Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR SAM
YOUNGER, MR
PETER WARDLE,
MR ANDREW
SCALLAN AND
MR ANDY
O'NEIL
13 NOVEMBER 2007
Q20 Mr Wallace: If he were not to
do that, then he would be in breach of the contract that he signed
with you?
Mr Wardle: I am sure that is the
case but I really do not think there is any risk in my mind at
all that he would fail to fulfil that clause of his contract.
Mr Gould has made it clear to me and to others, including clerks
of committees in this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament,
that he is very keen to cooperate with any inquiries that take
place.
Q21 Mr Wallace: Just following on
the emphasis and the need for a letter of clarification, while
as you have said his report was independent and he prepared it
effectively with his staff independently, who was involved in
the drafting of the press release with "The Electoral
Commission" title on it that announced his report?
Mr Wardle: That was entirely Mr
Gould and his team.
Q22 Mr Wallace: The press release,
some of the more controversial quotes front and centre, were entirely
in his remit; he drafted that report and he distributed it?
Mr Younger: It was of primary
importance to us that there should be no suggestion at any stage
in this report that there was any influence from the Electoral
Commission or anybody else on what he chose to say.
Q23 Mr Devine: It was mentioned that
"voters were treated as an afterthought", I would like
some examples. I have to say I have been an election agent since
1983 and on the night I was at an election where something like
1,700 papers were spoiled; it was suspended at 5.30 in the morning;
recommenced at 12 o'clock and this happened under your watch.
Do you think there is any need for the Electoral Commission?
Mr Younger: There are two or three
questions there. It is important to emphasise, as far as the Electoral
Commission is concerned, the Electoral Commission does not run
elections; it does not have the responsibility to run elections.
The responsibility for running elections is with the returning
officers. The responsibility for legislation in relation to elections
is with various arms of government and with parliaments and not
with the Commission. The Commission has two or three very clear
areas—one of which is to provide advice and guidance, which
is what we did. In one instance I think in terms of that advice
we would accept, as indeed Mr Gould says, that we did not sufficiently
put the voters at the heart of what we were doing in relation
to the ballot paper design; that I accept as a criticism. Secondly,
we have a responsibility for public awareness programmes in relation
to the election; and while there were one or two small criticisms
in respect of particular aspects of that information public awareness
programme, it was one I think that was acknowledged to have been
run well and been firmly based. The third element is a statutory
duty to report on the conduct of elections. As far as I am concerned,
there is a much broader question. I do think that the Electoral
Commission has made a significant contribution over the years
in which it has been there, but it is still a young organisation
and clearly the future role of the Commission is one that is very
much bound up with the discussion based on the recommendation
Mr Gould makes about a chief returning officer for Scotland and
some consequent adjustments to the Commission's remit were that
to be accepted.
Q24 Mr Davidson: Can I just ask for
clarification of one point. You did mention that Ron Gould had
said that he did not want to allocate blame and he wanted to be
forward-looking. Is that a correct summation of his position?
Mr Younger: Yes.
Q25 Mr Davidson: Is that not touchingly
naive? It implies almost as if he is somebody who should not be
allowed out on his own at night with money. To suggest that you
produce a report like this and then there is no allocation of
blame really does seem to me to be other-worldly to an absurd
extent. Does that not seem a fair point?
Mr Younger: I think what he was
saying was that a number of institutions, a number of actors,
were responsible for not putting the voters at the centre of this
and that needed to change. I think it is perfectly fair to say
he wishes the report to be looked at in terms of what needs to
be done for the future.
Q26 Mr Davidson: I do not think we
will get any further. You are responsible for the VoteScotland
campaign?
Mr Younger: Yes, indeed.
Q27 Mr Davidson: Who chose the slogan?
Mr Wardle: I will ask Andy O'Neil
here who was very closely involved, because it was a joint campaign
of course.
Q28 Mr Davidson: He is obviously
the lowest in the rank here, so it is being passed down to him
then?
