 Hewyd destroyed Ok, I formally open the meeting and first of all say a very warm welcome to Anyway and a happy new year to everybody who's present. I remind everybody to switch off their mobile phones or at least put them into a process that they are not laudable anyway. Put what's called going to Raj, a piendEng We're going to do this meeting. Drew Smith can't Eddie We have Richard Baker here. Elijah talks about the example those would like to declare?" well here we are, the first meeting of the new year. And I very much warmly welcome representatives from the electoral commission. We have three witnesses... John McCormack, the electoral commissioner for Scotland, Alec Robertson, director of communications in Andy O'Neal, who's the head of the office in Scotland. John, rydw i'n wneud mewn bywg wrth ein boddd ystod yn ei wneud i dda i anghyfod arna oedd mewn i ddweud amser i ni i ddeall ac wrth tombai'n ddweud i ddoch i dda i gael. Diolch yn fwy o ddoch chi am y maes y cyfle meroeddwn. Felly, dwi'n fyw fwy o'r cyffredinogi i ddencebu i ddweud addysgau ein cynhyrchu, yn ei ddych chi'n ddweud eu llwysau, os ydw i'r cyfle er mwyn yn iawn%. yn unrhyw oes byddiol. Fyro hynny y cyflinio ysgrifennu i Gwyrddon Dmylch yn cyfwynhau i ymddarr i ddylo'r cyflinio. Rwy'n hynny'n gael dderisman hwnnw i eich cyflinio ysgrifennu yn cyfwynhau cyflinio i gael y cyflinio i gyflinio'r cyflinio gael ddylu. Ieithi yn genoli, rydw i ddangbeth erbyn gyffredinol gyda'r cyflinio i gael gyffredinol i gael eich cyflinio ysgrifennu, ond mae'n symud i gael y cyflinio gyflinio cyflinio That's one of the reasons that we were able to report that this was a well-run referendum. The timing allowed the chief counting officer, the counting officers and the electoral registration officers to make necessary plans in good time and for campaigners to be registered and then for engagement with the voter to take place, which, as we all know, resulted in record levels of participation. We learned lessons from every referendum and election and we've made 23 recommendations which we hope will be heeded by those planning referendums in the future. Looking ahead, it's telling how 16-17-year-olds took part in the debate and then went to the polls. 97 per cent of those we polled said that they planned to vote in future elections. A lot of work was done to provide first-time voters with the information that they needed about how to register and then to vote. I have no doubt that you'll want to discuss this in relation to the proposals to extend a franchise to 16-17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections. Finally, I'd like to touch on an issue that we raised recently with the Smith commission, although it has not been included explicitly in any devolution package. The Electoral Commission is committed to working with both Governments to deliver any further devolution of electoral powers to the Scottish Parliament and we will work closely with the electoral management board as this work progresses. As part of any changes in this area, we believe that there is a strong case for the electoral management board's statutory remit to be extended to all parliamentary elections, including its convener having a power of direction at these elections. It's also important that the greater clarity is provided about the legal and financial basis of the Electoral Management Board of the future. When we recommend the establishment of the EMB in 2008, we said that as it developed, it would impact on the commission's role and activities. We are very sensitive to that and, as we said to the Smith commission, we are ready to discuss how our own regulatory role might change as a consequence of other developments. I look forward to our discussions, convener. Thank you, John, for that opening. I think that it would be useful at this stage if I put on the record, on behalf of not just this committee but probably the whole Parliament, the recognition of the hard work, sheer professionalism and dedication that was put in by electoral professions, particularly in this case people from the Electoral Commission, that is part of the referendum campaign. I think that we helped to develop something that was pretty significant in terms of democratic participation, not only for Scotland but also for wider societies in general. I think that we should thank you for that input. Can I just kick off the question session with a question about one of your recommendations on page 10? It is just to get some things on record here, John, in regard to the need to consider that legislation concerning the extension of the franchise commends six months prior to the beginning of the canvas. Self-evidently, if we were to meet that requirement, we would need to pass the legislation next month. That is patently not going to happen. We do not even have a section 30 order yet, although we know from the comment in the press that the UK Government is trying to try to achieve that by the time the solution comes. The question that I have for you in these circumstances, given that the canvas for the Scottish elections is due to commence in August 2015, what is the minimum practical timescale electoral administrators would require for the legislation to be in place prior to 2016 Scottish election? The commission's position is that the ideal position is that legislation should be in place six months before it has an impact, six months before a canvas, six months before a poll, six months before a referendum, depending on what it relates to. That is the ideal position. We stick to that because we have seen from this referendum the benefits of having that legislation in this case nearly nine months ahead of the referendum date itself in terms of what it meant for participation and planning, and that is the ideal. We know that it is doable, and certain things can take place. We know that it is not practical in certain circumstances to have that legislation in place six months beforehand. We know that if it is later than that, there can be mitigating circumstances and things can be put in place to make sure that the risks that that late