 We welcome to the third meeting of the Standards Pro Bald được simulations committee. We are going to listen to the evidence of the election today. Before that we have a decision to be made, whether this committee agrees to refer to section 3, which will be with the committee's consideration of the evidence that we are going to hear today in private. Is the commitment agreed I can welcome Andy O'Neill and Phil Thomson from the Electoral Commission Scotland, Louise Edwards, Malcolm Burr and Chris Highcock. Welcome and thank you for coming along this morning, both in person and online. We have quite a tight session today, so when we get to the committee members' questions, we are not expecting answers from everybody, but answers from those who are best able to contribute to the evidence. Before we start, I invite Andy O'Neill and Malcolm Burr to give a short opening statement. Thank you for inviting the commission to give evidence today on the Scottish Parliament elections, which took place on 6 May in our recent report on the administration of it. As convener said, I'm Andy O'Neill, I'm head of the Electoral Commission Scotland. I'm joined with colleagues on the internet, Louise Edwards, who is our director of regulation and Phil Thomson, who is our head of research. I think that it's fair to say that in late 2020, against the shift in backdrop of the global pandemic, it wasn't clear at times if the election would take place. Or if it did, in what form. I think that it's testament to the hard work of everyone in the electoral community that not only did it take place, but that it was well run and commanded the confidence of the voter. The electoral community, and by that I mean Government, political parties, administrators, alongside ourselves and the commission, worked collaboratively over a long period to agree important place changes for this election, which helped support and reassure voters. Our post-poll surveys found that 95 per cent of voters were satisfied with the process of voting at the election and 94 per cent said they used the preferred method of voting. The majority of candidates, 88 per cent, said that the election had been well run. Voters and candidates did not appear deterred from participating at the poll and we saw the highest have a turnout at 63.5 per cent. The largest number of constituency candidates had 357 since 2003. In general, we, from our survey, find yet again that voter confidence in the election remains high, with 85 per cent of voters saying that it was well run. However, the experience of those polls has once again highlighted concerns about resilience and capacity of electoral administration services. No doubt we will explore some of those issues in the session. Although campaigners had confidence that the election was well run, many felt restricted in their ability to campaign as a result of the pandemic. Nonetheless, campaigners were able to communicate with voters during the campaign and voters reported that they had enough information to decide who to vote for. Campaigners also lodgily understood and complied with the new rules with regard to digital imprints. The context of the pandemic and its twists and turns meant that those running the election faced particular challenges in securing polling station venues and finding and training staff to work on polling day. There was also a reliance on a small marketplace of expert suppliers for specialist election services, including ballot printing, which creates risk and continues to do so. We have repeatedly highlighted concerns about the resilience and capacity of electoral administration services in Scotland and wider across the UK. That creates challenges for the future, which I think we all have to address. In addition, further legislative changes are potentially in the pipeline and it is crucial that those services and changes are properly resourced and funded in the future so that voters can continue to receive the support that they need to register and vote. We should also say that there were some positives that came out of the election in a pandemic context. Those legacies will likely be taken forward as we move forward to the Scottish Council elections on 5 May 2022. We intend to continue working in partnership with the electoral management board for Scotland, Governments and others in the electoral community to ensure that those elections on 5 May are successful. Thank you. Over to you, Malcolm. Thank you very much, chair. Good morning and to members of the committee. My colleague Chris Highcock, the secretary to the board, and I are very pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions and provide you with evidence as you reflect on the delivery of this remarkable event. I will reiterate what Andy Watt has said about the circumstances of that election. We all know that it was the most extraordinary public health situation that any of us has encountered. The election itself was a challenging event, not just to run but to plan for, because there was considerable anxiety in the electoral and wider community at the time of planning the election as to whether it could safely go ahead. I will come on to some of the mitigating factors that we put in place to ensure that it did. I am very pleased to see the excellent feedback from candidates, agents and media voters that the election was well delivered in those circumstances. Also from public health colleagues who confirmed that it appears that, with the measures that we were able to implement, polling and counter-activities did not lead to any further spread of the virus. You have before you the report from the commission and that sets out the statistics and that they are worth noting, the highest ever registered electorate in Scotland, the largest number of postal voters that the system has ever supported in any democratic event. With an above-average turnout of 63 per cent, it was very encouraging to say the least that democracy was able to be supported and to be delivered even in the midst of the pandemic. That success was possible only due to the immense effort of the electoral community with the backing and support of our many stakeholders. It is always invidious to single out names but I will mention local authorities, Police Scotland, Public Health Scotland particularly. This was the first Scottish Parliament election for which I have had oversight as convener of the Electoral Management Board as a result of the Elections Reform Act of 2020. I am very pleased and encouraged that the EMV was able to provide leadership consistency and a robust structure to support the electoral community in delivering these polls. I will cover briefly four points of detail. First is an obvious one. The impact of Covid was total as regards the electoral process, registration, nominations, postal voting, polling, the count, all revised and all revised quite significantly in the light of public health guidance. We all know that polling places looked very different. They had screens, one-way systems, extra staff and even individual pencils. Some of those elements were addressed through guidance. Others, the main one being that the need to limit the number of voters per station were made the subject of legal direction. The second point that I would make is that the professional advice from Public Health Scotland was very valuable. We made early contact with Public Health Scotland and then with individual directors of Public Health so that the supplementary guidance that we provided was current and tailored to the electoral process. That partnership was a very good one and it was reassuring to everyone in the electoral community. My third point is simply the corporate responsibility from returning officers and electoral registration officers. There were concerns about the wisdom of conducting the elections at all in the early part of 2020 but I think the process has shown that with clear guidance, with explicit directions, with expert advice and a large element of personal support, there was reassurance. To allow returning officers to conclude that the elections would be safely run in this regulated environment and the work and the place of the AMB was a key element of that assurance. Finally, the co-operation of the political process and Scottish Government. We engaged with Scottish Government from March 2020 to ensure that the legal framework for the elections would reflect the specific circumstances of Covid. The result of that, of course, was the General Election Coronavirus Act 2021, drafted heavily based on the advice of the AMB. That affected a number of changes to the regulations necessary to mitigate public health effects. If necessary, thankfully many of its provisions were not necessary but the fact that they were there was absolutely essential and it gave reassurance to the whole process. We were able to offer further advice directly to the Minister, Graham Day, at that time on specific matters such as there being no need for multiple days of poll. However, I have to say that the co-operation with ministers, with all of the political parties through at least three meetings with each party represented in the Parliament and with Government directly was very valuable. That was a key element to the success of our preparation on the legislative side. Thank you, chair. I hope that that was not too long. Not the slightest. Thank you, Malcolm. I also thank you for putting on record and I am sure that