Mr Wardle: The reason I am going
to ask Andy to respond is because Andy is the Head of the Commission's
Office in Scotland and ran the Commission's liaison with the VoteScotland
campaign—not because of anything to do with the Commission's
hierarchy.
Mr O'Neil: Who chose the slogan?
The slogan was chosen by the VoteScotland Project Board which
was a joint Project Board of the then Scottish Executive and the
Electoral Commission.
Q29 Mr Davidson: So it was not you
then? When you have got two groups on a board, who then gets the
credit or blame for that?
Mr O'Neil: I think we both do.
We did not just come up with it ourselves; we employed PR professionals
to give us a number of options which were all tested.
Q30 Mr Davidson: How many options
did PR professionals come up with?
Mr O'Neil: From memory, and I
would have to give you greater detail later, I think at least
three.
Q31 Mr Davidson: How much did that
cost you?
Mr O'Neil: The whole of the VoteScotland
campaign—
Q32 Mr Davidson: No, the selection
of the title?
Mr O'Neil: I could not tell you
today.
Q33 Mr Davidson: Can you give us
a note indicating how much it cost the Electoral Commission to
come up with the suggestion of VoteScotland?[1]
Can I ask whether or not the electoral turnout in these elections
went up or down compared to the previous elections?
Mr Younger: It went up—modestly
up from 2003.
Q34 Mr Davidson: To what extent was
that because the election was seen to be close; and to what extent
was that because of the efficacy of the VoteScotland campaign?
Mr Younger: I certainly would
not claim that the VoteScotland campaign was integral to turnout,
because I think the turnout is driven ultimately by whether people
see there are things they want to vote for or vote against at
an election. What I think the VoteScotland campaign does from
our point of view is, it is important to inform people in two
phases: it is important not to forget the registration phase in
the VoteScotland campaign, to make sure that all those who are
entitled to vote are on the register to vote; and then doing everything
we can, in what was admittedly a very complex environment in terms
of how to go about casting votes on the day, to give people the
maximum information to allow them to do so.
Q35 Mr Davidson: How successful was
it in boosting registration?
Mr Younger: In voter registration
we do not have specific figures.
Q36 Mr Davidson: So that is a "don't
know"?
Mr Younger: No, we cannot tie
it to our—
Q37 Mr Davidson: If it is a "don't
know" then it is a "don't know". Have you thought
of doing any assessment of how successful the VoteScotland campaign
was in boosting registration?
Mr Younger: Yes, Andy may have
a little bit more of the detail to hand at the moment, but we
do have tracking of the effectiveness. What we cannot do is do
tracking of the effectiveness in terms of who actually registered.
We have got a lot of figures as to how many registration forms
were downloaded, requested, calls to our centre, recognition of
the messages in the advertising. That, it is clear from the tracking
we have done, actually performs well compared, if you like, to
industry averages for the recognition of advertisements.
Q38 Mr Davidson: The recognition
of advertisements is one thing; but actually going out and registering
to vote is another. I recognise adverts for Coke but I do not
go out and buy it. Where I am trying to seek clarification is
how much this campaign cost, and whether or not it had any effect
at all upon registration. As far as I am aware you cannot tell
me any of that?
Mr Younger: No, we cannot specifically
tell you who registered as a result of the campaign. What we can
tell you is a number of indicators on whether the messages in
the campaign were received, on whether people downloaded registration
forms and whether they made calls; but we cannot in the end specifically
tie that campaign to specific people putting themselves on the
register. All the evidence is that this campaign was effective,
as indeed others have been.
Q39 Mr Davidson: What do you mean
"all the evidence is that this campaign was effective?"
If you cannot tell me how many people registered as a result of
this campaign, how can you possibly tell me that it was an effective
campaign? You can have an enormous level of awareness, but if
nobody then goes out and registers as a result it would suggest
that the efficiency of the campaign has been somewhat limited.
There is a bottom line to this, which is the number of people
who register; and the fact you cannot tell me anything about that
is a cause for some concern. Did you interview voters shortly
after they had left the polls at all?
Mr Younger: Yes. There has been
a significant amount of tracking research.
1 Ev 45 Back
| 