legislation might bring are mitigated. With the Franchise Act for the 16-17 year olds for the referendum, it too was in place a couple of months before the canvas. The reason that it was so successful was because of the work that was done with the electoral registration officers, the electoral management board and the Electoral Commission. Everyone was aware as the bill passed through this Parliament of what was in the bill, what its implications were, and people could make assumptions as to what the outcome would be when the bill became law. Openness and transparency consultation during the period as the bill passes through the Parliament and is scrutinised, leading to a strong bill, for us is an essential underpinning if the legislation cannot meet the six-months deadline. In this case, we are well aware of course that it will not be able to do so. In those circumstances, if the legislation was to pass through this Parliament by the summer recess, do you think that that would give enough time, given that everyone knows what is coming and should be able to prepare now to make sure that we have a proper basis to go forward? My colleagues are already in touch with the officers of the Parliament in relation to that potential timetable. Of course, working on our experience of the last franchise act, if it is passed through by the summer recess, we believe that that is doable. I do not know if anyone, either of my colleagues, would like to add to that. The important thing is that the legislation is clear well in advance of the canvas. We are aware that we are already involved in discussions with the Scottish Government on the potential of a franchise bill that will come into the Parliament sometime this year. That allows us to know what the legislation is likely to look like. We have to produce the guidance so that we want to be able to produce the guidance as soon as the legislation is commenced, which we did for the Scotland-Benz referendum act. As John says, by summer recess allows us to do that. If we went beyond the summer recess, we would start endangering being able to include the 16 and 17-year-olds in the annual canvas, and that would bring risks that we would be concerned about. Also, of course, if you delayed the canvas, your problem is that, at the other end, parties, candidates and agents need the final product—the actual electoral register—so that they can canvas, so that political parties want it well in advance so that they can put it into their software system so that they can campaign with it as a tool. Our concern is to ensure that clear legislation is there before the summer recess, presumably by stage 1, and it will be pretty clear what it looks like. To achieve that, the best thing for us to do is to be involved in the development of it with the Scottish Government along with the electoral registration officers. We can take comfort in the fact as long as we get it done by the summer recess, so that we have a good timescale. Can I just look at the whole issue of this six months before the annual canvas? It seems to me to be quite a significant comfort zone, frankly, in terms of the timescales available. Why do I say that if we can put in place a referendum that everyone praises about the legislation that was good, it was robust, it provided a great platform to make sure that everything went forward? Nine months before the actual date of the referendum itself. We are talking about a process that would have to be in place six months earlier, effectively, from when the Scottish referendum bill was in place. If it was nine months before the referendum in May, sorry, in September, it was nine months before, so we really need that effectively. If we are going to have something in February for an election next year, it is over a year effectively that we are talking about. Do we really need that level of comfort zone, is the question that I am asking? Is it something that we should be talking about a bit more, rather than just accept it and we need that length of time? The commission developed its recommendation six months before whatever it is, a canvas or a pole, based on the experience of other legislation that was not as timely as the independent referendum act. For the 2011 PSV parliamentary voting system or the previous referendum into the alternative voting system, we only had 11 weeks between royal ascend, and that caused a lot of problems for people planning it. We have seen some of the problems of later legislation and we know the benefits of early legislation. As Andy said, if the great mitigating circumstance of the content of the bill through the first stage is clear to those who can plan on it and then can plan and make assumptions based on the first stage of the bill being accepted within the Parliament, then that goes a long way to meet the risks. Because we know the benefits and we have seen the benefits of the six-month period, we would hold it up as the kind of gold standard where it is possible, but we know that in real life it is not always possible and there are circumstances where it cannot be met, but where it can be met we would hope that legislators and policy makers would try to aim to that six months, all other things being equal. If it is not possible, then we can all work together, as Andy Neil said, to make it work, and that is what our job is to make it work. We are talking about the ideal situation, convener. From my own experience, usually in these situations, sometimes if we give a longer timescale, all that happens is free people cramming things at the end anyway to make sure that it all works. I think that it is worth a further discussion about whether that comfort zone is required, otherwise we do not sometimes get the level of efficiency driven into systems that we are required to have. Personal view, Lewis? Can I just follow the convener's question? Just for clarity, you are saying that six months as part of a nine-month period, if you like, there was a nine-month space in the relation to the referendum bill, which includes the period that you need for electorates. It is not an addition. No, that