 Welcome, colleagues and members to the Devolution Further Powers Committee, our 27th meeting of 2015. Agenda item 1 is, first of all, to decide whether we are going to take a couple of items of business in private. Agenda item 3 involves consideration of amendments made to the Scotland bill at report stage in the House of Commons on Monday 9 November. Agenda item 4 involves consideration of a draft committee guide to devolution in Scotland. Can I ask members if they agree to taking items 3 and 4 in private? Agenda item 2, the second item in business, is taking evidence on the Scottish Parliament elections order 2015. We have a panel of witnesses to provide evidence on the order. All of those panel members have huge titles after their name. I'm just going to read out each individual's name on this occasion to save some time. Gordon Blair from West Lothian Council, Ian Milton from the Grampian Assessors and Electoral Registration Office, Andy O'Neill from the Electoral Commission and Mary Pitt-Kathley from the Electoral Management Board of Scotland. I don't intend to take any opening statements this morning, folks. I'd like to try and do this in about 40 minutes if we can achieve it, because we've got a lot to get through on our agenda today. I just begin by opening a general question about what changes have been made in this order compared with the 2015 order, which covered the administration of elections in 2011. In general terms, I think that that would be the best way, because I know that it's a very hefty order. Who would like to take that one? Mary, you look as though you're full of anticipation. I think that members of the committee have the submission that the Electoral Management Board has made, and we highlight the changes that have been made since we engaged with civil servants in relation to the drafting of the order. I should begin by saying that we were very grateful for the opportunity to be involved at that early stage, and we welcome the fact that the discussions that we've had have led to some of those changes. The main ones that I would highlight relating to our agreement is that we should be putting the interests of the voter first, relating to being able to issue postal votes earlier than was previously allowed for at the last time that we had those polls, being able to replace lost postal voter packs earlier than was previously the case, and also giving us the power to advise postal voters who have not completed their postal voting statement properly, giving them notice of that, telling them that that was the case, so that they can avoid making the same mistakes in the future and losing their vote at any other election. The specific requirement in relation to voters being able to join a queue if there is such a thing in a polling station at 10 p.m. Another one relates to commonly used names, an issue that caused some of us quite a lot of concern at the time of the last general election but has been now resolved in this order, and specifically one that has engaged me in the past around the issue of employment of staff who may have been associated with a particular candidate or campaign. The other one is relatively minor in relation to electronic submission of notices, and again we welcome that. We're comfortable with all of these changes and indeed welcome them having been taken on board. I'm particularly welcoming the change of name issue, particularly given my first name is Robert, but I'm known as Bruce, so I'll make it much clearer for people in the future. I'm delighted by that particular move, not that Bruce is necessarily an uncommon name in Scotland. Sorry, I've probably given away far too much information. Can you just give us a feel about that consultation process that happened between the various electoral administrators and the Scottish Government, just to see how deep that was and how meaningful it was? I can do that from the perspective of the Electoral Commission. Obviously, we've had lots of discussions with the Scottish Government. We welcome the revision of the order. We think that the order builds on a lot of the recommendations that we've made since 2011, which we include in various of our reports on various elections. We're particularly interested in the apps and voting statement, form V. There's lots of colleagues in the Electoral Commission who are happy that they've revised that. I won't go into detail of what that is, but it allows us to collect lots of data post the event. I would particularly welcome Scottish Governments' involvement with us in the sense that they never received because the provisions of the 2012 Scotland Act won't commence until 1 July. They were speaking to us well before 1 July. In fact, they informally consulted us on the draft at that stage and subsequently formally consulted us once they had the power. In particular, with regard to the exemptions for disability exemptions for candidates, our lawyers and Scottish Government lawyers have spent considerable hours working together to try to make that work. I think that the depth of involvement in the order from the commission's perspective is lengthy and has added value to the order. I also want to reflect on that. Your general point about consultation. From the solar's perspective, we have an elections working group and representatives of the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office and the Electoral Commission are there. Chatham House rules apply free and frank exchange of views and informs everybody. We're delighted that the outcome of that is reflected to a very great extent in the resulting order. The consultation from our perspective was excellent. Stuart, did you have a supplementary? I'll come back to you later in that case. I'll follow up on some of that. The written evidence does, I think, broadly commend the consultation. I'm looking at the Electoral Commission's written evidence. It says, call me a little cynic, I don't know whether there's