Local Government and Regeneration Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Official Report 519KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment (No 2) Order 2012 [Draft]

Agenda item 3 is oral evidence from the Minister for Local Government and Planning and Government officials on the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment (No 2) Order 2012. The minister has lodged a motion to approve the order, and that motion will be considered formally after evidence. Members have received a paper setting out the purpose of the instrument. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has no comments to make on the instrument.

I welcome Derek Mackay MSP, who is the Minister for Local Government and Planning; Stephen Sadler, who is head of the Scottish Government’s elections team; and Jaime Neal, who is a policy officer in that team. Does the minister want to make opening remarks?

I welcome the opportunity to debate the local government elections order and to speak to the motion in my name.

We recognise the progress that has been made since the Gould report and the overall successful running of the Scottish local government elections, which I suspect we will discuss shortly. The Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board reports both make useful recommendations that we can build upon to improve future elections in Scotland. We recognise that there is no room for complacency and that there are various areas to address, which in general terms include work on postal voting, the ordering of names on the ballot paper and increasing voter turnout. I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on those.

Regarding the order, we gave a commitment to release more meaningful post-election data that will help us to understand what happened during the election. I believe in making Scottish elections more transparent and effective than ever before, which is why I hope that the committee will be able to accept the motion to approve the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment (No 2) Order 2012. The order will allow us to provide voter preference information, which will provide useful information about voting patterns. I know that that proposal enjoyed some cross-party support when I indicated our intention in January this year.

The minister will be aware that the committee has just taken evidence on the Scottish local government elections from a panel of witnesses. Do members want to ask the minister questions following from the evidence that we have just heard?

I would like to hear a little bit about the ordering of names. I do not know whether the minister heard the evidence, but Dr Clark suggested that alphabetical ranking of names on the ballot paper need not necessarily be of the names, but could be of the parties.

Of course, a range of factors are involved in how people are ultimately elected, but I think that we all know, having witnessed two local government elections using the STV system, that there is an alphabetical advantage—particularly to parties that field more than one candidate. We recognise that as a factor and look forward to the committee’s deliberations on what we should do with that. A range of reasons—including incumbency, popularity and the geographic divide of a ward—affect why a candidate may be elected, but there is clear evidence that there is an alphabetical advantage. The Scottish Government is very interested to hear the committee’s views on rotation and other methods that may address that factor.

I did not ask the previous panel this question, but I think it appropriate that I put it to the minister. In the 2012 local government elections, turnout was markedly lower than it had been when those elections were coupled with Scottish Parliament elections. In the recent police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, one factor that was thought to contribute to the low turnouts—it would be fair to describe them as having been catastrophically low—was that electors lacked information about candidates. Given that the electoral authorities in the Scottish local authority elections have to use the postal service to send material about when and where the ballot is for each voter, would it be appropriate to consider whether that mailshot should also enclose a single sheet from each candidate, in order better to inform the electorate, in the hope that that might drive up turnout?

I welcome the fact that turnout was at 39.8 per cent. It is disappointing that it was not higher than that, but that is possibly higher than some people had anticipated for a decoupled election. Decoupling was the right thing to do, so that we could have a proper focus on local government issues, as separate from Scottish Parliament issues, although turnout was consequently lower than it had been in previous elections. However, the Scottish figure compares quite well with figures from other parts of the UK and was higher than the figure for local authority elections in England. Of course, we want to see far higher turnout than 39.8 per cent.

On whether electoral material from candidates should be included as part of the circulation of other neutral electoral material, I know that local government candidates may feel that they are not as well served as parliamentary candidates, who have a free mailshot delivered by Royal Mail. That would come at a cost and I would prefer such material to be separate from electoral administration mailshots, although that could be up for debate. We have no plans to offer a free mail drop or free distribution service for local government candidates.

The lessons from the elections are that the administration must work well and people must have confidence in the electoral system and its administration, but in large measure the debate among the political parties is about what will draw people out to vote. As politicians, we have a role to play in that, so I will watch with great interest the committee’s deliberations this morning.

At 39.8 per cent, turnout was higher than expected, which is to be welcomed. One thing that I believe contributed to that was the significant increase in the use of postal votes. The Electoral Commission said that, although that is encouraging, there are still pitfalls associated with timing the issue and return of postal ballots. Another problem was that nearly 3,000 postal votes were discounted because they arrived late. Will you take on board some of those comments and perhaps extend the process for postal vote ballot papers?