is very helpful, that is clear. I had another question, again, in a general sense, because your initial and central recommendations around timetable and public information seem very eminently sensible and seem to be based on the positive experience that you have learned from the recent process. I was struck by a number of the other recommendations that seem to be based on things that did not go wrong or that did not happen. I just wondered if you would like to explain a little bit about that. For example, recommendation 6 on issuing ballot papers to voters queuing at polling stations. I can imagine why you might suggest that as a legislative requirement if there has been a problem. The evidence that we have taken suggests that there were no such problems. Recommendation 19 on the prohibition of appointment of staff previously involved in campaigning. I would again be useful to know if that is based on any experience in the recent referendum campaign. Recommendation 21 on the folding of ballot papers. Again, not quite clear why that recommendation has come forward. It is not one for legislation, I would accept, but it is one saying that there was an issue here, which again appears not to be the case. Recommendation 22 on the future of the Electoral Management Board. Those are all or three of those four are recommending statutory provision for things that, in the recent referendum, seem to work pretty well in any case. It would be useful to understand why there is that apparent disconnect between the evidence and the recommendation. I will ask my colleagues to comment on the specifics of the first three convener, if that is all right, and then we would like to come back to the Electoral Management Board, which is a very significant matter for us, the future of the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Services in Scotland. However, as a generality end, it applies to the first recommendation that Mr McDonnell referred to, relating to queues, ballot papers. We were pleased that that recommendation from the commission was put into the independent referendum act. Like a number of recommendations in this list of 23, we are trying to draw other policy makers in other parts of the United Kingdom's attention to what worked well here and hoping to use that example. We said it in our press release that we have highlighted it at every discussion. That worked well as a referendum, and it was well run. There are lessons that you can learn from that. We have put into the recommendations things that we saw that worked well and drew attention to them. We were using the recommendations area because we know that, for some people, we do not read every line that we write, and the 23 recommendations we wanted to highlight things that we felt were important to other people could learn from. With regard to the prohibition in staff and the folding of the ballot papers, I do not know whether I end here or Alex will end here now. In relation to queues recommendation 6, the reason why we recommended that was, although it has been carried into legislation for UK Parliament and will feed out into the other elections, it is not there for referendum legislation because referendum legislation is specific to the individual referendum as they come along. It is the way that it is done. The prohibition of staff came from a number of comments we received post-event from ROs and some members of the public that they thought some people—although the legislation is very clear on not allowing people who have worked on a campaign to serve as polling stations staff—it is less so for working on the count itself. Our suggestion is that it is made crystal clear that, if you have worked on a campaign, you should not be working on the count. Folding of ballot papers is an issue that we believe is a training issue for staff of the returning officer and counting officers in the sense that one of the things where the issue around lack of UIN on the back of a ballot paper, when you are issued with a ballot paper, as you all know, you fill it in the booth, you fold it and as you put it into the box, the law requires you to show the UIN on the back to the presiding officer before you drop it in, and that comes back from—anyway, that is what you are supposed to do. We became aware of clearly a training issue that people are on doing that, so what we are saying is that staff need to be told to remind people to do that. The future of the EMB, you did ask. In a sense, what we are concerned about is that we recommended the establishment of the EMB way back in 2008. It has been done so for Scottish local government elections. This institution did that. It may happen when you have the commencement of the 2012 Scotland Act for Scottish Parliament, presumably, but there are still the UK Parliament and the European Parliament, where Mary Picatly, the convener of the EMB, does not have a power of direction. She works basically on the good graces of the rest of the 32 returning officers, and it is done by consensus. That works most of the time, but she should have a power of direction, so if necessary, she can co-ordinate and ensure a good consistency. That is basically why we are arguing that point. When we recommended the establishment of the EMB in 2008, the Scottish Government and the UK Government of the time supported its establishment and put it on a statutory basis. We think that in the six, seven years that have passed at EMB has certainly proven its worth, and if anyone had any doubts about putting it on a statutory basis, we think that the referendum and the local elections in Scotland have clarified that. However, there is an important point, too, about the infrastructure of the EMB. We feel that it has been put on a statutory basis. It is working at the moment on the basis of a lot of goodwill from the local authorities for whom the chief counting officer and the deputy chief counting officer and the registration officers and those who sit on the board work. It is done on a grace and favour basis, with some central Government support. We feel that, as it, we hope, attracts the further