just a wee hint that there are things that are not resolved, but we continue to recommend that all legislation should be clear, whether the royal is sent to the bill and to introduce the second legislation to Parliament. I don't know why I've been drawn to that and why we continue to recommend it. Is there an indication there that that is an issue that is not being resolved? The other one about clear legislation well in advance is that there will be less time to ensure that guidance for campaigners is available in good time before the start of the regular period May 2016. Given that that has the guidance for campaigners and that people are conducting themselves and understand clearly, it's a highly political and publicised area if campaigners get that wrong. Are those areas still not resolved to your satisfaction? I think that the first point that I would make is what we want is clear legislation and we're happy with the order as it is. We want it, obviously, now rather than later. Clear legislation to us is defined by knowing what it will be six months before the electoral event. The order was laid on 4 November, so it actually does hit six months in terms of clear. Obviously, if you didn't pass the legislation, assuming that you didn't bring another one in, we would have the legislation as it currently is. In that sense, it's clear. Our difficulties in terms of telling people what the legislation is is the fact that we have the duty to provide, as you know, guidance to parties, candidates and agents. We would normally provide that three months before the beginning of the regular period, which is 5 January. We are a little bit late on that, but we have been doing things, briefings at party conferences and such like many of you will have seen from your own attendance at party conferences. We will ensure that candidates and agents are particularly aware of the changes in the regulatory frameworks for candidates and agents, particularly in respect of the disability aspects that have changed. We will highlight that in the guidance. The guidance that we will produce by the end of the year will have to wait until we have the revisions and we can change all the guidance. In terms of electoral admin guidance, we have produced some of it and we will produce the rest of it at the end of the year or at the beginning of the next year. So, it is not ideal but you are managing the process? Yes. Andy Wightman, on the regulated period, you mean that the commission previously recommended that we should move to one regulated period, which I think makes quite some considerable sense as a point of view of people involved in this process. Why do you think that that recommendation hasn't been accepted as yet? Firstly, it is a question that the Scottish Government would have to ask, not answer rather than ourselves. We recommended moving to a single regulated period back in 2011. They have chosen not to do that. The impact is that donations in what is known as the long period for candidates will not be recorded. That caused some confusion when we analysed that back in 2011 in the sense that we had candidates recording donations in the short period. There was a lack of transparency because they couldn't record them. Some people chose to, some people didn't. We suggested one period, but they haven't gone for that. I suspect that it's been a matter of time to achieve changes, but, again, it's for the Scottish Government to come in on that. Perhaps four years ago, you recommended that. Other things have moved a lot more quickly than that. Indeed, yes, and they've accepted it. You said that we've had lots of jolly good discussions with Frank and food exchanges, the civil service and all the rest of it. Obviously, it's not on this one. Again, yes. I don't think that it's a question of their post to the principal. I think that there was a time factor involved in this. As we all know, there's been a lot of electoral referendum legislation post 2011 through to here, so I suspect that it's a time matter. We will obviously report on the administration of the election, and we will look at this and we will analyse the returns that we get from candidates. We are absolutely clear that there are no legal impediments here, or there are no issues about reserved and devolved issues at play, as far as the Scottish Government's views are concerned on this. In terms of being able to require donations by candidates in the long period, our view is—and we can confirm this in writing to the committee—that the ability to legislate for donations in the long period is devolved. This is one of the reasons why other things haven't been able to be done. We have spent a lot of time talking with Scottish Government lawyers around the definition of personal expenses for excluding that for people with disabilities, and that has proved very complicated because candidates on party lists is reserved because it comes under pera, whereas personal expenses in constituency and individual candidates on the list is devolved, so it has proved very difficult to legislate for that. That has led to not enough time to do other things. Does that not mean that it is the same then for donations? My understanding is no, but we can confirm that. The other point that I would like to ask is what discussions has the Electoral Commission had with the political parties on that issue? Before anything could happen in that area, inevitably—I will ask the same question to the minister when he comes in front of me—what discussions has the Government had with the political parties in that area? What discussions has the Electoral Commission had with it? In terms of donations in the long period, we published our report back in 2011 and talked to parties via the political parties panel all the time on that. I am aware that the Scottish Government did consult parties on changes to donations in the long period. There is a question of, to be fair and open, if you change—this is