11:45

We must look closely at the guidance and the legislation, some of which is in the control of the Scottish Parliament and some of which is in Westminster’s control, including the franchise and elements of the administration of elections. We have tried to be as proactive as possible; for example, the EROs have tried to be proactive on postal voting. There is, of course, concern about the 4.4 per cent rejection rate for postal ballots. I know that the committee discussed that this morning and asked a pertinent question about it, which is whether we—not the Scottish Government, but the EROs—will write to every one of the 18,698 people whose postal vote was rejected. Of course, it was this committee that considered the legislative consent motion on the power to allow the EROs to do that. All those people will be written to in order to set out the reason why their postal vote was rejected—whether it was because of the date of birth, the signature or something else. We will be proactive on that in order to build further confidence in the system and to ensure that as many votes as possible are valid.

We want to encourage more people to take advantage of postal voting, because the turnout is far higher for postal voters—in the recent election it was almost 70 per cent, compared to the overall turnout of 39.8 per cent. Although the legislation might feel archaic and the language out of date, the forms for signing up for a postal vote are clear and user-friendly. We will do all that we can to encourage people to use postal votes.

If we can tighten up the timescales, we will consider that. However, someone can hand in a postal vote right up to, and including, polling day. There is sometimes an issue when the postal service has not got the ballots in on time, even though the electoral agencies are proactive with Royal Mail and try to scoop up any that are still in the system. However, someone might post the papers too late. On information and awareness, I am happy to consider any recommendations that the committee produces on how we can refine the law and offer further guidance through the Electoral Management Board.

The general point is that I am responsible only for local government elections, but we would want to share any good practice across elections and—dare I say it?—referenda.

We heard two rather concerning bits of evidence this morning. One was that donations that local government candidates receive do not have to be declared, which creates the potential for donors to exert undue influence without that being transparent. Do you have a view on that? It seems to be outrageous that, for every other level of government elections, the procedure is rightly transparent and tight, but there is nothing to regulate the situation for local government elections.

I have not seen evidence that gives me cause for concern on that, but I am more than happy to consider the issue. In fact, one recommendation from the Electoral Commission is to consider the regulations on campaign expenditure. That work will be done, and we are happy to consider any anomaly that you think exists.

There is a big difference between the issue of donations—which has a potential impact on the business of local government or particular councillors—and the issue of campaign expenses and expenditure and whether candidates are within the guidance. The Electoral Commission has expressed concern that it does not have a statutory duty to give guidance and that, therefore, if it comes to a court case, the person defending cannot say in supporting evidence that they took advice from the commission and proceeded and acted accordingly.

That is a fair point, which is why we have agreed to review those issues with the Electoral Commission. There is time for that because the next council elections are five years away; we are in another five-year term. We will review the matter and report back.

Will there be any retrospective provision on donations?

No. Of course, as things stand, candidates must declare in their election returns where income was received from and how it was spent during the regulated period for the election campaign. However, there is a reason for conducting the review and we are happy to look into the issue.

The explanatory note that comes with the order says that article 4 provides that the requirement to publish voting sequences applies only when votes are counted electronically. Are you aware of any count in the 2012 election in Scotland that was not carried out electronically?

No. Stephen Sadler has just advised me that there is an issue with by-elections, but the overall count was universally conducted electronically.

The provision is for future by-elections, for which local authority returning officers might decide not to count electronically, in which case it could be too much of a burden for them to deliver the sequence results. However, the minister is correct that, in last May’s elections, the counts were all done electronically.

I asked the question because of that very point. Although all the counts were conducted electronically in May 2012, there is the possibility of a breakdown with counting machines, as happened in 2007, and by-elections might not be counted electronically. Is there any intention to extend the order to counts that are carried out manually?

That is a helpful question. I answered accurately in saying that, because the count was completely electronic, there is no question that the data in the system cannot be released. We predicted the issue and we were proactive in ensuring, through the contract, that we could release the data, as the count was electronic. If the count had not been electronic, it would take two to three days to go through the local government election results manually. If I was a returning officer now, looking at the order that the committee is being asked to approve, I would probably want to conduct an electronic count even for a by-election, so that the data could be released. An unintended consequence might be that by-elections are also counted electronically, to enable the release of the data that the order authorises.

On that point, a contract was issued for the hire or purchase—I am not sure which—of electronic counting equipment for the May 2012 election. Has there been any discussion between the returning officers and the Government on the use of electronic counting devices in the future?

The Gould report suggests that we should get the regulations and guidance in place as quickly as possible, and no later than the year before a poll. We will plan on that basis. We have plenty time to ensure that the procurement for the next electoral service can accommodate any changes. We have no concerns about the procurement and the operation of the electronic vote next time round. For the recent election, we had in the contract the safeguard of the ability to deliver that data, so we can release it. That capacity exists.

How will that apply to by-elections?

It is for local returning officers to procure the services to run a by-election. If we ask for more data to be released, or if we go down the road of randomisation of ballot papers, that might be slightly more expensive, but if it builds in credibility and confidence in the system and greater transparency and understanding of what happens at elections, that will be well worth it. The expense is not exorbitant, given the overall cost of running an election.

