Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MR SAM
YOUNGER, MR
PETER WARDLE,
MR ANDREW
SCALLAN AND
MR ANDY
O'NEIL
13 NOVEMBER 2007
Q40 Mr Davidson: How quickly after
the election did that take place?
Mr Younger: I cannot remember
that detail at this moment.
Q41 Mr Davidson: Was it days, hours
or weeks?
Mr Younger: It was in the immediate
aftermath.
Mr Wardle: It was days after.
I am going to ask Andy to give you some of the detail we have
got. As Sam Younger has said, the difficulty with tracking the
effectiveness of registration and advertising is that, the way
the system works, the individual voter registration forms go into
local councils; if we received all the voter registration forms
it would be easier to say, "Did you send us this registration
form as a result of having seen the advertising, or not?"
We do our best with the local councils, but it is quite impressionistic
in terms of what they can say. Andy can give you some figures
about the numbers of registrations that came in at particular
phases while we were advertising. I think the other point to make
is that overall the level of registration in Scotland held up
pretty well between 2003 and 2007. Had the voter registration
campaign been a complete failure one might expect there would
have been problems with registration—there were not. It
is never going to be easy to say whether that is the result of
advertising or general interest of the work of local councils,
the Electoral Commission or, indeed, of political parties who
are heavily involved in the drive to get people voting.
Q42 Mr Davidson: Can you just clarify
this question of the voter registration figures holding up. That
means they were pretty much the same as they had been previously
where there had been no campaign. We have a situation where we
run an expensive campaign and the voter registration figures hold
up. You would have expected them surely, given there was a campaign
this time but not a campaign last time, to have one up quite considerably?
Mr O'Neil: There was a voter electoral
registration campaign in 2003 as well as 2007.
Q43 Mr Davidson: But not nearly as
expensive as this one?
Mr O'Neil: In 2007 there were
20,000 more electors registered in Scotland than in 2003. One
of the things we can tell you today is one of the things which
this House did in passing the Electoral Administration Act 2006
was to bring the electoral registration deadline nearer to the
day of poll—11 days instead of approximately six weeks as
before. Through that we tracked, with the electoral registration
officers, registration applications received after the old deadline.
We had 37,386 applications made after the old deadline which would
have existed.
Q44 Mr Davidson: If we had not changed
the date the figure would have been even lower?
Mr O'Neil: Possibly.
Q45 Mr Davidson: No, it would have,
let us be clear, not possibly. If 37,000 came in between the previous
date and that date, and it was a 20,000 increase that is clearly
a 17,000 deficiency?
Mr O'Neil: Yes, but some of those
may already have been on the register. That is why I cannot say
certainly that the 37,000 were new registrants. What I could say
is the VoteScotland campaign spent a lot of time ensuring that
people knew of the new deadline for registration.
Q46 Mr Hamilton: Mr Gould has recommended
that constituency and regional MSPs should be elected on separate
ballot papers in future; that parties should be required to use
registered names only; and that order on the ballot paper should
be determined by lottery. Do you agree with the recommendations?
Mr Wardle: It is quite clear there
is very widespread acceptance of the proposal to separate the
two ballots from one sheet. It seems to us to make perfect sense
in Scotland that should be the case as we go forward unless and
until such time that it is quite clear that the voter would be
better served by any alternative. It seems quite clear to everybody,
and I think we would agree with this, that for the time being
there is no alternative to going ahead with separate ballot papers
in future. On the question of how parties appear on the ballot
paper, the question of a random draw, a lottery, is one we have
certainly looked at quite hard in the past. We are still thinking
about this and will come out with a definitive position when we
publish our next document on taking Gould forward at the end of
this month, but at the moment we are considering it. There are
arguments both ways and it may be that if we address the third
point effectively—which is looking at the way in which parties
are described—it may not be necessary to do both points.
I think there needs to be a bit more debate about that. If we
change the way in which the parties are described then some of
the advantages of alphabetism may not be such advantages as they
are at the moment. On that point we have already said earlier
this year, following concerns which were raised particularly in
Wales in the Welsh Assembly Elections, that we would look at the
experience so far of the new rules that Parliament passed allowing
up to 12 registered descriptions for a political party for use
on the ballot paper. We think Ron Gould makes some sensible points
in relation to that, and we will be setting out our views more
fully later on.