the committee here will echo that, our thanks to the local authorities and to all of the other almost unnoticed people that make the elections go ahead and go ahead safely. Thank you for that. The questions come in sort of themed groups, just to make answering it easier. I was going to kick off concentrating really on the voter experience and I was just going to ask. Clearly the election went ahead, went ahead successfully under incredibly challenging circumstances. I wonder whether any of the witnesses have comments in relation to the planning and the work that went on to make the polls safe for the individual voters who were attending. I do not know whether you would like to kick off with that, Malcolm, and expand on what you have commented on. Thank you, chair. I am happy to do that. One of our major concerns was that, despite the work on the legalities and the planning and the policy framework for the election, voters simply would be too nervous to come along or they might take fright. We put a great deal of effort into publicising how safe polling places and stations would be. It is trite to say that at the time of voting people were going out to supermarkets and some people were at work, some people were on transport, so of course a polling place is safe. However, when people are doing something that they have not done for some time, they are nervous about doing that. We were very conscious of that. The planning is not to get into too much detail but the appointment of the additional member of staff to intercept people at the door of the polling place to say, this is how it will be, this is what you have to do, this is why you have to do it. I think that that was absolutely essential because it stopped people feeling that I am committing to this by going into the polling station itself and then I cannot get out of it even if I am not comfortable. There was room for questions, there was room for reassurance about how safe the place is where, and then of course when people came into the polling station they saw the screens, they saw the distancing, they saw the single pencils, they saw the cleaning of the polling booths. I think that that was an essential part of it. It is not all about pre-publicity, there has to be somebody there on the day to explain what is going to happen and what is different. I have focused a bit on the polling place itself but part of that is the publicity and part of that is the reassurance given, I have to say, by the political parties as well about the safety of the process. That support was critical. Have you had any thoughts on those additional elements about what would be retained going forward? For example, the meet and greet, which certainly a number of people expressed their thanks to me that it was happening, they felt easier going in. Well, convener, that is interesting to hear and that is good to hear. On a personal basis, I would certainly like if funding permits to retain the extra member of staff. I think that next year's local government election is likely still to be conducted in a Covid-sensitive environment. There will still be questions. Of course, it is also a different means of voting. It is the only election, which is STV, so the number of times you emphasise that, the better, in any case, to the voter. I would like to keep that side of it. The screens and everything, we will take advice from Public Health Scotland and we will see what is happening in other public environments, but I would like to retain that possibility. Can I turn to you, Bob? Thank you very much, convener. Can I just echo the convener's comments about the excellent work that he has done into planning those elections, making them safe and secure and incredible for those who worked on the day, certainly in my constituency at the Count? It was exceptional, so that is the case for all members. It feels a little bit churlish to scrutinise some of the aspects for how we could improve things further, but in that context I wanted to make sure that I am a strong believer that the election went incredibly well in hugely challenging circumstances. It seems churlish to ask about why we did not do better in relation to postal votes. I have to put on record that 24 per cent of people applied for a postal vote, previously that was 18 per cent, but previously indicated 38 per cent of voters wished to apply and secure a postal vote, but that did not turn out to be the case. I wonder whether the differential between those who indicated the wish to postal vote and those who took the steps to apply for it. I will see a few things and perhaps then my colleague Phil Thompson might want to add. What you said, Bob, is really interesting. I think that we have to remember that the figure that you are quoting from is our research, which we did in August and November 2020 and then again in February. It largely remained consistent in the sense of what it was saying. Yes, it was a snapshot and people said up to 38 per cent, 40 of ordinary voters might vote by post, but we always had a majority of people who wanted to vote by polling place and that is why it was very important to have polling places which were safe and also postal voting. Again, I refer to it in my introductory comments, the twists and turns of the pandemic are in the first instance in August when we were doing the research, it was only to the latter end of it where there was a bit of an upsurge in the numbers, so you are getting snapshots of what people think at the time. I think that you also have to remember that in the end we put a lot of effort and the electoral registration officers did a lot of efforts to ensure that people were aware of the voting methods which were available and particularly the writer in February of 2021 when not only did they refresh and make more accurate the register but made people aware of options to vote, proxy postal voting or in station. You have finished up with 24 per cent. That is a huge amount of voters. You were starting around about 16.8 per cent around December. That is about a 7 per cent increase. In a normal election period, the electoral registration officers would expect to get a 1 per cent increase, so that was a massive increase compared to normal. I am going to stop and ask if Phil wants to add anything. The only thing that I would add is just in relation to the 38 per cent. As Andy said, that came from some public opinion research that we did to help inform planning for what might be needed at the polls. When we published it, we were clear that it was to be taken as an indicative number in the sense that it showed that there was very likely to be an increase in the people that wanted a postal vote but that it would not necessarily be 38 per cent of people. In particular, that is because in those types of surveys we always see a degree of overclaim in relation to any kind of turnout. If we ask people about whether they have voted even after the poll, we know that more people tell us that they voted than actually have voted from the figures that we have. I think that it is a very similar effect when we asked if they would like to vote by post or at a polling station. We saw then a degree of overclaim in the volume of people who were telling us that they would definitely vote and they would like to do it by post. As Andy said, that 24 per cent that we saw in the end is possibly what we would have thought was a more realistic prospect even from when we did the survey results. In our post-poll survey, 94 per cent of people who voted said that they used the method of voting that they preferred to use. Any people change their opinions? That is very helpful. I caveated the question on the basis of the significant increase that there was in reality irrespective of what that snapshot opinion poll or the survey from the Electoral Commission showed. I will check whether anyone believes that bringing forward the deadline for applying for a postal vote might have curtailed slightly the amount of people who eventually applied for a postal vote. I reminded that 4,000 postal vote applications were received after that earlier deadline. What work went on communicating with individual voters who applied for a postal vote after the deadline to remind them, for example, that they could, in theory, have a proxy vote or other ways to make sure that their democratic mandate was exercised? 4,072 applied post 6 April, which was the new deadline for postal voting. In a sense, there is always a deadline for everything. 