief executives, or whatever those who are the deputy to the chief executive call themselves, sometimes have the role of being the deputy to the returning officer. Some local authorities have a director of democratic services and an election team that is employed, Monday to Friday, to manage elections. I know that that all happens in my relatively small council of Perth and Kinross. I seek some clarity on whether there are similar structures in other local authorities, with officers who are all on similar salaries and who deputise for the chief executive, including in the chief executive’s role as returning officer. That is my first query.

I have certainly never had a depute chief executive to whom I could delegate responsibility. I have three directors—that is an awful lot less than I used to have, and they have their own responsibilities for running their services.

I do not think that the role of depute chief executive is ubiquitous. It is horses for courses, and each local authority sets its own structures. I do not have a head of democratic services. Democratic services are rolled up in the responsibilities of a third-tier officer. We therefore do not all have the structure to which Mr Stewart referred.

However, there are good people with lots of experience in running elections who work with all of us as part of our teams to deliver elections. The team effort is what counts. There are concerns that, as we move forward, some of that expertise and experience will be lost in local authorities as we have to face up to very challenging financial circumstances. Speaking for myself, I have a very committed and experienced team. As we get closer to elections, I really look forward to working with them and to benefiting from their experience, expertise and teamwork. That is what gets us through what are very demanding times for us.

Like Mary Pitcaithly, I do not have a depute chief executive. As I said, I have one officer—our election co-ordinator. I do not have an election team. The resources that I call on in managing elections are hand-picked and are not necessarily grade related, because it is about ability. That has been the case in Glasgow for many years.

I just want to emphasise that the structures, such as they are, of directors, heads of service and so on in relation to chief executive duties are not generally replicated for election duties. Often, the depute returning officer is at service management level, but they will have experience of elections.

11:00  

I have been involved in elections at every level for the past 17 years. I have seen how the yearly event has grown in capacity. During that time, there has been a reduction in staff numbers across local authorities but the election team is still expected to do a similar job to the one that it was doing 17 years ago to ensure that all the policies and procedures are complied with. During that time, we have also seen a massive increase in the number of postal votes.

I have seen an army of individuals coming together to manage an election and ensure that it is run effectively and efficiently, and they have performed that role. The returning officer is an overseer and has a co-ordinating role. Returning officers manage from the top and give direction about where things should go. I acknowledge that the returning officers receive the money and some might choose to distribute it in other ways, but I suspect that not many of the army of people who take part in an election would see remuneration getting to that level.

I can only speak for myself, but I try to ensure that everybody who played a specific role over and above the day job got some form of remuneration for that. People do not work at elections for the money. We are not in it for the money. As local authority officers of whatever level, we are committed to running elections that we can all be proud of at the end of the day. We take pride in the fact that everybody who is entitled to vote can vote, people are not kept waiting in queues, and so on. We do all that not because there might be some money at the end of it, but because we are committed public servants who want to deliver a good job in a core element of our civic life and the democracy of the country.

The returning officer role is one of the most interesting and demanding roles that we play. I can honestly say that the work that people deliver on our behalf and alongside us as part of the team, and the way in which we tackle the responsibilities, is often the best example of the public service ethos.

On the night before the election—and I am talking about midnight—I have to push people out the door and tell them to go home and get some sleep. I know that they will be back again at 5 in the morning manning the election office, waiting for the first call to say that the janitor has not turned up or whatever. People do not do this for money.

It is certainly my practice, and I am sure that it is the practice of all returning officers, to ensure that council employees who perform duties for the returning officer receive remuneration of some kind. It emphasises the separateness of the role.

What Mary Pitcaithly and Malcolm Burr have said is accurate. The staff who work with me in the running of elections are all remunerated and we have a scheme for doing that that shows the rate that we pay associated with the responsibilities that the staff undertake. There are tasks that have to be done throughout the year to do with new legislation and planning for next year’s elections with the new counting system. We all need to be familiar with how that operates so that it runs smoothly on the night.

Does Alexander Stewart want to follow up on any of that?

I am content.

Andy Hunter says in his submission that the returning officer duties

“are the personal responsibility of the RO and as such are answerable directly to the courts for any question or failure in these duties. The RO is not responsible to the Local Authority”.