Q47 Mr Hamilton: You are effectively
saying "Alex Salmond for First Minister" might not be
necessary if we changed the lottery system?
Mr Wardle: No, I think I am saying
the other thing, which is that I would address the question of
party descriptions first, and then see whether the arguments for
a lottery system still hold up quite as strongly.
Q48 Mr Hamilton: Could I ask a pretty
sensible question I think of as an electorate who does not get
involved in the politics. Would it then not be in the position
of the Electoral Commission, who conducted research prior to the
ballot paper design and doing the ballot paper design, to put
those arguments firmly and strongly at the time when the ballot
paper was being drawn up? I have tried to look at some of the
papers and I cannot find where you have strongly argued the case
that this should not have gone ahead the way it did?
Mr Wardle: We have not strongly
argued the case in favour of a lottery in the past. We have discussed
the case for a lottery in some of our previous work and we have
never made a firm recommendation that the UK should abandon the
current system. Gould has certainly put that back on the agenda
and we will take that up. On the question of registered descriptions,
Parliament voted in 2006 and that was followed through in the
Scottish elections after a good deal of debate in Parliament where
the Electoral Commission's original recommendation for six registered
descriptions was changed by Parliament, because Parliament felt
that 12 registered descriptions was a much more appropriate number
for political parties. We did not have foreknowledge of how different
parties might choose to register themselves. We applied the rules
as Parliament passed them, which gave us no discretion to refuse
the descriptions which were used on the Scottish parliamentary
ballot papers. Gould has looked at that. He has said there is
evidence that this was not a helpful state of affairs, and we
will pick that up and take it forward. Clearly, I think the whole
question of the 12 registered descriptions deserves another look—a
speedy "another look"—and part of that will be
taking into account experience in Wales; part of it will be taking
into account experience in Scotland. There are clearly some important
questions that have been raised and we will be coming back to
Parliament with recommendations on any changes we feel are necessary.
Q49 Mr Hamilton: Could I make two
points, Chairman, and then I will conclude on that. One is, when
you look at the lottery system would you also be considering at
that time a blocking system, where each party would be blocked
off, if the SNP wanted two candidates and put two candidates,
and Labour put two candidates; rather than a lottery system. I
know from personal experience, not being involved in this election,
for many of the elderly people going in it is much easier for
them to look at the party they want to support as well as the
individuals, and therefore that should be considered as one of
the options that is available? The second point I want to ask
is for clarification. Part of the report indicated that the electronic
system should be maintained in some fashion in relation to the
election; but Mr Gould's report also indicates that the paper
should be folded before it goes into the ballot box. If my memory
serves me right one of the problems with the electronic system
was you had to put the paper in a certain way, and you could not
fold the paper. Therefore, it is a contradiction in the recommendations.
Can we get clarification in relation to that?
Mr Wardle: On the first point,
as I have said, there are arguments against a lottery system as
well as for a lottery system. We will be looking at both sides
of the argument in taking this forward. On the question of folded
ballot papers the wider question is, as Sam Younger said in his
introduction, Ron Gould set out some options; I think the important
thing he said was the importance about e-counting is that e-counting
in Scotland this year suffered from a number of problems : to
do with coordination; to do with management of the suppliers;
to do with late legislation; to do with insufficient project planning;
and to do with insufficient research and thinking from the voter's
point of view about what the actual experience of going into a
polling station and casting your vote would be. I think the example
you have given is a very good one. I think everybody who was watching
voters casting their votes in Scotland will have seen people folding
the ballot paper because that is what they had always done, and
realising that actually they were asked to put it in straight.
I think that is exactly the sort of point that needs to be thought
about. It is quite a technical issue; it needs quite a lot of
research in terms of what works; and we need to look at whether
an e-counting solution can actually deliver an experience for
voters that makes sense. If you get to the point where the people
who are casting their votes have to fit themselves around the
system then there is something wrong with the electronic system.
Mr Hamilton: I do not think that requires
an awful lot of research, I have to say. It is commonsense.