4,000, I am told by my Electoral Registration Officer colleagues, is not a huge number. I think that it works out at 0.4 per cent of all postal votes. It is quite a small number. It was ultimately a decision for government. People gave advice. Do you have to remember the reason why the Scottish Government moved it forward? The evidence that you talked about before was perhaps up to 40 per cent postal votes. The fear was a huge number of applications at the very end of the deadline, which the Electoral Registration Officers would not be able to deal with and therefore people would not be able to get their chosen method of voting. I think that it is really interesting. One of the things that we talked about is barriers in the electoral process. There is work being thought about and on-going about online postal vote application, which is probably one of the things that has been done in the past. You have to remember for the 4,000 who did not get a postal vote, that it is down to the individual who rose. My question is, is it a problem for the Electoral Registration Officers to be able to get a postal vote? I think that it is a problem for the Electoral Registration Officers to be able to get a postal vote. I think that you have to remember for the 4,000 who did not get a postal vote. It is down to the individual who rose, but my understanding is that ear-rows do contact people and tell them that, whilst they have not got a postal vote, they can have a proxy vote. They would have three weeks from the sixth until the 27th to apply for the proxy vote. They also, of course, could still go to a polling place and vote. Not to be flippant about it, people will not go on holiday, which is a very common reason for a postal vote, so you will not go in anyway. Although I accept that, obviously, people are applying for lots of reasons, some of which are concerned around the public health situation, but we were also telling people at the time the messages that polling places were safe. I am just wondering whether—I am not sure that we heard—I accept everything that you said, Mr Neil, but I am not quite sure that we heard there about whether there was a consistent approach that was taken across Scotland in terms of contacting those who applied after the deadline for a postal vote. I am not sure that that is something Malcolm or Chris would be able to say more about. I will jump in. The general approach of the Electoral Registration Office in communicating with voters at any time is to emphasise where they stand in the process and what the options are. We would have to check with the RARO colleagues, but my understanding would be that that would be a consistent approach. They would be told what their options are at that point. That is helpful. Getting that information back would be quite helpful, I think, to the committee. Of course, there was increased provision for proxy voting in Scotland, particularly if someone had Covid symptoms, coronavirus, for example. It is a good thing that that was not particularly used. Of course, that could have been because people were not aware of it or because it was not required. I wonder if someone of our witnesses could say a little bit more about that. In doing so, they might also want to refer to the suggestion that I certainly got in the doorstep that carers, perhaps, should be able to apply for emergency proxy votes. For example, I had constituents who did not want to say that they had coronavirus symptoms taking emergency proxy because it simply was not true, but caring responsibilities provided them from getting emergency proxy. A little bit more around that would be helpful. Do you want to say that, Chris? The commission has been calling for emergency proxies for carers for a number of years now, and many of the RAROs agree with us. It is particularly prevalent in rural areas where, on the islands, if you suddenly have to take someone to a hospital, they can get an emergency proxy but you cannot. That is something specific that continues even beyond the pandemic. Numbers of emergency proxies were higher than in 2016. We had 366 in 2016 and 1310 last May. They were much lower than in the independence referendum in 2014 in which we nearly got 7,000 emergency proxies. Some people in film want to comment on this. Proxy is not as well understood by the electorate as postal voting. It is limited by the number of people close family or up to two people who you can be a proxy for. It is not as well known. It is advertised. We make it aware. People are aware of it on our website. It is in our leaflets and such like. AROs do the same thing. At the same time, there seems to be a reluctance to use it. I do not know whether Phil will come in or not, but I want to roll together a final question. If we do not have time, I am happy to be written to it in relation to it. Any more comments on emergency proxies would be helpful. I had been talking about postal vote applications. I am just wondering whether data is held about who applied for those postal vote applications. There is data on who were first-time applicants to apply for postal votes, but in terms of our black and minority ethnic communities, they were disproportionately more likely or less likely to apply for a postal vote. Those in low-income areas of multiple deprivation were then more likely or less likely to apply for a postal vote. I am conscious that there will not be a uniform uptake in the application and casting of postal votes across Scotland, and there may be variations around that. I would be quite keen to better understand that. I do not want to open up that as a wider conversation this morning, but if you have data on that, I think that the committee would find it helpful. Some of that data would have to be looked at through post-election surveys. If it is protected characteristics that we are looking at for people, that does not apply. It does not get shown in the applications that come through, but we can certainly look at where the applications came from at what time. If that is okay, it is for the Electrol Management Board and the Electrol Commission to take its own view of whether that is a worthwhile exercise, but I know that the committee is going to pursue a turnout shortly. One of the ways to maximise turnout is that we know that you are much more likely to cast a vote if you have a postal vote than if you turn up in person. That is one way to make sure that areas where there are particularly low-income households that are traditionally less likely to vote on many occasions, where we can maximise that turnout so that any data that can be provided would be welcome. If the dataset does not exist, perhaps the Electrol Management Board or the Electrol Commission could think about ways to create that dataset. It might be useful once you have had time to consider that perhaps to write to the committee. As Bob says, even if there are gaps in the information, that would be useful to know as well. If we just look at the turnout of the election, it was the highest of any Scottish Parliament election to date, what are the indicators about why that increase happened? If I could come in there, I would like to think that it was an account of both the publicity about the election and the reassurance about not just its safety but about how it would be conducted from everybody's perspective. I do not just mean the voter, but also the candidates and the staff who were doing it. I come back to the preparation of all participants, all members of the electoral community in that reassurance and publicity. Once the decision was taken, this election will be going ahead unless it is needed to be postponed for emergency reasons. We were then able to focus on how campaigning would be different. I am sure that for the political parties that was a very difficult area. There was reassurance that all aspects of the election had been covered in addition to the issues in which people voted. That contributed to the higher turnout. I also had a sense that this is purely unscientific. There was a wish to return to such normal aspects of civic life as people could and that includes participation in the electoral process. That is not a scientific comment, however, but that was something that we stopped from speaking to returning officers. Can I just drill into that slightly? There was increased advertising about the election coming forward. You say that there was also a lot of advertising in relation to instilling a confidence in the voter to come out. If I was to ask you which of those two made the difference, which would you go with? Was it the fact that the advertising was giving confidence to voters to come out? Or was it just advertising that the election was happening? Or, I think that this may be the case, is it actually a combination of both of those? I genuinely think that it is the latter. Covid focused everybody's minds on how you undertake specific actions. Is it safe to do this, is it safe to do that, is it safe to do this to a certain extent or not at all? The publicity was so total. People were looking for that. The publicity mentioned elections, so people started thinking more about elections and then you get into how all this effort is being made, all this reassurance is given about how safe the process is. Perhaps that subconsciously increases the feeling that I might participate in it myself. I genuinely think that it was a combination. It would be nice to say that electoral administration got 63.5 per cent of people to go and vote and in the independence referendum 84 per cent or whatever it was. I don't think that electoral administrators can claim that and I don't think that electoral commission can claim that, sadly. I think it's down to you guys and the issues and the debates. What we're about is making sure that barriers in the process are in place to stop people, stop people registering, stop people applying for postal voteings. It should be easy, accessible, easy to understand and how to complete their ballot papers easily, efficiently and reflect their particular views. We all did that in the sense of lots and lots of publicity, which Malcolm talked about, in terms of supplying stuff to partner organisations who used it from the autumn of 2020 onwards. Our leaflet to households and all the stuff that you know we do, but in the end of the day people are motivated by the politicians and the issues