Under item 2, we will take evidence from the Scottish Government bill team as part of our scrutiny of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill’s financial memorandum. I welcome to the meeting Steve Sadler and Louise Unwin. Good morning to you. I invite one of you to make a short opening statement.
The financial memorandum accompanying the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill sets out estimates of the administrative, oversight and other costs arising from the bill’s provisions. The costs are separated into four broad categories: the costs of running the referendum; the costs of funding the Electoral Commission to oversee and regulate the referendum campaigns and report on the conduct of the referendum; the publicity costs incurred by the commission in fulfilling its duty to provide information to voters about the referendum; and the costs of allowing the two campaign organisations a free mailshot to every voter or household in Scotland.
Thank you. As is normally the case, I will start with a few questions; other committee members will then come in.
The bill provides that the chief counting officer will be the convener of the Electoral Management Board; that is Mary Pitcaithly, who is the chief executive of Falkirk Council. We spoke to Mary and to the secretary of the Electoral Management Board and showed them the draft provisions of the bill as outlined in the consultation document before the bill and the accompanying financial documents were published. We asked them to set out how they felt the role of chief counting officer would be funded, based on those indicative proposals. We received documents from the secretary of the Electoral Management Board, which set out various proposals. The estimate was based on information received from the board.
The Electoral Management Board’s submission states:
The next meeting of the Electoral Management Board is this Friday afternoon. I go along to that as an adviser to the board. The fees and charges order is an agenda item for that meeting. We intend to set out a timetable to develop the proposals for the fees and charges order.
On the comparison of the costs of the referendum with other elections and referenda, the financial memorandum states:
The Electoral Commission’s detailed report on the costs associated with that referendum gave us some valuable background information, but, as you say, it was held on the same day as another event. In that report, the Electoral Commission also carried out a calculation, based on the costs that were identified as actually having been incurred in the referendum, to estimate the costs of a stand-alone referendum in Scotland, and that is the figure that we have used in our financial memorandum. We used some of the detail from the alternative vote referendum report, but we also used the Electoral Commission’s extrapolation to say what a stand-alone referendum in Scotland would cost. That is the figure on which we based a lot of our work in the memorandum.
Last year, the police and crime commissioner elections were held in England and Wales. They were not particularly high profile, the turnout was a fairly dismal 15.1 per cent, and the cost was somewhere in the region of £75 million, or about £14 for every vote cast. Have any lessons been learned from what happened south of the border last year, as well as from the referendum here in Scotland in 2011?
We have had some discussions with the Electoral Commission, which advised on the running of those elections, largely about public awareness and publicity. The Electoral Commission would be the first to admit that a referendum on independence is likely to have a substantially higher public profile than the elections for police commissioners, so that is one thing to bear in mind. Working with the commission, we will look to pick up ideas about public awareness, so as to encourage, as best we can, a high turnout.
Aberdeen City Council’s submission is a good one. It states:
There are significant cost differentials. What we have said in the financial memorandum, and what the legislation will provide, is that it will be for the designated organisations to choose which of the two methods of sending out material they prefer, whether they go for household or individually addressed communications. Aberdeen City Council’s submission points out what others have also told us—that it may well be cheaper, but that there is a risk of one communication not being passed around the household. The memorandum and the bill provide a choice, which is why there is a range of costs.
Would the Scottish Government fully support whichever choice is made?
Indeed, yes.
I would be surprised if that were not the case.
Yes, it would: you are right. In the past couple of days, we have looked at the wording in the financial memorandum. In one paragraph we say that it is the day before and then also on the day of the poll, so I apologise for that. The intention is that the sweep will take place on the morning of polling; that is what has happened in previous elections. The details of that would be for the chief counting officer, once they are in post.
Thank you.
I will pick up on the convener’s line of questioning and ask about the options for individual campaigns. The choice of whether electoral communications are addressed individually or per household is no different from current practice in any other election. Is that the case?
That is right; that picks up on one of the main points in the bill. In running and regulating the referendum, we have tried to stay as close as possible to normal election practice.
That is helpful. Can you give me a general sense of what the reaction of stakeholders and other interested parties has been to the estimates that are set out in the memorandum?
On the whole, the reaction has been supportive. For example, the Electoral Management Board recognised that we have taken on the rough quantum of its estimates. The reaction has been that the memorandum provides a reasonable estimate of the likely cost this far out, given that we have over a year to go before we get to the referendum, and that continuing discussions with us about the detail would be welcomed. We are pleased that most people have welcomed the fact that we held constructive and early discussions and have taken on board their comments.
You referred to the likelihood that the referendum turnout will be significantly higher than that for the police commissioner elections. I agree with that perspective. Indeed, West Dunbartonshire Council suggested that it expects the turnout to be higher than for any election that is normally held in Scotland, which could introduce requirements for additional polling stations and staff. Has that possibility been factored into your thinking?
In our discussions with the Electoral Management Board and with bodies such as the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, people have been very helpful in going through the detail of the referendum proposals and the costs in the memorandum. We have spoken to them about the practicalities that are involved. When Gordon Blair gave evidence to the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill Committee earlier this month, he said that returning officers tend to plan for a normal election on the basis of a 70 to 80 per cent turnout, so we have used those figures to produce estimates of costs.
