Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not know whether Phil Thompson wants to come in, but I want to roll in a final question—if there are time constraints, convener, I am happy to be written to in relation to it. Any further comments on emergency proxies would be helpful, but I had also been talking about postal vote applications. Is data held on those who applied for postal votes? I know that data is held on first-time applicants, but were our black and minority ethnic communities proportionally more likely or less likely to apply for a postal vote? What about those in low-income areas and areas of multiple deprivation? I am conscious that there will not have been a uniform uptake in the application for and casting of postal votes across Scotland; there might have been variations. I am quite keen to better understand that. I do not want to open that up to wider conversation this morning, but, if there is data on that, I think that the committee would find it helpful.

Elections are now almost everyday business for local authorities—they are more likely to be having an election than not—and chief executives become returning officers almost by default. I looked at the role of chief executives as returning officers in another committee. I am not going down that road, but something that came out of that other committee’s inquiry was that some local authorities have standing election offices that do the work day by day, irrespective of whether an election is scheduled, whereas other local authorities do not have the capacity or resources to do that. I do not know whether they cluster together to run election offices across local authority boundaries.

I am putting that on the record because resourcing is an issue. Capacity, time and forward planning are vital. What is the picture across Scotland’s local authorities regarding having standing election offices that look ahead not just one year but two, three or five years? Those would be offices that do not only think about writing out in the February before a May poll to gauge the uptake of postal voting applications, but that think more generally about their longer-term strategies. That would help in the organisation and smooth running of elections.

The Glasgow experience—with which I have no issue, I should point out—was that candidates and agents did not get to see doubtful or spoiled ballot papers; they got to see only a sample of ballot papers to show the type of decisions that staff were making. That was fine, but was it standard throughout the country or does each returning officer take a different view? Is there a standardised way of reviewing such papers?

That is very helpful. I gave the caveat that there was a significant increase in reality, irrespective of what the Electoral Commission’s snapshot survey showed.

Does anyone believe that bringing forward the deadline for applying for a postal vote might have slightly reduced the number of people who eventually applied for a postal vote? I am reminded that 4,000 postal vote applications were received after the new, earlier deadline. What work was done with individual voters who applied for a postal vote after the deadline to remind them that they could have a proxy vote and that there were other ways to ensure that their democratic mandate was exercised?

I echo the convener’s comments about the excellent work that went into planning the election and making it safe, secure and credible. Those who worked on the day—certainly those at the count in my constituency—did exceptional work. I sure that that was the case in all members’ experience. It seems a little churlish to scrutinise some of the aspects to see how we can improve things, but I just wanted to give the context that I firmly believe that the elections went incredibly well in hugely challenging circumstances.

It seems churlish to ask about why we did not do better in relation to postal votes. Twenty-four per cent of voters applied for a postal vote, whereas the previous figure was 18 per cent. However, 38 per cent of voters said that they wished to apply for a postal vote, although that did not happen. Why was there that difference between the numbers of those who indicated that they wished a postal vote and those who actually took the steps to apply for it?

I accept what you have said, but I am not sure that you have told us whether there was a consistent approach across Scotland to contacting those who applied after the deadline for postal vote applications. Perhaps Malcolm Burr or Chris Highcock can say more about that.

Obviously, it is for the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Commission to take a view on whether that would be a worthwhile exercise. I know that our convener will ask questions on turnout shortly. In relation to maximising turnout, as we know, if someone has a postal vote and does not need to turn up in person, they are much more likely to cast a vote. That is one way of making sure that turnout is maximised in areas in which there are low-income households, which are traditionally less likely to vote. Any data that can be provided would therefore be welcome. Alternatively, if such a data set does not exist, perhaps the Electoral Management Board or the Electoral Commission could think about ways of creating one.

I can see that Seamus Searson wants to come in, and I am keen to hear from him. I will put my final question, and perhaps he could respond to both my questions, if that would be okay, convener.

I am interested in Mr Mundell’s line of questioning, because it gets to the heart of some of what we are talking about. We need clarity about what happened rather than snapshots of attainment. My understanding is that, in historically challenging circumstances, the attainment gap technically closed in both 2020 and 2021, compared to 2019 and previous years. Is that the understanding of our witnesses?

There is another important point. Does some of the difference between 2020 and 2021 have to do with the role of internal moderation procedures, whether those are departmental, whole school, local authority or across local authorities? I would like to better understand the moderation procedures that existed in local authorities in 2021 compared to those used in 2020.

One of the issues, of course, is that, without an exam—as unsuitable as those are for many young people—you do not have that benchmark. In 2020, we did not have that benchmark to refer to.

I am interested to know about 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 and previous years, and I am also interested in the role of moderation in schools at a local authority level in 2021 compared to 2020, because that might flush out some of the issues.

Of course, the lockdown from January to March clearly had a massive impact. It might not be ACM that led to that differential; it might have been that January to March lockdown. I am interested to know the witnesses’ views on that, too.

There is lot of confidence in the robust processes that underpinned the alternative certification model for 2021. There will always be room to improve that model, but it is consistent across the country.

There was, however, a contradiction in some of the SQA guidance in relation to there being a reliance on exam-style evidence but there also being an encouragement for schools and departments not to have traditional exit-style exams. We heard from young people that, in some schools, they got a large exam and, if they did not meet the standard, they got a second exam and then a third exam—so they got multiple opportunities to prove that they had reached the standard. Unfortunately, the process was top heavy in the last few weeks. What guidance did your local authorities give out about what best practice looks like in relation to unavoidable assessments in those last few weeks, and is there need for greater consistency? There seems to be a bit of a patchwork experience across and within schools and local authorities.