and the desire to express their views rather than that. I mean, I don't know if Phil wants to add anything from the kind of post-opinion research that we've got. Maybe just before you do that, Phil, can I invite Edward, who I think has a... No, my apologies, he's withdrawn his question. Did you want to add anything to that, Phil? Just to support really what Andy said, our post-poll public opinion research very much supports the idea that people are voting because they think it's important, because they think it's their civic duty and also because they simply want to have a say. In fact, the reasons that we saw people give this year for voting were very consistent with reasons that we would have seen in say 2016 after the last Scottish Parliament election. I think that it's all about the sort of maybe additional focus on politics, politicians potentially from saying people maybe on TV every day talking about coronavirus, but there'll be lots and lots of different factors that are at play. One maybe slightly more administrative point might be that with more people taking up postal voting, we do know that postal voters are more likely to actually vote once they've got a postal vote. 37 per cent of people who are issued with a postal vote return the postal vote, so I suppose that increase in postal voters may have played a little bit of a part in driving up the overall level of turnout at the poll. Thank you. Pursuing that slightly, there was... I think that criticism is too strong. There was a view from... Was it two thirds of voters that the actual process of voting took longer? We've obviously heard already about the measures that we've put in place, the one-way systems, the meet-and-greet, the single pencils, but I wondered what other options were considered but then discounted to speed, not to speed up, to make the polling station itself safe. I don't know who'd like Malcolm, would you like to start with that? The most significant one, convener, was the limitation on the numbers attending. We were very... You can't determine... You can't stipulate how voters turn out, of course. They can all turn out in the evening, they can all turn out in the morning. Indeed, weather was quite a factor in central Scotland on polling day, resulting in a large number of... Or a disproportionately large number of voters appearing in the evening in many localities. That showed the wisdom of limiting strictly, and it was stricter than many would have liked. I think that the number of voters per station, to at least attempt to regulate the numbers coming through so that queues didn't form too much and that there was simply time for everybody to vote. That, I think, was the most significant element of preparation there. Were there any ideas that were considered but then discounted? I mean, I know that there was the ability to hold the election over a few days, which you've explained, but was there anything else? The multiple days were certainly the default option there, I think, when we were... If the process had to be so slowed down as to be almost individual, just the voter and the polling staff in the station at one time, then I think we would have had to move to that option. Like all elections, it's a combination of speed, it's a combination of getting voters through, of counting ballot papers in a way that's efficient and quick and produces a result with, obviously, on this occasion, the heightened requirements for safety. Thank you. Alexander, can I pass over to you? Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Can I also echo your comments and others, convener, about how impressed I was and I think it was very hard for you not to be impressed by the dedication that was put into ensuring that these elections took place and I commend and congratulate all who supported that. Can I look at specific areas for my questioning? This was the first time that a Scottish Parliament election had qualifying foreign nationals and also prisoners serving 12 months or less allowed to vote. So can I ask about the qualifying foreign nationals first? How many did we have who were registered to vote and looking on your reflections as to how that was managed to promote and ensure? You've talked about already this morning about barriers and accessibility and trying to remove these barriers. So can I ask about what your reflections are on, how foreign nationals participated within the election and what lessons, if anything, you've learned from that? Can I ask Phil to talk about the numbers and then I can talk about the barriers? No problem, Andy. One challenge that we have around knowing how many new foreign nationals were registered is that effectively they appear on the electoral registers in the same way as existing EU citizens who were obviously already registered. So it wasn't possible to count very easily the additional foreign nationals that were registered but we know from looking at previous figures and then figures for the total number of foreign nationals on the register now that there was an increase and it looks like an increase of around 26,000 or so between the last time we had the figures and now. Obviously, that may be slightly offset by the fact that some EU citizens may also have left Scotland since that previous count so it's difficult to be precise but it does look like there was a reasonably substantial increase in numbers registered. Excellent. Maybe the barrier isn't how accessible you found it to manage, Andy? In terms of barriers, we did a lot of general publicity work that you know about but we also find it much more effective to work via partners and delivering tools, political literacy information, all that sort of stuff and then they share it with their members. We worked from the autumn of last year with various partners. We worked with a network of the consulates in Scotland to ensure that their nationals knew information that they could now vote in Scottish Parliament elections. We worked with regional quality councils. We worked with organisations such as the Scottish Refugee Council, COSLA and the local authority resettlement officers network who deal directly with people who are new Scots in that sense. The resources resulted in an uptake. We did 19 sessions with the Scottish Refugee Council to ensure that the people who worked for them could relate to others. Obviously, we could do more. You can always do more. I think that one of the lessons we've got and one of our emphasises has gone forward to 2020 and beyond is to ensure that we're developing much more capacity to deliver political literacy via networks. The second question was about the prisoners serving 12 months or less. What kind of statistics and data do we have with reference to that sector as to how many were registered and how many participated and what varies once again? You had to try to manage that process because that was once again a new dimension to the whole process and taking on board what lessons once again have we learned from that exercise in ensuring that we can see how that was progressed? Yes, prisoners, a new thing, 12 months or less. We do know that there were 38 prisoners registered at the election. For us it was definitely about trying to put in place processes so prisoners could be informed of the right to register if they were eligible and then to be able to vote. So when the 2020 act came in, we worked with the EROs to develop vote application forms specifically for prisoners and forms so they could apply for postal votes. We worked with Scottish Government colleagues and Scottish Prison Service colleagues and the electoral registration officer specifically worked locally with various prisons to ensure that all of this information was distributed. We also provided voter information for Scottish Prison Service on how to vote, how to fill in ballot papers. We worked with Citizen Advice Scotland to ensure that their workers who worked with prisoners understood the political literacy. 38 is not a great number, I'd accept that, but again this is new, we're getting into this. We're hoping to work with the Scottish Prison Service Education Service hence forward going towards the council elections next May. My final question is about those who have disabilities or long-term health conditions. Within some of the report there was a slight dissatisfaction from that sector as to how they found it a bit more challenging. For example, when they were identifying chosen candidates for parties on the regional ballot paper, they found that the ballot paper itself was extensive. I think that it's the best way to describe it. That was much more of a challenge for individuals who fall into these categories and how they were supported to manage that. Once again, how are you looking into some of that to reflect on what can be done in the future? I don't see that changing dramatically over the next election or even further on. There needs to be some support mechanism in there to try to identify and support individuals who have that disability or that long-term illness. The support of voters with disabilities is a huge part of the work that electoral administrators take on when they deliver elections. As Andy said, our aim is to make sure that every voter has the opportunity to participate in the election and minimise many barriers that exist. All polling staff are trained to support voters with disabilities. This year, as is obvious in the discussions, we were dealing with