The thinking is that, in terms of turnout, it will not be that different from planning for a normal election.
I suspect that electoral administrators would say that the working assumption is that the figures will be at the higher end of that scale. That seems to be what academic commentators estimate for the referendum turnout.
What will happen if a need is identified for additional polling stations, for example? When we are out campaigning, we find that people get used to their polling stations. If people might have to use different polling stations because additional ones have been provided, will that be factored in? Will we ensure that people are aware of the change?
Yes, that would be factored in. The location of polling stations and the allocation of voters to particular polling stations will be for local counting officers to decide. When we discuss the fees and charges order with returning officers and their representatives, we will ensure that the order gives sufficient flexibility to give effect to their operational judgment, if you like, nearer the time of the referendum on the amount of resource that they might need, whether that is for polling station ballot boxes or whatever.
Is it not so that, although the number of polling stations might increase, the number of polling places is unlikely to change?
Yes, that is so.
The Royal Mail’s written submission to the committee states that it will provide its best estimate based on what it knows. However, it also states:
Those costs have been factored into the costs of local counting officers, because counting officers—or returning officers for elections—are responsible for that task. The costs will be in with the returning officers’ costs.
The convener asked about the assumption of costs from the United Kingdom 2011 referendum. The Electoral Management Board stated in its submission:
It is our view that the estimates in the financial memorandum will be of a rough order of the final costs; we are not expecting huge swathes either up or down from the estimates. We used the detail of the 2011 referendum costs, but we also used the Electoral Commission’s calculation about what a stand-alone referendum would involve.
Thank you.
It is interesting that the Electoral Commission took a different angle from the council responses. The Electoral Commission stressed that it expected to be reimbursed only for its marginal expenditure, which would
I work with them both, so I will say that they are both right.
Am I right in saying that in some cases there are some quite well-paid officers who get paid extra for running any election or referendum?
Returning officers receive a fee in recognition of the personal contribution that they make and the personal responsibility that they take for running the referendum.
That contrasts with the Electoral Management Board, which, as I understand it, has no resources of its own, so whatever its costs are they absolutely have to be covered. Is there therefore more of a risk that if it overspends or anything, the Government would have to carry the can?
Sorry, do you mean the costs for the management board itself?
Yes.
The board was set up a couple of years ago, largely as a co-ordinating body. It brings together representatives of returning officers. The Scottish Government provides some relatively minor funding for the running of the board as a co-ordination role—that is where we are at the moment.
I think that we accept that there will be extra people voting, although, if I understand the situation correctly, the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds are voting will make little difference. Am I correct in thinking that voter turnout will be the more important issue?
Yes. The estimate is that between 100,000 and 120,000 younger voters will go on the register. That is a couple of per cent of the overall total.
Earlier, the idea of having extra polling stations was raised. Sadly, in Glasgow, we have lots of polling stations that are quiet all day, and the poor polling officers just sit there pulling their hair out. Presumably, in that situation, there will be no extra costs, as the turnout could double or treble and the polling stations would still not be busy. Will there be some supervision to determine whether there will be extra costs for every council or whether some of them could operate within the normal costs?
Yes. The fees and charges order will produce a menu of costs that returning officers can claim, based on the number of polling places and the amount of printing that they need to do. Once we have agreed the order, we will have to have discussions through the Electoral Management Board with individual returning officers. One of the things that we will consider is experience of turnout in various areas. If, as you say, a set of polling places has had a low turnout historically, we will say that people could manage a significantly higher turnout within their present resources.
Royal Mail commented that some of its costs were not predictable. I found that a little hard to understand, because the electoral addresses that it delivers are pretty much always the same size and weight. Do you know why it said that the costs were not predictable?
In its evidence, Royal Mail said that it would have preferred to provide us with a specific quotation based on definite specifications. The discussions that Louise Unwin, in particular, has had with Royal Mail have centred on the proposals in the bill and what is likely to happen. We have said that we will have more concrete discussions with Royal Mail as the bill goes through Parliament—possibly as soon as the bill is approved at stage 1.
Can you explain more about the sweep that Royal Mail carries out? Does that happen because it has dropped pieces of mail behind a cabinet or something and it has to go and look for them? What is it doing that it does not normally do?
Polling day will be on a Thursday. Any post that comes in after the post has left that day would normally be delivered on the Friday. However, it is no use delivering postal votes to the returning officer on the Friday. Therefore, as I understand it, sorting offices will carry out a sweep after the final pick-up on Thursday to see what else has come in. I do not think that huge numbers will be involved but, obviously, it is important to get as many votes as possible delivered and counted.
I am not an expert on the postal service but it seems to me that, if there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of mail sitting there, it will be hard to pull out the one or two postal votes that might be in the pile.
They could use nice coloured envelopes.
I am sure that it will be hard, but I am told that it happens on every election day. Returning officers will talk to their local post offices about doing that on the day of the referendum.