Mary Pitcaithly says:

“Where the administration of elections is totally removed from local authorities it can be a challenge to access the resources and staff that are necessary to deliver the polls and the count.”

Is it not the fact that, despite the supposed separation that your submissions talk about, it is part of the chief executive’s role to be the returning officer? For example, can a chief executive say, “Do you know something? I’m working 70 hours a week already”? We have heard chief executives talk about continuing to do their day jobs throughout the process. Can a chief executive say, “Frankly, given the amount of work I’m doing and the fact that I’ve got a life outside the local authority, I’m not going to be the returning officer”?

We will take some reflections on that. I promise Ms Pitcaithly that I will let her respond, but as Mr Hunter was name checked this time, I will allow him in first. After that, it would be interesting to know whether Ms Irvine has a reflection on that before we hear from those who have been returning officers over a number of years.

Unless I am mistaken, the chief executive does not have to accept the post. The returning officer is appointed by the elected members of the council, and they could pick someone else for whom it would not impact on their day job, if you like. There are other ways; I do not think that there is an automatic expectation that it will be the chief executive. It does not have to be like that, although people in some areas do feel that. If that is not appropriate for a council, it has options to work it in a different way, if need be.

On resources, I will give an example from my council. We bring in an external person to support the election team because the resources that are available to the council are now extremely tight and we find that that is a more suitable approach than trying to take a member of staff out of their day job to support the returning officer in their duties.

Okay. Ms Irvine, do not feel that you need to answer, but do you have any reflections on that issue before I bring in our other witnesses?

Andy Hunter made a lot of the points that I would have made. Across Scotland, as I understand it, two returning officers have been appointed by their local authority who do not also hold the job of chief executive.

It is important to note that, within the legal framework, there is a requirement for councils to put resources at the disposal of the returning officer to help them to discharge their function. The chief executive or another senior officer of the local authority, even when they are not acting in their usual role, will have good local knowledge and the ability to command resources, which will enable them to deliver the role on the ground. The scale of the local knowledge and experience is really important. There are about 5,000 polling stations in Scotland, and it is important to have people in each local authority who understand their area and can command the buildings and premises for that use.

There are other models that can be used, but if the returning officer is the chief executive or another senior officer in the authority, they can ensure that the resources are made available for the proper running of the election, and that is helpful.

Our staff resources are diminishing all the time, and I have heard of a situation where a service in one local authority decided very late on that it could not release the staff to work at the election as it needed them at their desks. The returning officer, who happened to be the chief executive, was able to say that that simply could not happen and that the people had been appointed and would turn up. I cannot remember whether it was for polling day duties or the count, but the chief executive said that they would be freed up for the purpose.

That is really important, because otherwise it would be difficult to replace people at very short notice to carry out those responsibilities. Other people would not have had the training that is required and they would not necessarily have the tools to do the job. It is important that we are able to say that premises and staff can be used and that we can carry on using those resources.

Under other models, such as in places where there is centralised elections administration and a national office, some of those issues have bedevilled organisations. They have had difficulties in trying to find thousands of staff to work on the day, the premises that are required, the enumerators and so on, and some of those places are looking to go back to something closer to the Scottish model, where local knowledge and local resources are really important.

I can speak only from a Glasgow perspective, but I add that, in running an election, there is no plan B. Polling stations need to be open at 7 o’clock on poll day. I suppose that there are two aspects to that. A significant number of our polling stations—in fact, the overwhelming majority—are schools. The schools work with the education authority on those planned elections and are closed on poll days—as in-service days—so that the school year and teaching are not disrupted.

The second aspect is staffing levels. To give a picture of the scale of the resource, on poll day in May this year I had 2,800 people working for me in polling stations, on the count and on the election team. My constituency managers were out and about throughout the city ensuring that polling stations were open and not obstructed, that we had a count, and that all the boxes were in post-10 o’clock. Having those resources at my fingertips means that I can call on them when necessary. If elections were run outwith the organisation of a local authority, it would be significantly more challenging to call on those resources.

Does Mr Burr want to add anything?

I have nothing to add to that.

We went off the topic a wee bit. My question was simply whether chief executives have to do that job. I understand that, out of 32 councils, two chief executives do not do that job.