powers of direction for all the parliamentary elections, which we have recommended to the Smith commission, that the kind of infrastructure and the financing and funding of it could be put on a statutory basis, so that continuing planning and strategic work that it could undertake could be planned for. It is not possible to do that at the moment, because it gets a lot of support from local authorities. We would like that, at least, to be aired, to be discussed, and for the position that the EMB is an independent body that coordinates all electoral activities in Scotland to be underpinned. The issue is that it does not have secure long-term funding. It basically is ran on event-based funding, and because it is funded by two Governments, it depends on which Government is involved. It needs to be sorted out, essentially, as we are seeing. The legal status of the EMB is probably needed to clarify so that it can undertake a co-ordination of things like the e-counting project for Scottish local government elections. Currently, it is not really structured in a way that it can actually do that. We have always said, since 2008, that we would review our role in terms of guidance and such, as the EMB develops. One of the things that Smith has suggested when we start to become a creature of the Scottish Parliament, in a sense, is that it is a timely point where all of this can be sorted out. I am interested in what you were saying there. I wonder whether you are going beyond what you have just discussed, and I can take on board that you are willing to look at your own responsibilities should that happen. However, I am really interested in the impact on the Electoral Commission that any extension of the EMB in Scotland would have, on how you would see that working, whether there would be any crossover of functions, or whether you would take it as an opportunity to streamline the whole arrangement. It is more of a latter, convener. If I take an example of guidance to returning officers, the Electoral Commission provides guidance to returning officers for elections. We recommended that, during the referendum, the guidance should come from the person who had the power of direction, the convener of the Electoral Management Board. We advised Mary Pitcaitley and her team on the guidance, but we thought that it was an important matter that it was seen to come from the convener of the Electoral Management Board to whom the returning officers, the counting officers in this case in the referendum, were accountable. It is in the same way that we feel very strongly that one of the lessons of this referendum is that you have a separation of powers. The act to set up the Electoral Commission, gave the Electoral Commission on a UK basis, the duty of running referendums that the Westminster Parliament wanted to run. We recommended very strongly here, as the convener would recall, that there should be a separation between the running of the referendum and the regulating of the referendum. If we are looking forward, we are aware of the fact that once the EMB is put on a statutory basis, we, in conjunction with the Electoral Management Board, should be clarifying who is responsible for what. The regulatory mechanism is clear, and the delivery mechanism is clear, and we can each be accountable to this Parliament as appropriate. The key is to ensure that we are complementary in running elections rather than duplicating. At the moment, the EMB coordinates on operational matters. What we do is provide guidance. You could argue that that should be done by the EMB, but we also do the national public awareness campaign. What we do as well is the regulation of returning officers and electoral registrations in terms of performance standards, which is a regulatory role. We also do the regulatory role, which the EMB does not do in terms of party registrations, candidates and party regulation and campaigning regulation. There is a complementary role that fits together. In my view, there is a need for two organisations, obviously. We want to ensure that we are not duplicating in any way, and that is why we want to have a discussion about that. Do you see your role as an organisation being reduced, being enhanced or staying the same? Street Blind would be a good word. I would not like to predict. We certainly do not see it. We are not in the business of expansion and increased investment. We think that, with the establishment of the electoral management board, there is an opportunity for us to make sure that public money is being well spent. Therefore, I would not see it as a question of enhancement, convener, but I would see it as a great opportunity in putting the electoral management board a uniquely Scottish organisation. It is encouraging that a number of local authorities around the other parts of the UK are looking at it, obviously, as to something that they might learn from. However, in doing that, it is to clarify the accountability, streamlining, I think, would be more than enhancement. That is worth remembering that the role that we had in the electoral management board and the chief counting officer had for the referendum in Scotland was very different to what we did for the referendum's UK-wide in May 2011. The time to work that through, clarify it, work with Mary and everyone else and get that right worked extremely well. We really embraced that. The separation was both clear from the outset and in practice we did not encounter any real issues around that. When you look to the future, it is about getting that clarity in the longer term, not just event by event. We do have heads of agreement at the beginning and the outset of the process between the EMB is responsible for this. The Electoral Commissioners are responsible for this. We work very closely together. That is specifically on the question of Gaidans. Gaidans could be done by the EMB and could be done by us. In Northern Ireland, for instance, the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland produces his own Gaidans because there is only one returning officer effectively in Northern Ireland. The convener