Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-112)
MR SAM
YOUNGER, MR
PETER WARDLE,
MR ANDREW
SCALLAN AND
MR ANDY
O'NEIL
13 NOVEMBER 2007
Q100 Mr Davidson: The second point
is about closing the polls earlier and Ron Gould does mention
that. Do you have a view on that?
Mr Younger: We have not got a
fixed view on it at the moment. After all, the legislation of
a year or so ago extended the polling hours for all elections
to make them uniform. When you have got a system where a country
is used to operating in a certain way you need to be very careful
about changing it.
Q101 Mr Walker: I just want to make
a point on next day counting. I believe that democracy is very
precious and should be celebrated as much as possible. I think
it is really quite nice that after ten o'clock the votes are counted,
television covers it and there is a sense of excitement and occasion
about it, and that is important for encouraging people to go out
and vote, making people feel part of a great journey, a great
event. I am concerned that we are just taking all the excitement
out of this. Next day counting, or maybe next week counting, lacks
the immediacy and excitement of democracy as we have it today
which, as I have already said, has worked well for the past 100
or so years. Are you not concerned that we could be making this
a rather dry and unexciting process?
Mr Younger: I entirely respect
that view and it is certainly in line with the traditions we have
had and drives a lot of people to want to see a count on the night.
However, I do think the principle ought to be the first base is
to have something that you feel confident is going to produce
a result that has integrity.
Q102 Mr Walker: This is what I do
not understand. This has never been a problem, we have always
been confident in the result. I do not understand why we have
introduced electoral systems that create so much concern both
in your mind and the public's mind. This seems to be bad news,
to be honest, unfortunate.
Mr Younger: That is a wider question.
In terms of the count, when you had a complex system with postal
balloting and electronic counting used for the first time, in
that particular case our view was that the interests of an accurate
result—
Q103 Mr Walker: Is this progress?
Mr Younger: —were for the
next day in relation to that particular area.
Mr Walker: Do you think this is progress
in our democracy? I think our democracy is heading backwards,
not going forwards. Do you think we have made progress?
Q104 Mr MacNeil: The SNP were elected!
Mr Younger: Before the Commission
was created a number of new things had begun to be experimented
with: electronic counting, electronic voting and postal voting.
I do think increasing the range of opportunities that people have
in terms of how they cast their vote is a good thing in principle
but we need to make sure that it is done properly.
Q105 Mr Walker: It is dismantling
confidence in our democracy in a large number of areas.
Mr Younger: It is up to us to
make sure that we restore that confidence. I would accept in relation
to postal voting that confidence took a dip but legislation last
year has started us on the road to resume that confidence.
Q106 Mr MacNeil: Perhaps part of
the restoration of that confidence might be the separation of
the Scottish Parliament and local government elections and having
them on different days. When we look over the election debacle
it was not really the STV part that was run out for the first
time, that went off fairly seamlessly, and the problem was not
with first-past-the-post. Would you support the Scottish Parliament
and local government elections being on different days?
Mr Wardle: Yes.
Q107 Mr Davidson: Does that mean
different years or simply different days in the same week?
Mr Wardle: Gould's recommendation,
as I read it, is not different days in the same week, it is changing
the cycles so that they take place in different years. There are
arguments for and against holding elections on the same day, and
Gould goes into those, and it is quite clear from his analysis
that they are finely balanced. In the Scottish context it is relatively
easy to change the cycles so there is clear water between the
local government elections and Scottish Parliament elections,
and that seems to be what he is saying. That context does not
exist in other parts of the UK and it may not exist in Scotland
in certain years because there are Westminster and European elections
to take into account.
Chairman: Ron Gould recommends that there
should be separate days for the local government elections and
Scottish Parliament elections, and also preferably two years apart.
I welcome this recommendation. Would you expect the Scottish Parliament
elections to be in two years' time?
Q108 Mr MacNeil: Six years' time,
the Government is popular!
Mr Younger: I think that goes
beyond our remit, those are not decisions for us. If you can find
a starting point that says if you can find a way to keep elections
separate that is probably the best thing to do, but it will not
always be right that you would not put elections on the same day
or combine them.