I want to follow up on a couple of things. I do not know whether anyone else feels uncomfortable about the fact that it is up to the returning officer to decide whether he or she allocates some of the fee to another member of staff, a charity or whatever. I was not aware of that. I thought that the fee went to the individual. Do you feel that the fee, regardless of what it is, should be specific to an individual and that who gets what should not be up to the largesse of the returning officer? The system seems bizarre.

I agree. It is an odd situation. As a matter of principle, for every duty, task or responsibility that is given in public life, it is customary to make a payment that reflects those duties and responsibilities. That should be the same for returning officers, deputes and anyone else who is involved in the election process. That is why I support the idea of a review of the system. If clearly defined and accountable public duties are given—and clearly they are given in this case—anyone who is involved in performing them should be appropriately remunerated.

I would add only that the fee is not the only sum that is made available by Parliament for us to run elections. Each of us also has a maximum recoverable amount, from which we make normal payments to polling staff, enumerators and members of our election team.

Yes. I was aware of that. Just one final point—

Does Ms O’Donnell want to comment on that?

No.

I did not think that anyone else wanted to come in.

As far as I am aware, everyone in this room believes that elections in Scotland are run very well and efficiently. I have never heard any complaints in the 15 elections that I have contested in my many years in politics. I am not a whippersnapper like Alexander Stewart.

Andy Hunter says in his submission:

“any fee applicable to the role can also be withheld for ‘poor performance’, as determined by the Secretary of State following the advice of the independent Electoral Commission.”

Has that ever happened in Scotland?

I am not aware of it happening in Scotland. I am also not aware of any circumstance in which I would expect it to have happened.

The commission has had the power to withhold the fee in certain elections since 2014. Since then, there have been no instances in Scotland of a recommendation to withhold a fee.

What about before 2014?

We did not have the power before then. I am not aware of any issues, in the immediate period preceding that, that would have led to such a recommendation. We have a clear published procedure that we go through to ensure that we give due regard to all the different aspects and the reasons for the issue that has arisen and how it was dealt with, but there has been no need even to invoke that procedure in the period since 2014.

My question is for Mary Pitcaithly. You said that councils have to appoint a returning officer, who must be a senior officer of the council. There is no choice in that. You also said that you are committed to ensuring that elections are run smoothly and properly, and we are all agreed that they are.

You are committed to public service. You are also very well paid. Chief executives are extremely well paid. Is it not reasonable to expect that chief executives, or indeed senior officers, should just see the returning officer role as part of their job—as part of the public service that they are employed to deliver?

11:15  

The reality is that it is not part of the day job. The day job continues and that is what we get paid for. We are not saying that we are not well paid, but there are many people in public service who receive significantly higher salaries than we do.

The issue is around whether these responsibilities could just be rolled up with those of the chief executive. We have set out in our submission—as did the AEA, the Electoral Commission and a number of your witnesses last week—why that would not be appropriate. I do not propose to rehearse all that again; it is all in our submission.

As to whether there is any option for a council to appoint a senior officer as a returning officer, again, we are working with the law that we have. There is a legal separation of duties; there is an accountability that comes with the role of returning officer that is different from the accountabilities of a chief executive or a director of law and administration or whatever the day job role is; and there is a level of responsibility, and indeed a required level of work, that is remunerated differently from the day job.

Those are the rules that have been set out by Parliament over many, many years. They are not rules that we have devised. They are what they are. It is helpful that you are looking at this, but the legislation is quite clear and the separation of duties is quite clear. I think that all your witnesses have expressed why they think that should be a very important consideration for you before you start reviewing the wider system.

I understand that very well—we all do. The legislation is what it is. However, we are here to look at whether the system that we have is the right system. You all seem to have accepted that there is public concern over these extra payments—certainly we are all aware of that. The question for us is whether that system should continue. What do you guys think?

I believe that the system delivers very good value to the Scottish public purse for the delivery of elections. As I have said, it has aye been, to a certain extent, and therefore it may benefit from a review. However, the principles are very important—those who manage, declare and return at whatever level should not be accountable to those whom they declare elected. There must be independence for these processes. The 1983 act put that very baldly, almost as if to say that there should be no doubt that the person who discharges these functions holds office quite separately from whatever other role he or she holds—usually, chief executive of a council.