coming back to our duty to provide guidance—if you change the law and you do not give people an adequate period of time in which to understand the changes of the law, it may prove difficult for candidates and parties. Changing donations in the long period could mean that candidates may have collected donations and not checked permissibility if it is over £500 and used them in the long period, which they should not do because they may be impermissible. The amount of occasions when a candidate will get more than £500 and has to check permissibility may be small, but there is a slight element of whether you should legislate and not have the ability to tell the candidate what the law is before the law comes in. I know that one party has pointed that out to the Scottish Government. I could prolong that a bit, but I think it will. Malcolm Grant. I have just got one question. The law has not been changed in regard to 16 and 17-year-olds. I am wondering what progress has been made with regard to the registration of 16 and 17-year-olds for the Scottish Parliament elections. Malcolm Grant. If I can answer that. Just before I answer that, can I also state that you asked a question about the stakeholder consultation? As far as electoral registration officers are concerned, it went extremely well at both formal and informal levels with the Scottish Government. That is that point, if you like. As far as the 16 and 17-year-olds, the work is on-going. The Canvas concludes on 1 December, but the actual registration activity will continue right through until 18 April, which is the deadline for registration for participants in the Scottish Parliamentary election. It is going well. There is a lot of work to be done, and there is a complex point in terms of messaging. Until 1 December has passed, the message has to be put out that people who are 15 by 30 November this year can register to vote. After 1 December, it will be 14-year-olds and upwards. There is a slight messaging complexity, but it is not something that is going to cause too much difficulty. We are working well with the education authorities, so we are getting the lists of young people to help to verify their applications. The process is working well at present. In terms of 14 and 15-year-old attainers, is that what you are referring to then, or what about people who are coming on stream a bit later? No, no. At present, anybody who is 15 and meets the other criteria by 30 November this year may apply to register to vote and have their names included as registered electors on 1 December revised registers. After 1 December, electoral registration officers can actually accept applications from 14-year-olds and onwards. On that, you mentioned that the consultation of the Scottish Government very well. Will you raise the issue of the electoral registration office expenses under that heading and your written submission and draw our attention to the estimated Scottish Parliament general election costs in May 2016? However, note that that does not remain silent on registration costs. Is that something that you raised with the Government in your consultation? It is something that we did not raise in the stakeholder consultation response. It was not really part of the stakeholder consultation response. The issue that I have raised simply just now is that, in light of the response to Mark McDonald's question earlier on in this Parliament in September this year, John Swinney reported that the total cost for electoral registration officers over and above their normal budgetary arrangements for providing registration services year round was, I think, £1.042 million. It is a significant issue. You felt it important enough to draw to the committee's attention. The financial implications are silent on that particular point. You point to the additional cost of the business and the referendum. What is the estimated cost? Just to get a scale of that, what cost are we talking about here? Is it significant? The answer that John Swinney gave was that the additional cost for registration officers in providing services for the independence referendum was £1.04 million over and above their normal business as usual budgets that they acquire from local authorities. So, if we have the same level of engagement, we could anticipate a similar additional cost of around about £1 million. If we don't have the same level of engagement— Currently, there's a concern that if you get the same level of turnout, there's a shortfall of £1.4 million that's not been addressed. One point zero four. Potentially. At the end of the day, the order makes provision for local authorities to fund electoral registration officers. They require that, and article 24, I think. It's really a case of that the financial implications of the Scottish parliamentary election will include potentially that sort of sum of money, but that will have to be sourced essentially through local authorities. I think that it's important that everybody is aware that there is that potential. So, is there dialogue still continuing in regards to that? There's no active dialogue at present on that. We're obviously waiting to see how the budget setting round goes this winter. Is anyone else? Is one there? No. No, it's okay. I thought maybe I was going to say something. I just wanted an update on the progress of individual voter registration. The canvas is progressing in that regard. The canvas commenced in Scotland on 1 August and concludes on 1 December. The canvas is essentially a two-stage process now, which will raise awareness about the fact that it is a two-stage process. We've been doing a lot of work with the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board and ourselves to make sure that that message is understood. Essentially, the canvas is progressing well in terms of getting the household inquiry forms back. The household inquiry forms in the old days of traditional canvas was where the job finished. The