of the electoral management board would probably argue, and I will put words into my mouth, that currently she is not set up and funded to do the Gaidans function. That is why you have to sort it all out before you consider passing over. That is why we have always said that we would assess our role as things develop. We have got to a point where developments are about to occur. A very quick last one entirely relating to the Electoral Commission. Yes, it is all up for discussion, but the basic recommendation of the Smith commission means that the Electoral Commission would be reporting to the Parliament in Scotland as well as the UK. I just wondered how you feel that would impact in any way on your organisation. We think that it is appropriate. Whatever mechanism this Parliament decides that we should be accountable to, we would welcome it. Our work for the people of Scotland and the voters of Scotland were very supportive of a transparent mechanism that shows that we are accountable through this Parliament to the voters in Scotland. I will go to Stuart Maxwell, who had an issue about individual registration. I want to take up the issue of the introduction of the individual electoral registration. Do you think that the impact of that introduction would be on the introduction of voting for 16 and 17-year-olds at roughly the same time? I will ask my colleagues to go through it. The Electoral Commission is strongly supportive of the introduction of individual electoral registration. It works to transfer people from the existing registers to the individual registers that have been going on in the rest of the UK for some time. The work is only being going on in Scotland, as you know, since after the referendum on the basis of one of our recommendations to the UK Government. We thought that it confused people, but we have a very encouraging experience from the 19th of September through to the moment on that transition. We are some time away yet from making a recommendation to the UK Government on the transition when it should be implemented. We will be considering that over the coming months, the data that we have relating to the introduction of the IER and the status that we are at before we consider to the UK Government when it should be implemented. We believe in it very strongly because we believe that it is the basis of a longer-term process in electoral modernisation. One of the key issues relating to that is that, for the first time, you will be able to register online. Just as one basic headline out of it, that advantage, we think, can underpin a lot of other advantages in strengthening the register. We are in the business of getting people on the register. I note from your last session before Christmas, Mr Chairman, that a member of the committee has had a sad experience in terms of the transition that is catching my eye there, Mr Gibson. I would have to underpin that we are in favour of enhancing the register, getting more people on the register, getting more accurate and more complete registers, and we believe that IER will contribute to that. If we had any doubts about it, it would not be so supportive of it, in terms of the implications for a 16, 17-year-olds. John Sir, for 16 and 17-year-olds, the fact that you can register to vote online is obviously a big plus. The specific issue in terms of eyes that affects 16 and 17-year-olds in addition to that is the need to have a national insurance number, which is behind your question. I think that you get your national insurance number a few months before you turn 16. Thinking through, it goes back to what we were saying earlier, thinking through and planning now, how we will make sure that everyone who is 15 turning 16 gets on to register at the right time in the right way. It does not encounter a problem with that. We think that it is doable, but it is one of the big issues that needs to be looked at in terms of planning. The reason that I ask it is because the committee visited a school in Fife. We talked to pupils from Buckhaven High and Cuckland High. We split any groups and I had two groups that afternoon, probably somewhere between 40 and 50 pupils. I asked both groups the same question about whether they registered themselves or whether somebody in their family registered them. Of those 40 or 50 individuals, only two registered themselves. I wonder if you thought about the issue of individual registration, in particular in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds, given the nature of the experience in the referendum, where the expectation was that somebody else in the household would do it. The key feature of individual registration is that it is individual. You no longer have a form that someone else could fill on your behalf. That is particularly going to be the case for young people who have perhaps relied on someone else to do it in the past. The guidance that we have, and obviously it has been live in Scotland since 19 September, the guidance and the planning that we have put in and the registration officers across Scotland have put in is about how you get around that, how you target people individually, and every registration officer should have a strategy for getting to people individually. As you say, people who previously have relied on someone, young people who previously have relied on someone else to do it, that is an issue. I think that that is why we identified that very early on. Just on the point, if I may, that it was raised there about the register and the success of the registration will be increasing the register and more people coming on to it. I was somewhat surprised by some of the comments in the House of Commons in questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, which seemed to be suggesting that the Electoral Commission thought that, as long as the Electoral Register does not deteriorate further, that is a measure of success. That is a quote. I just wondered what your thoughts on that or why such a thing would be said by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission has remarkably said that this is from the House of