Q50 Mr Wallace: Can I just take you
back to the process that led to the legislation that put in place
the procedures in the elections for the Scottish Parliament. In
December 2006, according to Ron Gould's report, you responded
to some of the draft orders that were placed before you and you
made a number of comments on them; some were taken up by the Scotland
Office and some were not. Can you tell me which comments were
not taken up?
Mr Wardle: I would like Andy to
come in on this point. There were 29 pages of comments and we
can certainly let you have a note on that.[2]
Q51 Mr Wallace: You can clarify which
comments?
Mr Wardle: Yes, it is not in the
annexes of the Gould report.
Q52 Mr Wallace: That order eventually
made it to March 2007. Can you tell me the involvement that you
had throughout that process before that order actually became
published; and indeed were you shown the final draft of that order?
Mr Wardle: I will ask Andy to
confirm this because he was there on the ground during the process,
but my understanding is that the Commission worked on two levels:
on the one hand the Government is under a statutory obligation
to consult us, which they did, and we responded; and that is the
point you have just talked about. They are not under a statutory
obligation to agree with everything we say, but that is the way
the system works. The other level in which the Commission was
involved was as a participant, or an attendee of the Elections
Steering Group, which is mentioned in the Gould Report, which
looked at various things. I will ask Andy to comment on the extent
to which that looked at the drafting of the legislation and that
sort of detail.
Mr O'Neil: Peter is quite right,
we did see the final draft and that is the one we commented on
formally as the Electoral Commission. We were also members of
the Legislation Sub-Group which was a sub-group of the Elections
Steering Group, and there were various drafts of the parliamentary
order seen at various times. We were told the legislation was
going to be later in the autumn, so we saw drafts as existed at
that time to assist us in the process of developing the gains,
because we have to give gains to the returning officers and the
electoral registration officers. We did see them, and we did give
29 pages of comments on the drafts at the turn of the year.
Q53 Mr Wallace: Did the Legislation
Sub-Group see the final draft?
Mr Wardle: The draft as it was
produced?
Q54 Mr Wallace: As it was before
it was produced—as published. The final draft just before
March 2007? You were given the report in August 2006; you responded
with comments in December 2006; and then those comments were absorbed
into a final draft that was then effectively published and implemented?
Mr O'Neil: From memory, the Sub-Group
did not see the final draft, subsequent to our comments.
Q55 Mr Wallace: The Sub-Group on
Legislation, in other words the working groups Legislative Sub-Group
did not see the final draft the Scotland Office was going to produce?
Mr O'Neil: Yes. If they had changed
it they would have technically had to resubmit it.
Q56 Mr Wallace: Did they change it
between August 2006 and March 2007?
Mr O'Neil: Yes. There were a lot
of changes between that period.
Q57 Mr Wallace: You have just said
you would have had to have seen it in its final format if they
made changes to the draft?
Mr O'Neil: Yes.
Q58 Mr Wallace: You have said that
they did make changes to the draft but the Legislative Sub-Group
did not see it?
Mr O'Neil: I am sorry, I thought
you said if the Sub-Group had seen it and made changes it would
then have had to have asked us to comment on those changes.
Mr Wardle: I think it is important
to be clear on the remit. One of the points that Ron Gould makes
throughout his report is a lack of clarity about roles, responsibilities
and accountability. The two players who have responsibility in
relation to legislation were the Scotland Office, who introduced
the legislation, and the Electoral Commission who were consulted
by statute on the legislation and gave their views. The Elections
Steering Group had no formal role; it was a coordinating group
set up to try to make coordination better at elections where you
had the Scotland Office and the then Scottish Executive both involved,
you had lots of other players.
Q59 Mr Wallace: We have all read
the report, we know the process.
Mr Wardle: The Legislation Sub-Group
though did not have a remit, as I understand it, to agree what
the legislation should be. The functions that the Legislation
Sub-Group had were when the Scotland Office wanted some advice
it would go to the Legislation Sub-Group and ask for that advice.
The key thing that happened in the Legislation Sub-Group was that
the members of the group were taken through by the Scotland Office
the legislation that was emerging so that they could begin to
plan how they would actually implement it when it was passed.
I think it is important to be clear the Legislation Sub-Group
did not have a formal role in deciding what should or should not
be in the legislation; that role was for the Scotland Office.
2 Ev 46-48 Back
| 
