Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, March 4, 2021

Official Report 545KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Amendment (Coronavirus) Order 2021 [Draft]

Under item 2, the committee will take evidence on the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Amendment (Coronavirus) Order 2021 and the Scottish Parliament general election. Joining us are the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, Graeme Dey, and Roddy Angus, Colin Brown and Iain Hockenhull, who are his officials.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Following that, there will be questions from members.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to explain the Government’s thinking behind the order that is before the committee for consideration.

It was not our intention to make any further changes to the legislation ahead of the Scottish Parliament election on 6 May. However, when we were approached by the Electoral Commission with the recommendation that the legislation should be amended to allow for an emergency change of proxy, I felt that it was in the best interests of the voters to make that small but important change. Therefore, I introduced the order, which will allow for an elector to change the person whom they have nominated as their proxy should their original proxy be unable to vote due to the need to follow Scottish Government or medical advice in relation to coronavirus. That change will help to ensure that everyone will be able to cast their vote on 6 May.

As we were proposing to make that change, I thought that it was appropriate to make two other changes at the same time. During the drafting process for the order, my officials noticed that a cross-reference in relation to the material to accompany absent vote applications was wrong. Actually, it has been wrong for 14 years without causing any issues, but we have taken the opportunity to correct that minor error.

Members will remember that one of the provisions in the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2020, which we discussed at the committee’s meeting on 26 November last year, allows for an emergency proxy to be granted in a situation in which, even though the disability happened before the deadline for a normal proxy appointment, the applicant was unable to apply before that deadline. Subsequent to the making of that order, the Electoral Commission alerted us to the risk that the definition of “disability” in the amending provision may have unintentionally limited its effect by not allowing applications where the incapacity event is short term. We are taking the opportunity to address that concern and ensure that that option is available to those suffering from a long-term or a short-term disability.

I hope that members will agree that those changes are for the benefit of the voter and that they will therefore support the order.

Thank you very much, minister.

Members of the committee have the opportunity to ask questions on the issues. I am looking to see whether anybody has indicated in the chat box that they have a question. Nobody has done so, so I will run through names and we will see whether anybody has a question.

Does Patrick Harvie have a question?

Yes—thank you, convener. Good morning, minister.

The arrangements for emergency proxies are fairly new. Are they being brought in specifically for coronavirus reasons? Will people be required to demonstrate that the need to change their proxy at the last minute is due to such a reason? Has any assessment been done of the likely demand for proxies? Will there be additional capacity, or will measures be put in place to ensure that electoral registration officers will be able to cope with the volume of applications and any last-minute changes that might take place?

In the context of resourcing, EROs have been well aware for some time of the possible demand that might arise, and they have been resourcing up. For example, electoral registration officers would have the flexibility to use members of staff who normally work on the valuations front to provide assistance with elections.

It is correct that the arrangements have been introduced for coronavirus reasons. For some months, and working with the committee in particular, we have recognised the situation that we are in and responded accordingly so as to maximise the opportunity for individuals to cast their votes.

On your question about whether people would have to demonstrate their entitlement to a proxy, an elector would not have to demonstrate need as such; they would simply have to explain why a replacement proxy was needed. The electoral registration officer could undertake inquiries if they felt that to be necessary—for example, they could contact the original proxy. The arrangements are designed to make the system as simple as possible, taking into account the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

That is fine, convener. Thank you.

A couple of members would like to ask questions. John Scott would like to ask a question, and Gil Paterson would like to ask one on the back of that.

I want to ask a couple of questions about that. Would an elector be required to demonstrate that their request for an alternative proxy was due to coronavirus, or could that be for any reason?

Can I bring in Iain Hockenhull to provide detail on that, convener?

Of course.

Good morning. As the minister mentioned, there is no requirement to demonstrate a particular need. The ERO would undertake assessment on a case-by-case basis. They could undertake further inquiries to confirm that the application was valid, including, in relation to a replacement proxy, contacting the original one. However, no particular bar is being raised.

I see. So there are no grounds on which an application might be rejected.

If the ERO thinks that there is reason for suspicion, they are always able to undertake further inquiries. However, given the circumstances of the pandemic, they would base their assessment primarily on what the person was saying.

What level of proof might be required?

We could take that away and ask the registration officers to give further examples, if that would be helpful.

Yes, that would be helpful.

Could the minister say something about that?

That would be useful to help Mr Scott. I should be clear that the normal set of criteria would have to be met in order to reject a proxy application. As we know, there are criteria that qualify someone to be a proxy. The individual who was being appointed proxy would have to be 16 or over, registered to vote or in the process of being so registered, and eligible to vote in the election, and also not a proxy for more than two people to whom they are closely related. Not meeting those criteria could therefore provide grounds on which an application could be rejected, but those criteria apply to any proxy.

Thanks very much.