Commons that, as long as the Electoral Register does not deteriorate further, that is a measure of success. Perhaps he has asked the Commission's director of communications to comment on that. I do not know the detail of that. At the moment, the transition to individual registration will end in law in December 2016. The only way that it can be brought forward to December 2015 is through an order being laid in Parliament down south. We are going to produce a report in June, which says whether or not we think that that is a good idea. We are going to set the bar for that very high. We have to be very confident that when the transition to individual registration ends, we have completeness and accuracy of the registers at a standard that we can be comfortable with, not just in general levels, but in terms of specific areas and how it affects particular groups. I do not think that we are going to place it in any way about that at all. To us, of all people, we care so much about getting the register complete and accurate. The standard that we will set for saying whether or not the end of transition is brought forward will be very high. Distancing yourselves from those comments, I do not know the context. I think that was the idea that I wanted to do that. I think that I have got two supplementaries here. In this area, Rob Gibson wants to ask a supplementary. I think that it is stupid. In exchange, in the House of Commons raised other issues, which are germane to the move to individual registration, because the Minister for Constitution, Sam Guyama, said that he, Sadiq Khan, who was asking the questions, also knows in terms of the register that nobody who is on the register in January 2014 will not be on the register come the 2015 election. So, in that case, am I still on the register? However, more importantly, does that apply here in the move between the household canvas and the individual canvas? I think that the important thing to stress at the outset, convener, is that a large number of people, a very large percentage of people have been transferred through DWP data matching on to the existing register. The second thing, as Alex Robertson said, is that each electoral registration officer has now got to have an individual work plan and strategy for their area that they are responsible for to catch those who have not transferred thus far. However, Mr Maxwell's point about the quotation about deterioration of register, in normal times the register deteriorates by about 1 per cent per month. That is something that we fight and the registration officer's work to prevent. We know where the sensitive areas are, those who are in rented accommodation rather than their own accommodation, those who are between 18 and 24, those from different ethnic communities who pay less interest in the register. A lot of targeted work has to go on, targeted at those people in the local registration areas, to make sure that they are brought on to the register. However, it is one of the sad things that deterioration of the register, which takes place anyway, and I think that that must be behind the quote there that we try to get rid of that deterioration. In the past, I have raised the issue of younger people, particularly people who are disabled and also younger people who are not in education but who are working maybe in apprenticeships and in terms of getting them on to the register, certainly in the run-up to the referendum, but also with the new registration system that is in existence. What activities are you going to recommend in terms of ensuring that those individuals are going to be captured so that they can actually go on to the register? As we have said in the report on this referendum, the commission has been involved in a lot of partnership working with different organisations who cater for different populations. A lot of work was done in targeting 16-17-year-olds. Of course, most of those were caught within the educational sector one way or another at school or in college, but we are very much aware of the fact that that does not capture everybody. A lot of work was done with Young Scott and through Young Scott with Skills Development Scotland, Youth Link and the Scottish Youth Parliament. A whole range of agencies such as the Scottish Agency that looks after children in care who are transitioning to independent life and we work through them and with shelter for those who are in an unstable situation. A lot of granular work was done to catch those who might fall through the net because they were not caught by one of the major campaigns. It was gratifying that our public information campaign, to get young people on the register, 74 per cent of 16-17-year-olds said that they were aware of our campaign and they had got some information from it. We go from the general global national campaign on radio and television and press and booklets through to the granularity of working with people on the ground in each area who know the individual circumstances and who know the individuals in many cases, children in care, people who are not at school, people who do not get to college. We caught a lot of people who were in apprenticeships, for example, through the colleges of other education where they were doing some of their work. A lot of granular work was done and we build on those partnerships. In the report, we applauded all those who worked very strongly with us to try to make sure that we caught as many of the youngsters as we could. Mr Robertson mentioned in his comments earlier the national insurance number. It has been a while since I received my national insurance number and things have changed great, a great deal since then. Is it an argument to have one of those registration forms issued along with the NIN number? I mean, I think the—what is done around 16-year-olds, in particular 15 turning 16-year-olds national insurance numbers, I think it comes back to the need for very detailed early planning, looking at the best way of getting those 15-year-olds who haven't got a national insurance number on to the register by the time they're 16. I don't know exactly