Seòmar agus comataidhean

Actually, it is a good question, Mr Doris, and I would be interested in the answer myself. I assume that it is a standardised approach across all 32 local authorities, but I ask Iain Hockenhull whether he can give us further information.

Good morning. As this is the first time I have seen the committee this year, I wish you all a happy new year, and I hope that you had a restful and enjoyable festive period.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes to the procedures for running local government elections in Scotland. During the productive session on 28 October last year, we had a discussion about a number of other Scottish statutory instruments, and committee members raised the matter of the monitoring of election expenses and the guidance that is available to candidates on that issue. Following that session, I reflected on those points with my officials and held follow-up discussions with the Electoral Commission. As a result, I am now proposing the provisions in the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2022, which sets out a statutory role for the commission in producing and policing guidance in that area.

I want to make it clear that the Electoral Commission already produces guidance on candidates’ expenditure, but that is carried out on a non-statutory and informal basis. The commission has welcomed the proposal to make its role statutory. That move will also bring arrangements in line with those for the Scottish Parliament elections. Overall, I consider that the changes will provide greater clarity on, and oversight of, electoral spending.

The order will bring forward the date when poll cards can be issued to electors. That change has been made specifically at the request of the convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. I would not normally have made that change at this relatively late stage, but the convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland has requested it, and the change is to the benefit of the voter, so I decided to bring forward that amendment.

The changes are relatively minor, albeit important, and they will clearly not have a significant effect on candidates, electoral administrators or others in relation to preparing the elections in May. Therefore, I do not consider that the Gould principle is relevant in this case, and the Electoral Commission has indicated its agreement on that assessment.

I hope that the committee will agree that the provisions are positive changes that will benefit voters, candidates and administrators, and that it will therefore support the order.

Once again, I am happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Yes. In discussions that we have had with the Electoral Commission, it has indicated that, as it has already carried out that role on an informal basis, it does not anticipate that any additional expenditure will be incurred. The hope is that, as it goes down the more formal route, it will be business as usual for it. The whole process is simply to enable the role to be part of the formal process, instead of the Electoral Commission almost being an afterthought. That is not a place where we want to be. The aim is to formalise the whole process.

Indeed. It also gives us the opportunity for transparency. It looks and feels a lot better.

You are probably correct, Mr Mountain; it is probably another of those quirks. Local government elections are exactly what it says on the tin. They are run separately by local authorities in each of the 32 local authority areas. They are locally run. We have taken another look at many of the changes, and this is one of those. We have come to the conclusion that it is a better way of working.

I am always happy to listen to you, Mr Mountain, and to any ideas that you have. We may not always agree, but we have developed a reasonably good friendship over the years and are able to work with one another.

We live in exceptional circumstances. What happened in the 2021 election was driven by the need to ensure adequate time for administrators to process a possible surge in demand for postal votes due to the pandemic. Given the increase in postal voters last May, we do not anticipate a similar increase this year, as many people who will want to vote by post will already have that facility in place. I have been voting by post since 2007. That was mainly a quirk of my being so busy in my working life, but I won an election that year and—although not being superstitious—just decided to remain a postal voter, and I have been winning elections ever since.

We do not anticipate encountering the same issue as last year. Postal voters will already be down to vote by post. Bringing forward the deadline would reduce the amount of time that people would have in which to apply for a postal vote. We do not anticipate there being any more postal voters than last year. We already have a solid group of individuals who have indicated that they wish to vote that way.

I do not believe that there will be any impact. Candidates’ expenses, returns and declarations are already available for public inspection for two years following their receipt by the returning officer, and copies can be requested on payment of a fee. The new requirement for returning officers to send copies of candidates’ expenses, returns and declarations to the Electoral Commission, if requested, allows for the commission to request copies without payment of a fee.

I will ask Iain Hockenhull to give you a more detailed answer to that question. We can take it from there.

At that point, I was your chief whip rather than the minister, so I will ask Iain Hockenhull whether he knows anything regarding that.

We fundamentally disagree with the UK Government on the issue. I do not think that the Scottish Government has been quiet about its position that it does not believe that voter ID is the way forward. As Mr Mountain has heard from me today, it has been shouted from the rooftops that we fundamentally disagree with voter ID.

There is a big difference between something that we all fundamentally disagree with and aspects of the bill where we could probably find a Scottish solution.