If that point is accepted, the committee might want to look at the most cost-effective way of making sure that the processes are properly observed, that elections are delivered efficiently and so on. The current system, whatever is thought of it, certainly provides a very cost-effective way of delivering elections effectively.

You do not need what are sometimes very hefty extra fees to carry out that role independently and properly, do you?

Personally, I do not think that the fees can be described as hefty in all cases; they vary considerably.

I said “sometimes” and did not mean all the time.

Indeed. As I have said, any remuneration system should be processed separately from those who benefit from it. If the committee is minded to recommend a review of how the payments are calculated and made, there are various models for how that could be done. As my colleague from Glasgow said, there are systems of evaluation that could be adopted. Certainly, SOLACE would be happy to participate in a review.

Do you have anything to add, Mr Simpson?

I guess that the question for everyone is, if we were to get rid of fees for returning officers and move to a different system—either of having no fees, or spreading the fees across the team that delivers the election—would that affect the performance of the election team?

Does anyone want to respond? No? Perhaps the witnesses want more clarity on what is being asked. Are you suggesting—

I am merely asking whether money makes any difference.

I think that Mr Simpson is asking whether you would sign up to the role if you did not get additional money for it.

I have already said that none of my colleagues takes their responsibilities for elections lightly and none of them does that work purely because there is money involved. I have nothing to add, other than that we are not in it for the money; we do election work because we have a personal commitment, as do committee members, to upholding and enabling democracy.

I am very proud of my record in assisting the running of elections for nearly 20 years and being the returning officer for the past two years. The role comes with significant pressure and responsibility. As my colleague Mary Pitcaithly has just reminded me, no one goes into running elections to make a career, but it can end a career. That is an important point. We have to deliver elections with precision and accuracy. If we fail to do that, our reputations and careers are jeopardised as a consequence.

As Mary Pitcaithly indicated, where there is work, there is usually worth and recognition of the role that we have. As Malcolm Burr said, we are happy to participate in a review of remuneration, but what would such a review look at? Would it be the whole election process or simply the remuneration for returning officers? It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that we look at what works very well and the great integrity that we have in the system for managing elections. As Mary Pitcaithly indicated, our system is viewed as a gold standard. That does not happen without significant effort. However, we are more than happy to contribute to a review of how the system is managed.

I am tempted to respond, but this is Mr Simpson’s line of questioning. Do you want to follow up on that, Mr Simpson?

No, that is fine.

Andy Wightman has a question.

I thank the witnesses for coming today. Our inquiry is on the appropriateness of payments, although it is a short inquiry. As the witnesses will be aware, the law commissions of England, Wales and Scotland have called for a review of the law in relation to elections in general. Recommendation 10-9 in their report states:

“The lead returning officer and”

their

“functions should be governed by secondary legislation”,

and so on. Recommendation 3-2 states:

“Electoral law should set out the powers and duties of returning officers for all elections within the legislative competence of the parliaments and governments within the United Kingdom.”

I think that it is broadly agreed that reform is coming.

As has been said, councils have to appoint an officer of the authority for elections. Section 27 of the 1983 act makes it clear that

“the office of returning officer is ... distinct”.

Malcolm Burr said that remuneration emphasises the separateness of the role, but surely it is section 27 of the 1983 act that does that. Remuneration is governed by section 29 of the 1983 act, which gives a returning officer the authority to make a claim for fees up to the maximum allowed. My question for Mr Burr relates to Annemarie O’Donnell’s last point, which is that a career can be jeopardised by a failure to deliver an election properly. If the role of returning officer is distinct, would it not just be the person’s career as returning officer that would be over, which would not impact on their career as a chief executive?

Before you answer that, Mr Burr, I should point out that we do not want anyone’s career to be over.

The experience of some chief executives in other jurisdictions who happen to be returning officers might give rise to questions as to whether it is their career as returning officer rather than as chief executive that is jeopardised.

On the point of principle, where there is a distinct set of responsibilities of a statutory nature giving personal legal responsibility for any act, a contract has been entered into, as it were, for the discharge of those duties. It is both appropriate and customary that, where duties of that nature and that level of importance are required, that is reflected by some means of remuneration.