an election delivered under very unique circumstances. It did mean that there was quite a turnover of staff, so potentially in some places some of the more experienced staff might not have been on duty as they would normally have been. However, everyone was trained. We certainly made sure that videos were available to explain how to deal potentially with voters with sight loss or visual impairment in particular. That is always an issue. For voters with sight loss and visual impairment, it is very important that we do all we can to make sure that they can vote secretly and independently. We are continuing our work with disability organisations and the disability network. We have a meeting this afternoon with RNIB Scotland and Sites Scotland to talk about how we can improve these methods in the future. There is a work stream that we are involved in at the moment with the Scottish Government looking at new ways to increase the accessibility of elections, potentially with new devices that can be used in polling places. Ultimately, it is about the interaction between the polling staff and the voter. The voter needs to be able to trust when they come in that they are going to be supported and be able to vote in a way that they feel easiest and comfortable with. They can get someone to help them, they can bring a companion in to help them or there are tactile voting devices that they can be used. Our challenge is to make sure that our staff have the skills and understanding of how to do that. We have material for that, the commission supports us in training material to allow us to do that and we are satisfied that we did it as well as we could, but there are ways to improve. As I said, we are continuing to do that and we have meetings even this afternoon. The ballot paper was one of the biggest barriers that would appear just because of the size and the length of that. Are there any reflections on what can be looked at for that in the future? The ballot paper is a defined document in law so there is little that we can do in the confines of the legislation to change the ballot paper and it is in some ways its reflection on the success of the democratic process that it was long. We attracted an awful lot of parties to stand on the regional lists and unfortunately that becomes unwieldy when it gets that big. However, the design, the colour, the font that they can all be looked at to make sure that it is still something that can be understood and well handled, but while we are dealing with paper and there is an ability for as many people to stand as they can, the length of that will be something that we will just have to deal with. It is fair to say that people with disabilities have found it slightly harder than people who are not disabled to fill in the ballot paper. As Chris said, oros in general accept that because of the context of the pandemic, the training context of being online, the loss of key presiding officers and the lowering of experience, the disability representative bodies are reporting that people did not have a great time in certain instances. I think that is something that we have to take forward and improve on for next May. I think that there is also work elsewhere being undertaken about alternatives to try and help people with disabilities to fill in ballot papers, some kind of readers and things like that, which can come. They help the situation, but at the end of the day, for the vast majority of people, it is about people in polling places, good training, given good assistance, so hopefully by next May we will get back on track. Just to pursue that, disabled organisations have said for a while over a number of elections that the experience that disabled people have is less favourable than others. If I was to put you on the spot, will that change in May or will this be a longer journey? And what assistance do you need to shorten the journey so that their experience is the same or indeed better than others? I think that it probably is a longer journey, but I also think that it will improve next May at the council elections. I know the return of a body for a long, long time. Some of them are very disappointed in their own efforts. That, in terms of an emphasis on training, we are going to work with AMB to ensure that the facilities that our OEs need, the training tools, will be used. There will be great emphasis given by the convener on disability issues. I think that the longer term, and I know that the Scottish Government and Cabinet Office are looking at technology to solve issues around making voting easier for people with disabilities, but that is, I suspect, very unlikely to come in for next May. As you said, it is indeed that relationship that happens when they walk into the polling station. Edward, can I come to you please? Thank you, convener. My question is really around campaigning. This election obviously was extremely different to any other election that I'd taken part in. I won't go back to the one in 1979, which was my first, but do you think the rules regarding campaign activity were clear enough for both candidates and campaigners? I'm sorry, who would like to take that? Malcolm? Thank you, convener. Can I just add in relation to the last item? The experience for disabled voters will form a particular element of the joint training session, the joint support session, which the commission and the AMB jointly organise in each January or February before an election, and we will pick up on all of these specific points. I think that the guidance was well received. I have to say that I think that political parties did very well. It's not really for me to comment on that, but I think that the high level, the high percentage of voters who felt communicated with, if I can put it that way, by political parties is very commendable given the circumstances. I think that there needed to be guidance. I think that it was well received, and certainly from a neutral perspective, it seemed proportionate to us in any case. Can I come back on that, convener? The issue is that, having been on the doorsteps, it was very much a fact of just delivering leaflets. We were not encouraged as candidates to engage with people on doorsteps to the very last part of the campaign when a lot of the postal votes had already gone out. There were certainly no public meetings and no hustings, which I think is difficult as a candidate. I can take it back to the next level. If we are going to be restricted as candidates, and I understand the reasons why, do you think that we ought to consider whether there should be an increased budget for candidates to get their message out? For example, the budget for a candidate in a constituency has remained the same in 2021 and 2016, went up in 2011, but the constituency limit for party spending has remained the same since 2011. The figures are very little. If we are going to be restricted as candidates from getting our message out on doorsteps, surely we should have the increased ability to use media and postal systems to get our message out, because that probably was the safest way. I wonder who would like to comment on that. I will make a brief comment and then bring Louise Edwards in who may want to say something. I think that Mr Mountain is quite right. The public health rules around the election meant that you could not leaflet until the 15th of March. You could not canvass until the 12th of April. In our post-opinion research with the candidates, we did get the view back that they felt restricted in what they could do and what they couldn't do. The other side of that is that the voter, your customers as it were, felt that they did have enough information to make choices. 76 per cent of them thought that they had enough information. It swings in roundabouts. One hopes that next May we won't have a pandemic restrictions, but who knows? I'm going to be quiet and ask Louise Edwards if she wants to add anything. I'm sorry, Andy. You cut out a little bit for me there, so I apologise to the committee if I'm repeating things that you've already said. A fundamental point about campaigning is that campaigning is such an essential part of democracy. You cannot have an election without people who are willing to campaign in it and people who are willing to put themselves forwards as candidates. In this very unique situation of the public health backdrop, there were restrictions in place on campaigning in this particular election, which you would hope would not be there in any future elections. One of the keys, and I think that this has come through in some of our post-poll research, is to ensure that there are a variety of ways that candidates and other campaigners can communicate with voters. If, for example, for a public health reason one route is restricted, there are other routes that people can take. Yes, being able to go on canvas, yes, being able to drop leaflets, to have hustings, to use digital online campaigning as well, which we know did increase. It has been for many elections, but it still does not remain the number one way that people want to communicate with voting overwhelmingly. Candidates in Scotland at this election wanted to communicate in person, and that is a significant trend that we see even if digital campaigning is getting bigger. Thinking about the spending limit points in particular, there would be a little bit of research and looking at the data that would have to be done to see whether or not