What research and theory did you consider in coming to your conclusion on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds?

Of course, we do not have votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in local government elections. The Scottish Government’s position is that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all elections, but we conduct the administration of the elections and do not determine the franchise, although that is a power and a right that we seek.

The question of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds is less of an administrative one or a question of academic interest and more of a policy question. It is a political point of view that we happen to believe that, if people at the age of 16 and 17 can pay taxes and make other life choices, they should have the ability to vote. Our view is about empowerment of 16 and 17-year-olds, rather than being based on any academic advice. People such as the votes at 16 campaign would concur with that. The choice is political, rather than academic.

Does that mean that you are strongly in favour of 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote and that it is not just for the referendum?

That is absolutely correct.

What information do you foresee making available to schools, pupils and parents to encourage 16 and 17-year-olds to vote?

I suppose that, in relation to any election and referendum, specific packs will be made up on how important it is to use the vote. Right now, modern studies classes and other groups in schools conduct debates on democracy and what the vote is all about—how it has emerged, who has it and how important it is to use it. I imagine that, in the future, the process will operate in the same way as current political education in schools operates, so it will be neutral.

Many of us will have been invited to schools to tell young people about what we do as politicians. I suppose that the process will be part of the empowerment of young people and it will be conducted in the same way. If specific material is required for young people, I am sure that the relevant electoral agencies will consider that and that political parties will also take an interest, in the same way as they do at present; for example, with mock elections.

There has been a tailing off in the number of people who put themselves forward for election as councillors. There will be various reasons for that, but one is to do with eligibility. People who work for council’s arm’s-length organisations are unsure whether they will have to resign if they become councillors. I know that the Electoral Commission has asked the Scottish Government to consider the issue. Have you made any inroads on that?

We recognise the recommendation to consider the issue and we will review the matter. I am not sure how many candidates are deterred from submitting nomination papers, but we have said that we will give that due consideration, so we will do it. No decision has yet been made. There is time to consider the two major reports on the running of elections, and the consequences and consistency with other elections. We are sympathetic to many of the recommendations in the Electoral Commission’s report.

Earlier this morning, we discussed signature identification and verification. The returning officers are looking for a relaxation of the rules on that, but the commission is hesitant, because of the potential for fraud. Do you have a view on that?

That ties into the issue of rejected postal vote papers. With postal votes, a signature is required for the ballot paper to be accepted as valid. In the election, 13.9 per cent of postal votes were rejected because there was no signature, and 18.7 per cent were rejected because of a mismatch in signature. Over and above the process that I described of EROs going back to the people whose votes were rejected to ensure that the records are up to date, there is a degree of proactivity on the personal identifiers, which are refreshed every five years. Therefore, as well as the EROs going back to the people whose votes were rejected, that updating should happen anyway.

On updating, young people were mentioned, because they sometimes experiment with different styles of signature and, at the other end of the scale, elderly people’s signatures can deteriorate quickly. That is perhaps something to bear in mind.

It is a fair point. Local electoral registration offices should consider being even more clear in the paperwork and information that they provide about the requirement for a date of birth and a signature and the fact that they will be cross-checked. Even the formatting, and how people put in their date of birth when they fill out the postal vote, might be an issue. Some people might put the date back to front. The guidance needs to be consistent.

We will be far more proactive on this issue than was the case previously. It is partly thanks to the change in legislation, for which we have agreed to a legislative consent motion, that we are able to take that administrative step.

12:00

That might help a young person to provide the same signature. For an elderly person, that would not be possible.

The Scottish Government currently has responsibility for e-counting. The Electoral Commission recommends that that should be passed to the Electoral Management Board. Have you reached a decision on that?

No.

Are you minded to go one way or the other? What is your personal preference?

I do not think that I am allowed to give personal preferences.

In your capacity as Minister for Local Government and Planning.

I am sympathetic to most of the recommendations in both reports, and will consider that. I am not being obtuse about this; it would be better to have a considered response to all the recommendations so that it is all joined up. We will give you a full response in due course.

That was an answer worthy of a minister.

Good afternoon, minister. I have a brief point about dates and signatures. I notice that a format is laid out on some UK Government agency forms. On the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency forms in particular, a format is laid out for the date that someone has to put in. It might be worth while implementing that for future elections.

I will take that on board.

Mr Stevenson pointed out that workers in our area—and other areas it has to be said—who work offshore often have difficulty voting by post. A lot of folk do not like proxy voting. The Electoral Commission has suggested that we might consider early voting. Would you be minded to consider whether that is possible?