Electoral Registration Officers would lift the information from the canvas forms and update their registers by adding names that were added to the canvas form, deleting names that were removed from the canvas form. Now, there's a second stage to that process. If the name is removed, we've got to find another piece of evidence to support removal of that name from the register. We can find that through co-operation with local authorities, providing us with data, or else conducting a review. To add a name to the register, we need to have an application from the individual to make that registration. In that respect, there is a second stage to the canvas, and that won't all be complete in entirety because we will have some electors who won't necessarily follow up by responding to their invitation to register in time for the first December registers. Apart from that, the canvas is working well. I think that that's my concern, as those who don't follow up just ignore the things that come through the door. What happens to those people? The position is that, with the household inquiry form and any subsequent invitation to register that an electoral registration officer issues, there is a follow-up procedure. The follow-up procedure is two reminders and a visit to the address by an electoral registration officer canvas staff. In that regard, there is plenty of follow-up in that regard. We are working on that just now. I wonder how that works in county constituencies, whilst it might be possible for visits to be easily arranged in the towns. Is that going to be universal in Scotland? The law applies to every electoral registration officer across Scotland, and England and Wales. In that regard, we are all working on the same framework to try and provide a consistent registration service across all areas. In my area, there is an urban and rural element to it. We receive funding from the Westminster Government to employ additional canvas staff, and that is what we have done. The second point is that, at this stage, can you give us any estimate of how many people are still to be carried over onto the new register and to be signed up in this process, where there has been any failure to follow up from the first invitation to the second one? I cannot give any estimate today. We are working on this day by day just now. We do not conclude the canvas until 1 December, but, for example, we get a canvas form back next week, or the following week, with a name added to it, maybe in response to a second reminder for the canvas form. There is a new name to be added to the register. If they do not apply within 28 days, we will have to issue an invitation to register. We will not wait for 28 days normally. We will issue an invitation to register. That invitation to register might not be completed and returned prior to 1 December, so that person will not be added until maybe the January update to the register. The process is very dynamic and on-going, and it is almost impossible to take a snapshot at any one time and come up with any meaningful assessment. Obviously, I am looking at the management stats on a daily basis in my own office, but it would be quite a leap to transfer that to an estimate. It would be possible to make an estimate of the number of people who have, whether it is increased or decreased since the last electoral event. Some electoral management software will not provide the final electorate until the electoral registration officer asks for their registers to be run. That will vary depending on the electoral management software. Given that this is a two-stage process in this canvas, some additions will not be made in the scenario that I have just given you until possibly after 1 December, I think that we have got to bear that in mind. As I see it, the electoral registration is moving from an annual canvas and a refresh and a revised register to a year-round constant updating and real-time updating of the register. Just a quick clarification on that. I am pleased to hear everything you said, in relation to the visits to houses that have not made the returns. How long would you intend them to be in place? Given that we are issuing invitations to register year-round now, canvassing will be continuing year-round following up with invitations to register. In my own authorities area, I have employed canvassers on full 12-month contracts. I see it now as a year-round process. Somebody may get a visit in February next year that will enable them to be registered for the election. Absolutely. If somebody moves house and they advise the local authority that they have moved house so that their council tax record is updated, I will get notice of that and I will keep an eye on the register of that address. If they do not make an online application to register, then I will issue an invitation to register. Once I have issued the invitation to register, then I am obliged to make two reminders if I do not get a response and a house call if I do not get a response. So it will continue year-round. Stuart McMill. When you mentioned Malcolm Chisholm's question about the 16-year-old, you said that there has been good working with the education authorities. Previously, when we went through the referendum, I raised the issue of working with skills development Scotland and colleges for registration purposes, too. Is that happening as well in that instance? I cannot comment on skills development Scotland, but I can certainly comment on tertiary education providers in that we are working with them and we are receiving data. As part of the 16-17-year-old's registration campaign in which we ran and will continue running until late into April next year, we worked with Skills Development Scotland as part of one of our partnerships. Skills Development Scotland tweeted three times to all their clients, which is some 38,000 people, about registration messages for 16-17-year-olds, and we are working with NUS Scotland and University