Q109 Mr Hamilton: If that is the
case, and it depends what one goes for six years and what one
goes for four years, and I am quite sure the incumbents at the
present time will look to try and extend the Scottish Parliament
for two years, if that is the case and they do separate, what
does that do about democracy because there was only a minimal
turnout on a scorching day, on a day when two parties were going
head-to-head? The democratic deficit really does concern me, that
on a day when there should have been a massive turnout there was
not a massive turnout. The common view is if you separate the
two elections there will be even less of a turnout because one
complemented the other to get the turnout. I do not take the view
that everybody seems to be taking, there is a bigger issue at
stake and that is about making sure people come out. What does
concern me is that the Electoral Commission have gone on the record,
and correct me if I am wrong, as saying you prefer the STV system.
I watched Andy O'Neil saying, "It wasn't me, guv. The voting
system works very well in local government, there are other problems,
it is not us who are to blame for it all". I do have a problem
with the democratic deficit if you separate the two days. Everybody
seems to be accepting it yet I think there is a major problem
with that because I do not want to see a 30% turnout.
Mr Wardle: I think the first thing
to say is that the Electoral Commission does not favour one electoral
system over the other, the Electoral Commission is keen that whatever
electoral system is chosen by parliaments is properly administered.
On the question of separation, you are absolutely right, that
is precisely what Ron Gould worries about in his report. There
has been a big debate about that on a UK-wide level in relation
to the role of the Electoral Commission and, coming back to Mr
Davidson's comments earlier on, how much can the Electoral Commission
do to drive up turnout. We agree with others, notably the Committee
on Standards in Public Life, that what drives turnout is principally
not the activities of the Electoral Commission or the local returning
officer but the activities of political parties who put propositions
before the electorate which will either fire up the electorate
to come out and vote or will not. Therefore, I think there needs
to be a debate that encompasses the political parties and the
parliaments over this point. Ron Gould has considered the arguments
and it is clear that he thinks it is finely balanced and the clear
argument against is the one you have just articulated.
Q110 Mr Hamilton: We are concerned
about that.
Mr Wardle: If elections are going
to be held on the same day, because we are concerned about turnout,
then there are other things that need to be done to avoid the
problems of holding them on the same day, which are probably to
do with confusion and complexity. We need to take a decision on
what is the right way forward.
David Mundell: Chairman, I think it is
important to recall that many of these arguments were articulated
in the Scottish Parliament at the time that STV was introduced
and only one party voted against the introduction of STV.
Q111 Chairman: I can understand that
the STV is a complex system and when votes are counted it is going
to take more time and the Electoral Commission and others think
it should be the next day, but as far as Scottish parliamentary
elections are concerned there has been counting in the past on
the same night and there have never been any problems. I believe
it is a fine tradition in this country that the votes are counted
the same evening and there is the excitement of the supporters
and the candidates and the election agents and there is a very,
very strong feeling among colleagues here and in the Commons that
they do not want this excitement to go and for this fine tradition
to be given up.
Mr Younger: I entirely respect
that view. I would only say that in the case of this particular
combination of elections we did take the view that it would have
been better to have counting the next day, but that is not something
that is a blanket for every single one necessarily.
Q112 Chairman: Could I thank the
witnesses for their attendance. Before we conclude, would you
like to say anything which perhaps we have not covered during
our questions?
Mr Younger: Only to thank you
again for the opportunity to come and speak to you. It is valuable
for us, not only beginning to go through our emerging thinking
on how we respond to what is in the Gould report but also to get
some of the feedback from the Committee on the sorts of things
that are important to you. There are lessons to learn for everybody,
I hope we do all learn them and can be in a position to provide
something that is much better for the Scottish electorate and,
indeed, electorates elsewhere as time goes on. We would be delighted
and very happy to engage further with the Committee, particularly
once we have thought further about these things and particularly
on some of these issues that are going to require slightly longer
term debate, such as the chief returning officer role. We would
very much welcome another opportunity if the Committee is considering
this further.
Chairman: Thank you for your attendance.
I am sure that my colleagues found your evidence this morning
very helpful. Thank you.
| 
