Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you are aware, convener, registration to vote is a rolling poll and we keep updating our information all the time. The communication will say that the individual is a postal voter and ask whether they wish to retain their postal vote. It is up to each individual to ensure that that happens.

I do not believe that any analysis has been done, but I am saying that from hearsay. I ask Iain Hockenhull to give you some solid facts on the matter.

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.

Ironically, I have had that conversation with officials as well. My question was why this has not been done before now. It simply appears to be yet another one of those quirks of local government elections, which we experienced in the previous session.

On accessibility, I am a member of Renfrewshire access panel and I have been since I was a councillor. I think that I have previously mentioned the panel in this forum, but it does some fantastic work with Renfrewshire Council to ensure that any new buildings such as polling stations are accessible. When an access panel works well, it will effectively audit a new building, but the problem is that, because it is not a statutory group like a community council, it does not get automatically included in the process. As a result, you have to ensure that a relationship exists between local government and the panel.

I think that that sort of thing can be done at a local level while we will do everything we can to ensure that we are reviewing these matters and that everything is open for those who have accessibility issues. Locally, the local authorities should be working with the volunteer groups—the access panels—across Scotland. As with any other volunteer organisation, there are areas where the panels have more volunteers and work better. In Renfrewshire, for example, the panel carried out audits on the access to the new St Mirren stadium in 2009 and on Paisley’s new town hall when it was being renovated. It is now being renovated again and the panel will have access to that, too.

If local authorities automatically deal with access panels and include them in work on polling stations, which is what should be happening, we should be okay. We would therefore suggest to local returning officers that it might be an idea to engage with their local access panels or disability groups on such matters.

We have had on-going dialogue with the Electoral Commission. It was one of the first meetings that I had when I became a minister—because I knew that the bill was coming and that it was one of the important ones—in order to ensure that we had that on-going relationship. That relationship is extremely important for all the Administrations—the UK, Wales and Scotland—but part of the legislation that the UK Government is suggesting makes that relationship extremely difficult for the Electoral Commission.

I ask my colleague Iain Hockenhull to comment on the technical aspects of the legal case that you mentioned.

We could probably look at many aspects of the UK’s idea. Although we were an innovator on that, other people can come up with ideas that might be helpful and guide us in another way, and we could consider digital imprints again for our electoral reform bill. The whole idea would be for us to take the digital imprints idea and move it to the next level, if there is one. However, it comes down to one of the disagreements between the Scottish and UK Governments, which is that the UK Government believes that it has the right to impose its process and system on us because the area of internet service provision is not devolved. Its argument is therefore that it can do that. Our argument—which is based on the arguments and advice that I have had from officials—is that that is not the case. We believe that we can still legislate for digital imprints ourselves. If the committee wants further detail, I will get Iain Hockenhull to add to that.