that upper limit is being reached before deciding whether or not to go beyond it. One of the key issues for me is that there has to be a level playing field for independent candidates or for those who are not supported by, for example, a party machinery or a big party machinery. One of the things that having a spending limit does is make sure that people who do not have large financial resources behind them can still afford to consider putting themselves forward and then ultimately perhaps become an independent candidate or a candidate for a smaller party. So there's a lot of factors to think about when you're thinking about the spending limit for campaigning, but really crucially for me, and I think it comes through that this did happen on this occasion, is any restriction that's in place clearly needs to be proportionate and for a very good reason, like say a public health issue, but also has to allow broad participation in campaigning. It has to allow people to still be able to communicate with voters. Thank you. Is that investigation into the spend and how parties' stroke individuals approached it taking place? Is it intended to take place? Because it certainly would seem to be a prerequisite to this discussion that Edward has raised about considering raising it. Would that be possible? It is something that we have looked at doing on a UK level, and within that we would want to be able to break it down by parts. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you I can have it with you next week, but it is something that we are looking at, and as when we get to the point where we've got something sensible to share, I'm sure we can do that. Edward. Sorry, Camino, just very briefly. If the spending limits were correct and proportionate before the rules and regulations changed, surely if the rules and regulations changed about canvassing and campaigning, then those limits need to be reviewed. It's as simple as that. They can't be right in a pandemic and right out with a pandemic. Just an observation, Camino. Thank you for putting that on record. Paul, could I turn to you? Yes, thank you, convener, and it's really just expanding on the point that Edward's made, because I think part of the study after the election was that 43 per cent of candidates felt they got their message across, but the same amount disagreed. The Garden86 said that their opportunities for face-to-face campaigning quite rightly was affected a lot in the campaigning, and I suppose it's getting back to the point about the financing, the limits that are there. I suppose we have the next election coming up in May, and I suppose it's expanding on that. Is there further consultation, for example? As you mentioned, the work is in about looking at it more in deeper into it, but is there an opportunity for consultation with the political party, the Scottish Government in that regard? What kind of timescales would we be talking about? You have long campaign, short campaign. Looking back now from May, when would that have to be in place if we're talking about getting new limits out of that particular case? I think that we've already mentioned it, and we've talked about it. It's likely to take part in a Covid-restricted way. It might not be as severe as it was last May, but it could still be a Covid-type election. It's trying to get me down around what the timescales would be in that regard if we needed to look at that, as Edwards mentioned about review. Even that was just a one-off, and then review it after that, depending on the situation about public health and so on. It's maybe a little bit deeper dive into some of the answers. Louise, do you want to take that on the time limit? I'm absolutely happy to. The limits are set out in statute, so it would depend on whether that was a priority matter for the Government to look at. You'd have to work back from there as to when the Government decided to consult or gather evidence from us or other bodies in order to inform that. Our general principle in those situations is that if you're going to make any changes to the campaign finance rules, they really should be done a minimum of six months before those rules kick in. If you're looking at a spending limit only over any kind of regulated period, long, short, party, whatever it is, we would want the changes being placed six months before that period began. That's okay. The next one is 2026, so you've still got quite a long way away, because a long period only takes place at a general election at the Scottish Parliament. The bi-election limits are set in statute anyway, so you would have to change them, but you do have time to think about it. Thank you for that. My question is about the restrictions that Canada has felt. I think that Kenny answered in the previous question. Can I move on to digital imprints? This was obviously the first time they were brought forward, the first time they were required. Can you tell us about the compliance with the new rules and whether it was felt it was beneficial to voters or not? Maybe Andy, the first question to yourself. I think that the second thing, probably to Phil, would be about whether it was beneficial, what evidence have we looked at in that regard, and was there any feedback on that, particularly from voters in that regard? I'm going to actually pass the question to Louise. Happy to answer. The first thing I would say is that digital imprints have two real fundamental purposes. One is that a voter looking at a particular piece of material online can see who's given it to them, can make a choice about whether to let it influence their vote. Another really important purpose is that it helps us as regulators to track spending and make sure that campaigners, candidates and parties are complying with the campaign finance rules. What we saw in Scotland—obviously, this was a new law and one that we think is very important to the system and important to resolving known concerns amongst voters about digital campaigning and its transparency—was that the majority of those who campaigned in the election did comply, wanted to comply. In fact, many parties' candidates' campaigners already put digital imprints on their material even before it was a legal requirement. With a highly compliant campaigner community, we can be confident that voters would have seen a difference in the material that they saw online. It is a little bit too early to say what impact that has had, primarily because it is simply one election and we want to let it bed in a little bit longer, but also because all the spending data has not yet come in from parties because the deadlines for it hasn't yet passed. We're not in a position to look at how it worked in terms of the transparency angle yet. Our experience during the campaign was usually positive, positive with working with campaigners who, if they didn't have an imprint on their material, it was usually simply because they weren't aware and they moved quickly to comply when we told them what the rules were about. There is just one thing that I would say. One of the real difficulties is that if there is no imprint on it, it is very difficult to find out who should have put an imprint on. The imprint is the way that you find out whose material it is. Without an imprint, it is difficult to find out whose material it is. That is not unique to digital imprints. That is an issue with print imprints as well. One area that the Government may want to think about is enabling us to get information out of social media companies for who is behind accounts, for who is behind the material in order to help us find out who it is and bring them into compliance. Did you have many examples of that from the last election? Are you aware of any examples of that from the last election where you were unable to trace where the slogan picture had come from? There were a couple of small examples that are still being looked at, so I won't go into details if you'll forgive me. We've got a very good relationship with the social media companies and we can speak to them and we can work on that slightly more informal basis with them to try and find out who are behind platforms. Really, without a clear power to be able to get information from them, we are hindered. It is a challenge that occurs in other jurisdictions that require imprint. Last question is about the administrative challenges. We have heard the great job that administrators have done in extremely difficult circumstances. Has there been any feedback from any difficulties that they faced and any additional support that they felt would have been provided? I suppose that one other question is part of the report. It mentioned that in about three quarters of returning officers mentioned about difficulty in recruiting polling station staff. That might have just been a one-off in regards to the situation around Covid. Has that been a difficulty before and do we see that as a difficulty going forward? I don't know who would be best, Andy Neill, and that would be yourself. I'm sure that Chris will be able to contribute in some detail too. There were particular difficulties with the last election, obviously on account of staff and nervousness. We did not, at the end of the day, have difficulties. We had contingency plans for support from other sectors as well, but it is undoubtedly useful to be able to work with staff that you know and have some experience of. The ageing workforce in the public sector