Do you accept that it is not the remuneration that emphasises the separateness of the role but the statutory provision in section 27? In theory, in future, the statutory provision in section 27 that emphasises the distinctiveness of the role could remain if the returning officer role was wrapped into the chief executive role. The provision could emphasise that, when undertaking the returning officer role, a person is no longer accountable to the council, as they are in their chief executive role. They would almost step out of that role. The statutory provision can continue to insist that the role is separate, but the remuneration itself has no role to play in emphasising that distinction.

Yes, you are correct that the statute gives the responsibility. That would obviously require a discussion between individual returning officers and the councils that appoint them. The act could simply declare who holds the role, provided that the independence of the role was safeguarded in law.

Section 29 of the 1983 act allows for the fee to include pension payments. Do the fees routinely include pension payments, or is it up to the returning officer to make a claim for that?

Certainly, mine do not, but I cannot speak for all of Scotland.

I think that the situation differs depending on the legislation that is passed. More recently, the provision for payments to be superannuable has not applied. That was more common previously. Those are matters for Parliament when it looks at the fees and charges order.

Does anyone want to add to that?

I want to pick up on Mr Wightman’s important point about the law commissions’ review. The law commissions across the UK are working together closely on that. We have been very supportive of that holistic process of looking at how the whole system, including the legislation on these sorts of issues, can be updated, modernised and kept fresh and as clear as possible for the benefit of voters. There are issues around picking out individual aspects of that in one jurisdiction in the UK that are not mirrored elsewhere. You might want to consider that.

The superannuation provision does not apply every time. Generally with referendums, returning officers decide whether or not to do that. As I think Mr Burr said, any review of the payments would also need to consider that element and whether it is the right thing to do as part of the remuneration.

We heard evidence last week—I apologise, but I do not recall which witness said this—that the remuneration is made not because of the labour but because of the significant responsibility that goes with the role. We have heard this morning from Mary Pitcaithly that in fact it is at least in part for labour—you work weekends and extra hours to deliver this. Can you give us a flavour of the extent to which you feel that remuneration is a reward for the responsibility and/or the labour?

11:30  

I will illustrate that by way of example, convener, if I may. Members might recall that my colleague Alistair Buchan, the returning officer for Orkney, found himself incurring legal fees and being a party to an action in the election court, following the disputed election of the member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland, despite the fact that no party to the action questioned the conduct of the election. That is an example of the personal responsibility that returning officers bear—it has nothing to do with the employer, and the fees become the responsibility of the returning officer, even when the conduct of the election is not in question. The payment reflects—notionally, in that case, I have to say—responsibility as well as hard work.

I do not think that the responsibility and the labour are mutually exclusive. The payment is for carrying out the entire duties, as laid out in various bits of legislation, and reflects not just the level of accountability and responsibility that was exemplified in the case that Malcolm Burr mentioned but the tasks that have to be carried out, many of which are time critical and require a huge amount of co-ordination.

The example that Malcolm Burr gave from Orkney was helpful. Are you aware whether the returning officer incurred personal costs that related to his involvement in the legal action?

I am not aware of that.

If a returning officer finds themselves involved in a legal action, either as a party at some distance or directly, are they personally liable for their legal costs? Is that the case?

That has to be the case, unless the costs are covered by insurance.

I think that in one of the submissions it was suggested that insurance is routinely bought in by returning officers. I presume that it is up to the returning officer to do that. Do you know how many returning officers insure themselves against legal costs?

I imagine that all returning officers do so. However, as we all know, insurance policies do not always cover every eventuality.

Insurance does not cover what is technically considered a fine. There is a requirement for the returning officer to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998, and if someone who was operating within the scope of a returning officer breached the act and the commissioner felt the need to issue a fine, the fine would be the personal liability of the returning officer. As I understand it, the insurance policy would not cover that. There is only so much that can be done, and there are personal liabilities and dangers out there for returning officers that insurance will not sort out.

As my colleague from Glasgow pointed out, there are issues to do with reputation. We saw what happened in Barnet earlier this year, when the returning officer and chief executive of Barnet Council resigned very quickly after a difficulty occurred in relation to the registers that were available in polling stations—that had such an impact.