what the answer is right now, but I think it does reinforce the need for those very early conversations, looking at the plans, working the registration office as the legislation is developed. One of the beauties of the work that we were able to do with the referendum is that it wasn't a campaign by any means that we ran on our own. It was something that—right across the whole society in Scotland—so many people were interested, had an interest in getting young people engaged in politics and getting them on to register. The sooner that it can be clear what you can do practically to help get people on the register, the better, both at a national level so we can work with the national organisations that John Menn mentioned, and many more, I hope, as well, but also at a local level, let the registration officers go and talk to employers in the area that they've never got apprenticeships and say, look, this is what you can do, this is what you can tell them, this is how you can help. Okay, well, thank you. I've got another question up. It's okay, can you be there? Is that in the same area? It's on 6 and 17-year-olds. Okay, I want to come down at Johnson's soon, because I know that there are still supplementaries that we've got through on this side. Okay, thank you. In terms of the section 30 order that is going to come to the Parliament, is there an argument about what you think actually that with this particular order that the local government elections in 2017 should actually be included in that order as well, or do you think that there will be enough time to have a separate piece of legislation going through after the orders passed for the 2017 local authority elections? I said that I'm out of a Westminster, so I said, I think. Parliamentary draftsmen, I think, would run these puzzled faces, so I guess that's the answer. I see the point that I might have to reflect on that, but I might. Okay, okay, okay, thank you. I'm not sure much what you want to follow up on the disabled issue. One very quick point, thank you, Kevin. I wanted to, I'm sure that you've already thought of it, but, obviously, in the move to individual electoral registration, what happens to those of any age group, adults, obviously, not just 16 and 17-year-olds, who have a particular disability? I'm thinking of those who require close support and help and assistance during their daily life, particularly adults with learning disabilities, et cetera, who obviously still have a right to be on the literal register. At the moment, others may well register for them, maybe a family member, et cetera. What will happen to those individuals when we move to individual registration? When we were looking at all of the issues that would affect people with the move to individual registration and developing guidance and resources for electoral registration officers across Great Britain to help do that, we looked at all the different barriers that people would encounter. What our guidance sets out very clearly and our registration officers do is to have strategies in place to target all of those different types of issues. Alongside that, where we can, we've also produced resources centrally that we've given to registration officers so that they can provide materials in alternative formats. The issue that affects people will be different in each case depending on the disability and the issue, but the guidance is very comprehensive about that and the strategies that registration officers have in place should cover all those different groups. Just for clarity, if an adult, let's just take learning disability as an example. At the moment, there is support from another family member or maybe somebody else to help them with the registration process. Can that carry on? Yes, the help carries on. So somebody else can still register for those individuals? I think that they can help them, but I think that they have to register themselves so that they can provide the help, but the registration will need to be individually made. Done with their knowledge? I mean, the idea of the benefit of the individual electoral registration is that it gets rid of that kind of archaic phrase of the head of the household and doing it for other people. The point that you make is very germane to the centre of that. That means that some people who have had needed their course before have helped, but there should be no barriers to people helping others to register individually. The materials that we've provided advise registration officers on what kind of help and different templates for those who are blind and those who have learning difficulties, et cetera, as to how it could be managed so that these people are supported through the process and with their full knowledge and consent are registered individually. Before I go to Alex Johnson to talk about issues to do with counting procedure, I think that Rob has another supplementary on this area. I do indeed. You mentioned the allocation of national insurance numbers to 16 and 17-year-olds—clearly those of us who are older do have those. Are you satisfied that the national insurance number is an adequate identifier for individuals? Yes, essentially yes. When the legislation was going through, we looked very closely at that. There was a lot of debate about what the identifier should be to register individually, and we were satisfied, yes, that the national insurance numbers are both something that people could get riddly, get hold of in the mind, but also something that provided a reasonable degree of security that people were who they said they were. Convener, I presented mine and they couldn't identify me from my national insurance number. I wonder if other people have had the same problem in applying for a postal vote. I think that you should look at it more carefully. I'm still not happy about it, you can tell that. Okay, I'm not expecting you to make a response to that because you can't look at individual cases, I fully understand that, but the point is made by Rob Gibson. Alex Johnstone Thank you very much, convener. Confidence in process, especially on polling day and at