I think that my question has mostly been answered already. That response was helpful, and I am supportive of the order. However, I can see a situation possibly arising on the day of the election. My question is about a change of proxy. If the proxy was a key worker and their employer asked them to respond to an emergency—perhaps a staff shortage among ambulance drivers, for instance—would that be a reason to change the proxy?

I would expect so, but I will turn to my experts to confirm that. Iain Hockenhull or Roddy Angus could answer that question.

That is not covered specifically by these regulations, which relate only to the situation in which the proxy is unable to vote due to specific coronavirus-related reasons, such as medical advice to shield or self-isolate. There might be an opportunity to apply for a new emergency proxy, but that would depend on the individual circumstances on the day.

I am sorry—I was referring to the emergency proxy. I am more interested in the emergency provisions at the moment, but thanks. That is a good answer.

Minister, in your statement to Parliament yesterday on coronavirus and the uptake of postal votes, you mentioned that political parties’ transporting electors to polling stations in their cars, as they normally do, would not be allowed, unless it is family, I suppose, and they would still be allowed only two people in the car. If someone is unable to walk to the polling station and cannot be transported, would that count as a short-term incapacity so that they could get an emergency proxy up until 5 o’clock on the day?

May I bring Roddy Angus in on that? I want to reflect on that, because I am not entirely sure that it would.

If somebody is concerned about their ability to get to the polling station, they would have to use the normal procedures for applying for a postal vote or a proxy vote. They should not rely on somebody to give them a lift if they do not know that that can definitely happen. The amendments in the order would not affect that position.

Do you not think that they should? With the best will in the world and the best publicity in the world, there will be people who will not realise that their normal, friendly political party that they belong to or support will not be able to transport them as it has done for election after election. If they have relied on that and they are not normally mobile enough to walk, they will not be able to vote. I would have thought that that was a fairly good reason for an emergency proxy.

I do not know whether that is a good reason, Ms Watt, because there has been a great deal of awareness raising about the alternative options for voting. It has been the case for some time that providing lifts—car sharing, if you like—is a no-no under the restrictions, so I am not convinced by that argument. However, I accept that we should take away from this the fact that there is a need to continue to raise awareness of access to postal voting and the proxy system to minimise the risk that you highlight, although it is a relatively small risk.

Are family members still able to take one member of their family—an older or infirm member of their family—in the car to the polling station?

The wider restrictions at the time of the election on family interaction and car travel would operate with regard to that family member.

What sort of supervision or oversight will there be? I can foresee that there will be breaches of the coronavirus rules in relation to this.

Do you mean in the context of parties or individuals?

Both, really.

09:15  

As we know, individuals’ behaviour is very difficult to police—if we want to use that word. As for political parties, the dialogue that I have had with the parties that are represented in the Parliament has given me confidence that a considerable degree of responsibility will be exercised in the conduct of the election. Yes, there will be instances in which individuals act in a way that is not in the spirit of the guidance, but I hope that I am not being naive in saying that I do not believe that the parties that are represented in the Parliament, which are the main parties, will act in a way that is contrary to what has been strongly agreed. That includes giving voters lifts to polling stations.

However, I take your point. We need to take away from this the thought about raising awareness and perhaps doing some messaging to explain that that option will not be available and now is the time for people to obtain a postal vote—or a proxy vote, where appropriate—to ensure that they can cast their ballot.

Thank you.

Minister, can you give us an idea of the potential turnout at the election in May?

That is difficult to judge, Mr Findlay. We are having further surveys done—such work has been done a couple of times in the past, as you are aware—to gauge public interest in taking part in the election and people’s opinions on how they would prefer to take part.

The uptake in applications for postal votes has been encouraging. I do not think that the numbers will get to the higher end of what was considered possible, but there are indications that a larger number of people than usual will vote by post. It is difficult to predict turnout at this stage, but there are signs that people are taking steps to ensure that they are able to vote, regardless of the circumstances.

Thank you for the non-answer, minister—and I understand why you gave a non-committal response.

You said that applications for postal votes are “encouraging”. What does that mean in numbers or percentages?

We have some numbers. Off the top of my head, I think that, up to about a week ago, about 75,000 new postal votes had been issued. Obviously, applications are still being processed. From 15 March, we will publish postal vote uptake numbers weekly by local authority area. I anticipate that there will be an increase in proxy vote applications, too.

In the week commencing 22 March, the Electoral Commission will issue its booklet on the election, and I anticipate that there will be a further upturn in applications for postal votes at that point. I anticipate that there will be a steady stream of applications up to 6 April, because political parties will be encouraging their identified supporters to engage.

You said that I gave you a “non-answer”; I did so because I do not have a crystal ball. The election is some way off. Right now, is the election the biggest thing in the minds of the electorate? No, it is not; responding to the demands of the pandemic is the biggest thing, and that might continue to be the case. We will see how interest increases as a result of the democratic engagement that we have agreed will be possible in the lead-up to the election.

Like Neil Findlay, I earnestly hope for a bigger turnout than we had in 2016, which, if memory serves me well, was the biggest ever in a Scottish Parliament election—not that the number was anything to be pleased about. Time will tell.