Scotland to ensure that they get messages about registration out as well. I compliment what Ian was saying as well. The commission agrees with them. The first December is not the end of the story in terms of electoral registration. The work just simply continues. We have public awareness plans leading up to the deadline for registration of 18 April, which we will pursue. We are working with lots, including Ian's electoral registration colleagues and partners, to ensure that as many people who wish to be registered are registered. Perhaps I could just add to that the work that education authorities have been doing with the commission and with electoral registration officers across the country has been a very good start to that. We had registration week in September, when the schools were back after the summer break. We have been actively trying to encourage people who are at school and who could register to vote to do so. We have hundreds of young people who are working with our employment and training unit, who get those young people into apprenticeships and so on. They are going to specifically speak to those young people who are 16 and 17-year-olds who have left school. However, we are also working with our community learning and development teams to make sure that they are also talking to young people who might not get the message at school. There are obviously school leavers who would be entitled to vote as well, and we are trying to make sure that they understand how they can register and encourage them to do so. A couple of questions, convener, following some of the points raised in the EMB evidence. The first was about notification to postal voters who have submitted incorrect or incomplete postal voting statements. I wondered just as a rough idea as to how much of an issue that is currently in elections in terms of the numbers that are rejected as a result of incorrect or incomplete statements. I would not be able to give you a figure for the whole of Scotland, but we can certainly look for that information and provide it to the committee if you would find that useful. I would say that it is less of a problem than it has been, because we are now able, after particular elections, to tell people that they have not been filling in their date of birth. They have put the dates that they signed the form, for example—a very common mistake—or they have not signed it in the same way that they signed their application, for example. They have maybe used a new name if they have got married, for example, and that is not the name that was on their application. There are all sorts of reasons for the form not being properly completed, but I think that the fact that we can now go out afterwards, or at least the electoral registration officers can go out afterwards and tell them, is helpful and is helping to stop that happening. The rates of post-vote rejection that Mr O'Neill has just told me have been reduced, so I am glad that that was what I understood as well. If we look back to the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2011, the rejection rate was 5.9 per cent. Earlier this year, the general election was 2.9 per cent, and the Scottish independence referendum was only 2.7 per cent. You can see that there is a decline, but we would obviously like to get everybody to fill the form improperly so that their vote can be included in the count. Indeed. Those are welcome statistics, especially as I suspect that, over that period of time, the number of people registered for postal votes has gone up. I am aware that there have been drives to encourage individuals on to a postal vote because of the more likely event of them turning out. On the issue of signatures not matching, what allowance or otherwise can be afforded, particularly for individuals with disabilities, where it can be very difficult for them to replicate signatures on more than one occasion? What allowances are provided in that regard? In that regard, if I may say, the situation is that the applications for absolute voting come into the electoral registration officer. If there is a problem with providing a signature or a signature is inconsistent, we can offer a signature waiver, which means that a signature does not have to be provided in circumstances as long as the electoral registration officer is satisfied that there is good reason. That must be made, essentially, at the application. It would not work if somebody decides when they decide to cast their postal vote that they cannot give a consistent signature. It is too late then. The arrangement has to be made in advance, but it is a perfect situation for people who suffer from stroke and disability. In the follow-up information, let us say, for example, that individual registers does not say at the time that, as a result of their disability, they may have difficulty replicating their signature. Their postal ballot is rejected as a consequence. When you follow-up, is the information around that included in that follow-up information? If you do this as a result of a disability, here is a step that you can take. Yes, and the feedback is good. In fact, the number of waiver applications has increased, but I do not have the stats in front of me. I have certainly seen a growing number of people who have a waiver, but it is still a relatively small number. I would stress that returning officers and their staff who do this piece of work when postal votes are opened have all had training from the forensic science people who can tell us about what to look out for in terms of forged signatures, and we take it very, very seriously. There would be no way in which any capricious decision would be made that the signature just does not look the same. We would look at it very, very carefully, following pen path and all sorts of advice that we have had. It is a very serious decision for us to take that somebody's signature just simply does not match that that they gave previously. In terms