is inevitably going to be a factor, but we have used, and I think that this is an important point, the third officer, the information officer whom we used in this election. They were invariably, certainly in many areas, younger people who, I certainly took some time to encourage in the process and seemed encouraged by the process and interested in it, so I'm hoping very much that many of them will become the polling clerks and then POs of the future. We need succession planning as best we can, but the age profile of the public sector is not helpful in that regard. The process itself is of interest to many people, and once they realise that it's meeting people, it's not just an administrative process, there's a public relations element to it, there's a social element to it. Often people come back once they've tried it for the first time. It's getting people into the electoral process for the first time that that can be difficult, but that's undoubtedly something we have to keep a very close eye on. I think that Malcolm is right. In our own review of the conduct and the delivery of the election, one of the feedback elements we had from returning officers right across Scotland was that there was quite a significant difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. There were some late call-offs of staff, which meant that we were having to replace staff. All staff needed to be trained. It's important to make sure that they understand the job because, as Malcolm was saying, it is very much a face-to-face social job. The delivery of elections in Scotland is a peer-to-peer process where citizens are helping each other to vote. It's not a case of us engaging with the state, it's helping each other to run democracy. It's important that the people are doing that, understanding the process, but it's also a customer-facing role. One of our learning points is that we need to look at what that pool of staff is and make sure that we have a good, growing, reliable and robust pool of staff that we can draw on in the future and explain what that job is so that people can help each other to deliver democracy. Andy Wightman If I could just add a comment about the Electoral Registration Office and talking about resources and such like, our research indicated that there was a large pool of people who wanted to do postal voting and use other options rather than polling places. The Scottish Government funded, on request, the AROs to provide extra staff so that they could deal with the massive increase in postal vote applications. They did things like, apart from just the staff to do their work, they did a TV advert across Scotland to encourage people to understand the options for voting, they used the pay-all tools that we provided with them last autumn. They also did the write-out for the household notification. We think that that's really important because not only does it tell people about the options for voting but it also refreshes the register before an electoral event, which is a very good thing. It's done quite a lot in England. We recommend in the report that that should be looked at for being continued and being funded. It's probably coming back to recruitment with polling station staff. Does that tend to be local authority by local authority? I know, for example, when it comes down to local authority, I mean, because it's talking around about... It may be get to 30 months before election and they'll try and bring people forward. Is it an on-going basis? Is it something that's left to local authority or is it something that you monitor? That's probably coming back to this year and about recruitment, because if we can encourage people earlier into the process, because it might be that they're not aware of what the process is, what they need to do. I'm sorry. Chris, answer back. There's a consistency provided by us because we provide training materials and then it's over to the AROs. Is the responsibility to each returning officer to recruit, train, employ the staff that will be delivering the election in the polling places? So each of the 32 returning officers has got that responsibility. However, as Andy said, there is a consistent set of training material that's made available by the Electoral Commission. This year, in particular, the challenge was delivering that predominantly over teams or Zoom or other ways that it was done online. Normally, we make sure that it's a face-to-face training session, but this time, again, and that worked very successfully, but it was a different challenge. I'm just wondering if elections are now, of course—you're more often liked to be here with election on than not having election on—every day of business for local authorities and returning officers are effectively the chief executive of local authorities almost by default. I have looked at this to another committee and another incarnation in relation to the role of chief executives as returning officers in the light. I'm not going down that road, but one of the things that came out of that inquiry in another committee was some local authorities have standing election offices that just do the work day-to-day, day-in, day-out, week-out, irrespective of whether an election is scheduled and other local authorities don't have that capacity or resource to do that. I don't know if they clustered together to run an election office across local authority boundaries or what have you, but I suppose the reason I'm putting that on the record, convener, is that resourcing is an issue. Capacity and time are vital. Forward planning is vital. What is the picture across Scotland's local authorities in terms of having standing elections offices who are looking forward not just one year but two years, three years, five years on a day-to-day basis? For example, not just think about writing out on a favour before I may poll to give an uptake of post-evolta applications but also thinking more generally about what their strategies are for the longer term, because that would surely help the organisation in the smooth running of elections. Malcolm Leeds, on elections amongst the chief executives in Scotland, was very best pleased to answer. Malcolm Leeds, on elections amongst the chief executives in Scotland, was very best pleased to answer. Thank you, convener. The question is an important one, because undoubtedly both the volume and the complexity of the election has increased in recent years. That's absolutely correct. There will be no local authority in Scotland that does not have dedicated staff at middle and senior management with responsibility for elections where they might not have a standing election office all the time, but it is now part of the permanent workload of more than one member of staff. Much of that is indeed the communication that keeps the processes under review supporting the voter throughout the follow-up periods as well as the election period. We do come together from time to time. The Scottish Parliament election always brings us together at a regional level for obvious reasons, but I see it as a key role of the EMB. It's not just to share good practice, it's much more than that. It's about keeping a supportive eye, as it were, on the electoral process and, critically, the capacity of returning officers and electoral registration officers to support the process when that's required. That's a supportive function, but it is also an interventionist function when we are able to bring the expertise of others to support those who may have just lost key members of staff. We do some of that under the radar and that's an important role of the board. I'm just following on with that, Malcolm, without naming names. Are you confident about the capacity across Scotland at the moment? If it was a red amber green, where would you be on it? Electoral administrator capacity is always an amber across Scotland. There are many experienced practitioners who have served as returning officers as deputy to the EROs for many years. When they go there is the usual. It's not that the job will not be done, it's the added value of that experience coming to all sectors. We do keep that constantly under review and we do work with electoral commission colleagues and flag up any areas where additional support would be welcomed. It always has been that there is no question of imposition, of pushing ourselves in where we're not one to the support is always welcomed and appreciated. I think that it is a function of the EMB, which is not strictly speaking. It's not a specific function, but if it wasn't there, if we weren't doing it, there would be a gap. I would go back to that. The importance of observing account is very important. There was criticism in the report about how administrators and candidates and agents felt that, due to the restrictions, that was a barrier. I know from my own account and others that I spoke to them that they felt that there were some difficulties within them. What are we putting in place if there are still restrictions for the council elections that will be in a few months' time? I think that the pandemic led to not as many as normal county agents being available in the building because of public health rules. It wasn't well received in certain places and it was more received. People took the view that it's a pandemic. This is the sort of thing that happens and you have to put up with it. I think that we all hope in the electoral community that next year it won't be the situation, but we're working with the EMB to try and come up with a process and a formula so we can ensure transparency in the council elections. The council elections are also e-counted, so there is limited availability in terms of what you can see. I think that the orientation tables are a great opportunity personally to see staff. You get that in benefit of all the reports afterwards, which political parties and anoraks love, but you're quite right. It wasn't great, but the circumstances led it to that, but there are plans to try and ensure that it gets better and back to normal. Thank you, convener. Edward, I was going to invite you in to ask a very similar question, but do you have a follow-on question? I do, convener. My question relates specifically, if I can put it into context, in the Highlands. We've heard the reason that it was a great election that lots of people stood. 