If members have further questions, please indicate. I have a final question.

From the sum of the evidence that we have received, we know that the level of payment depends on the size of the local authority and on whether it is a European, UK or Scottish election. In a UK election, the level is determined at UK level, in a Scottish election it is determined, I think, in the Scottish Parliament, and in a local authority election it is determined at local authority level. There is a variety of practice in how returning officers dispose of the income that they get, irrespective of how much it is. Sometimes that is disclosed and sometimes it is not.

We have discussed the additional workload burdens that are placed on a local authority chief executive in their capacity as returning officer and whether there is a displacement effect, with other people picking up work—that is where I started my line of questioning, which was about the interaction between the substantial salary of a chief executive and the additional moneys that go to a returning officer.

My question might be more for Mr Hunter and Ms Irvine. Leaving aside the level of payment to returning officers, is there a need for more clarity and consistency, given that muddied or inconsistent approach to everything? Must there be changes? This is a bit like leading the witness, I know, but, bearing in mind that we will eventually make some recommendations, if you agree that there should be changes, what do you think should be a good direction of travel?

Earlier, we outlined the fact that reviews are always necessary and that it is always worth being open and transparent. If there is public concern relating to the amounts or the idea of the payments, we should make the process of any review as clear and transparent as possible, whether or not there are changes.

It would be beneficial if there were a more consistent approach. Ms O’Donnell referred to job evaluation schemes as being one way to approach the issue, and I would be happy to be involved in that.

As I said earlier, the Electoral Commission is happy to be involved in any review. The important thing is safeguarding the principles of independence and accountability and ensuring that anything that we go into is fully evidence based and considers all the risks of any change to the system.

On transparency, the Electoral Commission is responsible in relation to the fees and charges that were set by the UK Parliament for the European Union referendum in June this year. Once we have received all the accounts and claims for fees and charges for the election, we will publish a comprehensive report in order to bring transparency to the issue of how money was spent in that referendum.

We have been calling on the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament to do the same thing for European, UK and Scottish parliamentary elections in 2014, 2015 and 2016. We look forward to that information being published and bringing greater transparency to the question of what elections cost.

That is helpful. I will follow up on that but, before I do, I want to indicate to witnesses that we are about to close the evidence session and I will give everyone an opportunity to make final comments before we do.

On the call for the data about the 2014, 2015 and 2016 elections to be published, I will be interested to see what the Electoral Commission publishes. Is there a need for consistency in relation to that information? Should the information be presented in the same way, using the same criteria and so on, so that there can be a read-across and it is possible to see which payments go where and why they are made? Is it possible for there to be some joint working in that regard?

Presenting the information in the same way would be helpful, as it would allow there to be a comparison of costs and would enable the data to be analysed in a way that means that we can understand what we are getting for our money. I think that what you suggest could be done, particularly given that the legal frameworks in terms of how the maximum recoverable amounts are set are similar. I do not think that that would be particularly difficult to achieve if there was joint working. Given our role in the EU referendum, we would be happy to be involved in that.

I see that Mr Wightman is gesticulating at me. Do you want to ask a brief supplementary question?

Yes, I have a final question. Mr Hunter, are returning officers members of the Association of Electoral Administrators?

Not all of them; membership is not automatic. A large number of them are, though.

I see that you have an annual conference in February next year. Will they attend that using their own holiday time and at their own expense, or do they use their returning officer payments?

I could not answer for each individual returning officer.

We will leave that hanging there.

The local authority chief executives who are present today have acted as returning officers on a number of occasions, and we should acknowledge that elections have been run successfully in Scotland, despite the fact that we are looking at the appropriateness of the payments and will report on that and make recommendations. It would be appropriate not only to thank them for coming today but also to give them the opportunity to make any final comments that they might wish to make.

We are in the happy position of discussing a system that is working well. That system places personal legal responsibility for a complex range of tasks on returning officers. It is a system that has grown incrementally—there is no doubt about that—and, like any system, it would benefit from a review from time to time. SOLACE will certainly be happy to participate in any such review.

Does Mary Pitcaithly have anything to add to that?

No, I have nothing to add.

I thank all our witnesses for attending. We now move into private session.

11:40 Meeting continued in private until 12:22.