Including the 70,000 people who have registered, what percentage are we sitting on at the moment?

It varies around the country.

What is the Scotland figure?

I cannot give you the Scotland figure, because the numbers that we have are incomplete by three electoral areas. I am more than happy, as a matter of urgency, to write to the committee once I am in possession and in a position to make you aware of the overall Scotland number.

What is being done to promote postal voting? I am sure that you will tell me that a big list of things has been done, but I do not feel as though I am tripping over adverts, presentations on social media or whatever. I see the occasional promotion, but the measures do not seem to be having much impact.

There was a series of television adverts on the subject; there has been social media activity; and, as you will recall, the Government funded a letter issued by local EROs to every household in Scotland, which directed people’s attention to who is registered at their address, who has a postal vote and how they can go about rectifying anomalies. I received that letter where I live. Anecdotally, I hear that everybody else has, although the letters did not go out at exactly the same time. There has been direct contact, TV advertising and social media activity.

I listened to Maureen Watt’s point about people expecting to get a lift to the polling station. We will take your point away, too, Mr Findlay, and have a look at what more we can do. I assume that all political parties will encourage their identified supporters to take up the postal vote option. There is a limit to what we can do, but we are certainly attempting to maximise understanding of the options. As I said earlier, the Electoral Commission booklet goes out in the week commencing 22 March. We are doing as much as we can to raise awareness. Ultimately, it is up to the public to decide whether they want to obtain a postal vote or turn up to the polling station, which a lot of people will do.

Oliver Mundell, do you have a question?

No, I do not. I am fairly satisfied with what the minister has set out.

You can come back in later, if required. Gil Paterson, I believe that you want to come back in.

Yes, if you do not mind. It is in relation to an answer that Graeme Dey gave to Neil Findlay. The minister pointed out that there has already been an uptake in applications for postal votes. There was previously some concern that there might be a rush at the last moment to register for a postal vote. Is there any evidence—in the light of what he said, it sounds as though there is—to suggest that things are more advanced than anticipated, and that the rush that you were worried about might not materialise or might not be as bad as usual?

It is reasonable to assume that there will be a surge towards the end—there always is. We set out to get people to apply far earlier and we appear to be achieving that goal. There are encouraging signs, although the uptake is not massive—I do not want to suggest that it is.

There are the postal votes that have been issued so far, plus the applications that are being processed; then we will have the Electoral Commission publicity and awareness being raised more generally by political parties. I suspect that the trajectory will be fairly smooth rather than there being a massive rush at the end, although, to an extent, we are geared up for a surge in the final week or two.

I am happy to keep committee members updated on the progress that is being made. For as long as we are sitting as a Parliament, I will write to the committee and keep you posted.

Can the minister provide an update on what is being done to ensure the timely delivery of postal votes for Scottish armed forces electors who are posted overseas?

I should say that, in a general sense—I will take the opportunity to get across this message—the Electoral Commission and the electoral authorities are engaging with Royal Mail to ensure the swift delivery of postal votes during the process, as that is obviously very important.

Service personnel who are based overseas or expect to be posted abroad in the forthcoming year are encouraged to register as service voters. That enables them to be registered to a fixed address in the United Kingdom. The Electoral Commission works directly with the Ministry of Defence to provide information and assurance around access to postal voting.

With regard to ensuring the swift delivery of votes, do you have a particular concern or case that is causing you worry?

No, I am just seeking general reassurance that that aspect is being dealt with.

There is a standard process in place to ensure that such voting can happen. I am not aware of instances where there has been a problem. I think that there is a good working relationship between the Electoral Commission and the MOD.

Have you had any feedback from electoral administrators on the impact of moving the deadline for postal votes by 10 working day, from 20 April to 6 April?

I have had feedback—not directly, but indirectly—that there is some satisfaction that the arrangements are working well, in so far as the electoral administrators want the additional time at the end to process a larger number of those votes than usual. I am hearing that they are pleased that the uptake is occurring as early as it has been in the process, because they have been able to cope with that, instead of being hit with a massive surge at the end.

I understand that the electoral administrators, because of how we have set up things—which was done at their suggestion—in looking at the numbers of applications that they have and the numbers that they anticipate to get, are comfortable that they will be able to utilise the time appropriately from the deadline of 6 April to the issuing of postal votes. I understand that the first batch will be issued on about 16 April and the next batch on 26 April. The feedback that I have received through the Electoral Management Board for Scotland is that things are going as it hoped that they would.

I thank the minister and his officials for their evidence in this session.

We move to item 3. I invite the minister to move and speak to motion S5M-24190.

Motion moved,

That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Amendment (Coronavirus) Order 2021 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey]

No member wishes to speak to the motion. Do you have any closing remarks, minister.

No, I am content, convener, thank you.

Motion agreed to.

I confirm that members are content for me to sign off the committee’s report on the instrument.

The minister will remain for the next item, although I believe that there be a change of officials.