16 parties stood on the regional list and when it came to the count we were all allowed four people to hover round very few counting stations. We couldn't go from one region to another, which effectively rendered watching the count impossible. I have no absolute confidence in the staff doing an excellent job, but I have no way of proving it. Do you think that that's satisfactory, and do you think that, where there are big regional lists, the view on how to count them and how the count can be watched could be taken slightly differently to the way they're held in council data? Thank you, Edward. My apologies, convener. I came in before I was asked. From the commission's perspective, I don't have the exact details before me as the arrangements for the Highland count, although it was over two or three sites, technically. Transparency in the count is really, really important. We all accept that. Because of the pandemic, it wasn't as transparent as it should have been. There were observers there and beyond the count there were observers in the Highland count, I know for certain. I think that it was a particular time in place and we need to improve it. I think that we've got plans to make sure that it is improved for next time and going forward. Malcolm. Yes, convener. I don't have much to add to that, except that the EMV has conducted, along with the commission, an in-depth reflection from each returning officer as to particular issues. A lot of that, of course, is locality-based. I'm not speaking about Highland here. Much depends on a pandemic on practicalities like the size of the hall and how many people can safely be there. I would say, though, that much guidance was given to returning officers within those practicalities to make different arrangements. For example, holding up the bundles of 50 or whatever votes for a quick run-through so that agents could see that all the crosses were in the one line, as it were. Even recognising that each individual paper could not be scrutinised. We have to remember the rules of the count. The agents are there to ensure that the process is being done correctly, that there is adequate scrutiny, not that every ballot paper is seen. Like Andy, I would acknowledge that it was perhaps the least. It was the most difficult aspect of the process for returning officers whose wish is to ensure as much transparency as possible. There also has to be a balance between speed and the level of transparency that would be there in a non-Covid environment. What I mean by that is that every ballot paper could have been passed under a camera for agents to see. However, the length of the count already over the two days would have been excessive in my view. There was a balance and inevitably that balance does not satisfy all. In essence, in May last, the counting agents really had to collectively ensure the acceptance of the process and accept the transparency, which effectively meant that you could not, as the S&P or the Conservative Party or whatever, do your tally as you would normally do for your own particular party. Although, in some places, there are the shea tallies, certainly in some island they do it, but it was also—it was not unknown that this was going to occur. I mean, I know that it caused upset in certain areas and it was perfectly acceptable. However, via the political parties panel, all the parties in the Scottish Parliament knew that it was going to happen and it was just part of the consequences of the pandemic. However, that said, that was then, and next May, hopefully, we can get back to a much fuller transparency so that people can feel much more confident. I would also know that we have mentioned legacy issues, things that we learned from this election that will be applied in future elections, and some of the technology and the methods that we use to increase transparency, given that the limited number of people in a room and the physical distancing, we are going to try and apply in future elections. One of the issues there, of course, is about holding up doubtful ballot papers so that people can see the decision that is being taken on a doubtful ballot paper. Lots of return officers used large projectors so that the ballot paper could be seen on a large projector screen. I think that that was well received and the idea is that that will be used in future elections, even if that is not necessary because of physical distancing or the limited number of people in an account. Bob, do you have a comment? Thank you, just very briefly on the doubtful or spoiled ballot papers. The Glasgow experience, which I have no issue with before I say this, was that candidates and agents did not get to see them all. They got to see a sample of ballot papers to show the type of decisions that were being made by staff there, which was fine. Was that a standard thing across the country or does each returning officer take a very different view on relations? Is that a standardised look at reviewing those papers? Malcolm, I do not know if you heard the question but certainly a number of surprised faces around this table. I wonder whether you want to take that away and perhaps write back. Yes, I am happy to do that. Mr Burr, why do not I drop you an email out with the meeting just to clarify the point that I was making just so that it is not misinterpreted or I have not articulated it properly and we can take that forward in that respect? That would be very helpful, thank you. Excellent. Sorry, Edward. Is there anything that you would like to follow up on? Just a final question can be now that I have. Overnight counting obviously was not the norm as it has been in the past. Is that a good thing? Are there lessons to be learnt from that regarding staffing and perhaps speeding up the results getting out rather than waiting for ballot boxes to be delivered on slippery roads in May across Scotland? Should we be doing overnight counting or should we just be delaying it until the next day to make it easier, safer for staff and safer for people counting? Who would like to take that? Thank you, convener. It's been very interesting to see the reaction of candidates and agents to the next day count, which has been generally very positive and I think that that does tell us something. It is, just as a matter of logic, unusual to be starting an important event at midnight when everyone is at a full day. I acknowledge the atmosphere and the enjoyment for many of the overnight count, but there was very limited negative reaction of which we were aware and obviously that was partly due to the Covid circumstances of the count being over the next day. I have a personal view and it's wholly personal that it is unreasonable to commence overnight counts where there is no reasonable prospect of them finishing within a few hours, by which I mean by four or five in the morning. I think that if a returning officer is having to think about changes of staff, halting the count in the very, say, six or seven in the morning, I think that that is inefficient. I think that that is going too far. I think that it is putting too much strain on people. If your circumstances are such and smaller constituency, single constituency, turning officers may wish that you can still do that. If you can finish it quickly, there is an argument for doing it, but I think that if it is going on beyond the early hours then it should really be reflecting on whether that is optimum for anyone, not least the process itself. We are taking that feedback and looking at it, but it was very instructive to see that there was not a huge negative reaction to the next day count. It's also worth noting that local government elections in Scotland are generally held. The count is the following day. Again, there are reasons for that in terms of the technology involved and the resilience of the structure, the services is much more enhanced when we've got the people on call and everyone's awake and able to operate. I think that if it's planned for the next day, it allows everyone to get their ducks in a row so that it can happen quickly. Sometimes, if it's done overnight, I've known it in Highland until 11 o'clock this morning and that just is dangerous in my mind for people who want to get home after what has been nearly done. 36 hours, anyway, up and about. Lovely. Thank you, Edward. With that, I thank all the witnesses who have attended today, both in person and online. Thank you for your evidence. At that point is the next matter to be taken in private. I will call an end to the public element of this meeting.