of the other issue, I note that in terms of voters in a queue at close of poll, I realise that one of the defining images of a recent general election was of voters at a certain polling station being turned away at close of poll. I note that it says that planning for sufficient polling facilities is also in terms of the actual polling facilities themselves. What guidance is offered in terms of size requirements based on the number of individuals who will be voting at that polling station? We have an exercise within the electoral management board of working out what we think the anticipated turnout would be. We take into account all sorts of things, including the comments that people might be making in the media around what they expect turnout to be. On the basis of that assessment, we would issue advice to returning officers about the maximum number of voters who could vote at each polling station. For the Scottish independence referendum, because we were anticipating a very high turnout, we recommended that no more than 800 voters per station should be the norm. That was followed by every returning officer, and we had a very, very high turnout, but no complaints about queuing and certainly nothing at the end of the day. For the general election, we thought that the turnout might be a bit less, so we recommended that no more than 1,000 voters per station be allowed or be provided or be planned for. Again, that was followed and that also gave us good throughput on the day, so the stations operated efficiently. I am aware that that is not always the case in some other parts of the UK where larger numbers of electors may be scheduled to each polling station. The risk there is that that may lead to queues, either at busy times of the day or towards the end of the day if people decide to wait until the last minute. We are very anxious that that does not become a feature in Scottish elections. In terms of the use of venue, I know that in some local authorities there has been a move to try and move away from the use of schools where possible, because it does not mean that you have to close the school on that day. Is there any general guidance in relation to venues to be used or is it very much at the discretion of local authorities as to which venues they use? It is for the local authority to determine the polling places that is for the returning officer then to determine the number of polling stations within that polling place. I am not aware of any guidance in determining polling places other than the electrocommission guidance, so that it should be accessible to those who are able and those who are also with a disability. Those who are able are a geographic consideration of those with a disability is actually getting in and out of the premises. In terms of the suitability of polling places, yes, there is a move away from schools for obvious reasons, but my experience is that we use community wings. We do not close the school. We take special arrangements to segregate the playground so that there is no risks to the children, for example. We minimise the number of schools that we have to use, but the bottom line sometimes is that there is no physical building in a locality other than the local primary school or whatever to run the poll for that day. However, if there is any suitable alternative, then there are clear recommendations going into the councils. Certainly, in my experience, the councils have decided that a school has to be used because there is no suitable alternative for polling purposes. For that day, for that purpose, the primary concern is the access of voters who are able and disabled. Johnston, I will leave the last question to you. One of the things that has been asked quite often when you are a candidate knocking on doors during my election is the issue of later last minute registration for absent votes. Is the processes that are going to be adopted through this order likely to change the date on which last minute votes can be achieved, or are we going to have any changes there, basically? The position with this order is that we have the standard framework of deadlines that we have for other elections in Scotland, so that is very useful indeed. Originally, there was a suggestion in the stakeholder consultation stage that deadlines might be different for proxies and applications and things like that, but I am really pleased that the representations that we have made have been reflected in the order that has been laid before Parliament, so we have very standard deadlines that apply throughout all elections. This is the first Scottish Parliament election where you have online registration, so you will be able to do that until up to midnight on 18 April, because previously it was paper. Those deadlines are effectively as late as they can practically be, is that what you are suggesting? They are in line with all elections that we have at present in operation in Scotland, which is very good from a case of voter messaging and understanding. There is always a pressure to move things back almost to the point of saying polling day registration. That creates all sorts of issues, and we do not have that at present. I will remain unsurprised when on the 19th or 20th of April I meet people who say that they did not know that there was an election. Ensure that they understand that the deadline for registration is 18 April, and we will be doing TV, radio and online. We will be sending a leaflet to all households in Scotland with those messages in it. I have evidence on that particular order. I want to do this in 40 minutes, I am now over that, because I know the level of business that we have got to get through today. Thank you, witnesses, for coming along today. I am very grateful to you. We will next be taking evidence on this order from the Minister for Parliamentary Business on 26 November before deciding whether to approve the order at that meeting. We now move into private session.