Would that include somewhere like Carlisle, where Scottish people might post mail?
To be honest, I am not sure. I assume that it will mostly be in Scottish postal sorting offices, but we would need to find out about that. We can let you know, but I am afraid that I do not know the exact detail.
I presume that the cost of printing the ballot papers is wrapped up in the cost of polling station stationery. Is that right?
Yes.
Has consideration been given to printing the ballot paper in Scots and Gaelic as well as English?
The bill provides for the ballot paper to be produced only in English.
Would there not be little extra cost from printing it in two other languages?
The cost might not be significant, but we have had comments from returning officers and the Electoral Commission about other complications that could result. Returning officers and the Electoral Commission will produce explanatory material in Gaelic and other languages for polling stations and polling places, and in advance of the poll.
Do you know what those complications were?
I do not know that offhand.
What were the disadvantages?
The Electoral Commission said that it had tested the ballot paper only in English, so that was one complication. Returning officers said that such a measure would add complications to the counting process. I am afraid that I do not have the material that they gave me on that, but the decision was made partly on the basis of advice from returning officers and others.
That appears to have completed the questions from the committee. Apologies—I see that Malcolm Chisholm has a question.
Most of the issues have been covered, but I was particularly struck by the issues to which other members have referred about the financial memorandum’s statement that the closest comparator is the parliamentary voting system referendum. Gavin Brown quoted what I think is a strong critique of that from the Electoral Management Board. To what extent has that comparator been influential? I would have concerns if it was, because that approach seems to have been widely criticised by many local authorities. In fact, it seems to be the most common source of criticism in the responses.
I am not sure that it was widely criticised; it was criticised by a number of people who responded to the committee, although I am not sure how many. The Electoral Management Board, which helped us to compile our estimates in the memorandum, represents all 32 returning officers. Broadly, the board told us that the detail of the PVS information from the Electoral Commission provides useful headings, but we took another step by looking at the Electoral Commission’s prediction of a stand-alone cost. That is the basis of our figures; they are not necessarily based on the joint holding of a referendum on the date of an election.
One similarity with the parliamentary voting system referendum is that orders can be placed far in advance, because we do not need to wait for nominations. However, as Aberdeen City Council said, that is all well and good, but the ballot papers will have to be warehoused in secure conditions for weeks or months. The council wonders whether the costs of that have been factored in.
We did not factor in the costs of warehousing ballot papers. We worked on the basis of existing practice. I understand that the Electoral Management Board will consider whether, under the auspices of the chief counting officer, it could order ballot papers centrally and well in advance. The board will consider that, picking up on the view of individual counting officers, and I imagine that it will discuss with us the funds that we provide for that.
Aberdeen City Council said that printing ballot papers in advance would
I would have thought so. In last year’s local government elections, some of the various electoral documents that were produced were produced in advance, but they were stored centrally and issued more locally shortly before the election.
What kind of savings would we be talking about? Would they be of a significant margin?
I doubt that they would be hugely significant. In addition, I have picked up a feeling among returning officers that they are happier using their local printers because they have developed a relationship with them and they know that they can trust them. Not surprisingly, they would be anxious about getting things on time—after all, it is no good getting ballot papers the day after polling day. Many returning officers to whom I have spoken have said that there might be the potential for savings, but they would have to weigh that against their relationship with, and their trust and confidence in, local providers.
In its submission, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar said:
Do you mean the issue of overnight counting?
Yes.
My understanding is that the intention is to count overnight. That will be a matter for the chief counting officer, once she is in post, but the discussions that we have had with returning officers suggest that, at this early stage, they are planning for an overnight count. To strengthen that, I have had discussions with Mary Pitcaithly about what central support or otherwise might be needed for certain constituencies or areas to ensure that they could cope with that. Depending on local circumstances, helicopters or multiple count centres might be needed. The Electoral Management Board is looking at that, and I expect to have discussions with it over the next few months.
Okay. Are there any estimates of how much it might cost to service rural areas?
As part of that process, the board will ask the 32 returning officers for an assessment of whether they would feel comfortable counting overnight and whether, if they were to count overnight, that would require any additional expense over and above what they would spend for a normal election. As I understand it, the board is going through that evidence-gathering process. We will need to have discussions with it about that.
When will that be concluded?
I imagine that it will be raised at this Friday’s meeting, but it will not be concluded then. The board in general and the chief counting officer designate are looking to have a project manager in place for the electoral administration side of things at some time over the summer, and I imagine that one of that person’s first tasks will be to look at arrangements for overnight counting.
The proposal is to increase postal voting checks to 100 per cent. Is that correct?
Yes.
South Lanarkshire Council said that
Until now, the legislation has provided for checks of less than 100 per cent, but registration officers have carried out 100 per cent checks whenever that has been possible. The Electoral Commission recommends that they should be doing that, so most registration officers do that already.
Do we know what the average is? If we know what the average is now, that will make it possible to look at the level of additional costs that might have to be met.
I do not have those figures with me, but it is my understanding that one of the Electoral Commission’s performance indicators for returning officers is that they should aim for 100 per cent.
Okay. Thank you very much.