I am happy to look at all recommendations from this committee and elsewhere. I am not quite as comfortable with early voting as I am with proxy voting. I am not convinced that that would be helpful, in terms of the regulated period, the electoral period, the timescale for the issue and return of postal votes, and polling day itself. However, we will look at the evidence on that if you wish to produce it.

In the case of someone being called away at the last minute, as Mr Stevenson described, we would be more comfortable considering provisions on emergency proxy voting or indeed extending the time to be a proxy, than with changing the timetable of an election, which would present a host of difficulties relating to the production of ballot papers, close of poll and so on. There are many issues that would need to be considered as part of that. If there is an issue, we are happy to look at it, but my preference would probably be to consider what we could do with proxy voting and at which stage we could accept a proxy vote. We have probably got more flexibility and freedom in that area.

Has any consideration been given to changing polling day to a weekend and to changing the location of polling stations to supermarkets and other major public places?

The matter of whether we should we change polling places so that they are even more accessible, and change the day itself, is often discussed. In relation to the proposed referendum, on which we have more legislative competence, we have consulted on changing polling day to, say, a Saturday. The same could be considered for local government elections. I would be interested in your views on that. No decision has been taken. Of course, as it stands, we have no evidence that that would necessarily increase turnout for a local government election, but we are open-minded on all those options. It is a proposal that is presented in the papers that we have received and we will give it due consideration.

That issue is in some of the evidence that the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, of which I am a member, has received regarding the section 30 order. One part of the Scottish community highlighted that if a referendum or any election were to be held on a Saturday, it would be not so much be frowned on as not looked on favourably by the Jewish community for religious reasons. In relation to any future election, I ask the Scottish Government to consider the religious aspect, and the different religious communities in Scotland, so that we are seen to be inclusive of everyone in the country rather than as excluding individuals from voting.

I am sure that you will take that on board, minister.

Yes, absolutely. I acknowledge that point. If there was to be a next-day count on the Sunday, it would upset other communities as well. Religious sensitivities will of course be taken on board, as well as any other considerations.

We have alluded to the turnout in 2012, which was nearly 40 per cent. We have heard a few ideas about changing the day to help to increase turnout. Will the Government embark on any research to identify why people are not turning out to vote and why, in some areas, there is a high turnout, while 2 or 3 miles down the road, the turnout is half of that or even less? Such research would be good and would help to increase turnout.

People will extrapolate a range of reasons for why the electorate does not turn out for elections. It was not so long ago that general elections in the UK would have turnouts of more than 70 per cent. Is that because the administrative system was very different? I do not believe so. I think that it will be the case that the political parties and the candidates make that will draw people out to vote.

There is some evidence—though I caution the use of it—that there is sometimes a correlation between levels of deprivation and turnout. We should pay some attention to that, although it is not always the case, because the lowest turnouts in this year’s council elections were not always related to deprivation. It is an issue, not just in relation to voter turnout but, as you discussed earlier, potentially in relation to registration.

There is a range of reasons why people will or will not come out to vote. Mr Stevenson has identified the turnout for the police commissioner elections in England, which has disappointed the UK Government. On the day of the local government elections, the turnout in England was 31.1 per cent, compared with 39.8 per cent in Scotland, which is clearly a better turnout.

Even if we run education campaigns, as we have done, and even if we encourage the independent organisations that communicate electoral information to run big campaigns to increase awareness of the single transferable vote, as we did this year, it is still down to political parties to inspire people to come out and vote in any given election. We have to ensure that we remove the barriers to people exercising their right to vote, which is why these deliberations are so helpful.

I am sure that many academics and others will probe turnout and suggestions for increasing turnout. We will pay a great deal of attention to that to ensure that we get as many people as possible to vote in future local government elections. Fundamentally, as we all know, many people have given a great deal to have the vote and we should encourage its use to ensure a democratic result.

I point out that it is not always deprived areas where the turnout is lowest, as Dr Clark’s research found in Aberdeen.

There are many areas of multiple deprivation where turnout has not been too bad. I am sure that the minister will look at Dr Clark’s evidence to the committee.

Minister, will you say when you will respond to the report, because that will help us to deal with our future elections work?

Many of the recommendations are not directly for the Government but are for other organisations, such as the EMB and the Electoral Commission. I want to ensure that we are talking to each other about the recommendations. However, I hope to have a response for the committee early next year, and I greatly look forward to the committee’s input on the recommendations, too.

Thank you, minister. We come to the debate on the motion to approve the draft Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment (No 2) Order 2012, on which we have just taken oral evidence. I remind the witnesses that only elected members may take part in the debate.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government and Regeneration Committee recommends that the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment (No.2) Order 2012 [draft] be approved.—[Derek Mackay.]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you, minister.

12:11 Meeting continued in private until 12:30.