the count, were rightly very high. However, if those of us who monitor items in the press social media are aware that there were a number of suggestions made over regularities at the count, which appeared to me to be based on a misunderstanding of process. Now, the first question I would ask out of courtesy to those who may have made these suggestions, is there any evidence to support some of the claims that were made? Well, rightly one of our, as was discussed at your session before Parliament, we worked very closely with Police Scotland as the electoral management board did, as Mary Picatly outlined, and a good partnership working with Police Scotland. So, any allegations that were brought to us, we handed over to the police and they rightly deal with it and are dealing with a number at the moment, but we have no update about that, and that is quite properly a matter for them. What we are aware of is that, as Mary Picatly has underlined in public statements to reassure people that there were a large number of observers, as you would be aware, at 32 counts and at the national count, people from either side of the campaign, people are numbered, over 200 accredited observers. Many, many, I won't go into the list of people who were there observing and at no count did anyone point to any irregularity and bring it to the attention of either the counting officer, any of the staff or to the police, and there was a police officer at every count throughout the country. So, nothing surfaced by way of irregularities about the count until after the declaration of the result, and those were quite rightly referred to the police and they are dealing with the matter. The act, these want to steer very, give a wide berth to any specific cases, but the fact that there appeared to be a discussion taking place in certain areas regarding that, do you think that it was simply a reflection of the very large number of people who were engaging in the process for the first time who didn't understand the process and is that the reason why you have put in your recommendations a requirement to inform better the voters on count procedure? Yes, I think that it's quite important because we know specifically from questions that were directed to us and to colleagues of mine within the Electoral Commission that people did not understand the process of the count and we have to accept that most people within the country don't attend counts and don't observe counts and don't know what goes on and what were the normal stages of a count of verification, of putting the ballots into two piles, etc. We're misunderstood by some people and it was very clear that when these questions were asked, as my colleagues dealt with them on telephone, that once they realised that was the end of the matter, they realised what was happening and so we've made a specific recommendation because we think it is our responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen again so that we can point when someone says what's happening at a count, we can point to an animation or video material or we can point to a pack that briefs someone on the different stages of a count because it is clear that a number of people misunderstood the normal processes of a count and that led to them think that there was something fishy going on so we have to do that as a priority to make sure that in the future people understand what the current processes are. I think it's really interesting because we've obviously spent a lot of time and resource over the last few years explaining to people how to register at the vote, how to fill in the ballot paper and such like and we've spent time briefing and providing information to journalists and candidates and agents about what happens in counts and such but we've never actually consciously done it for the general public who on this occasion this was I think the first time I know anyway when all 32 count centres had cameras in them and people saw things and there were things being thrown up on tv during the count which then created social media comment and I think it was probably the first time we've had a unique huge democratic event and social media existed so one of the things we've taken is ourselves and county officers and return officers need to consciously explain to the ordinary member of the public who let's be honest doesn't understand how a count works how it actually how it does work simply so they can be informed I mean we got obviously we took as everyone in our electoral world took a lot of calls afterwards many people which is simply confused and once we'd explained it they were happy others were less less happy to be to be honest to be frank but I think from us from from bureaucratic point of view we need to provide simple information on how a count works and get that out to people it's obvious from the the terms of the report that you understand the issue in the the count I attended there was you know one person from each side at each table and the observation went extremely well but are you confident that nothing you no action you take in relation to this or no action there is taken it's likely to make it more difficult for observers to ensure that the count is open and fair oh no i'm not absolutely sure about the you know the observation and the opening transparency of the count is is central to it nowhere we're very clearly we have to do more work and in the generality of what goes on so that people are coming to account for the first time people who are seeing aspects of it on social media might understand what's taking place and we take that responsibility pretty seriously and it's it's a sadness too because we know that people's perception of fraud is greatly affected by media reports like this so if the our research tells us that if the vast majority of people who believe there is fraudulent activity at elections or referendums say it is because i saw the stories in the media and i've looked at some of the social media material and it's very difficult to source it and that's frustrating as well we're not absolutely sure where it comes from and whether it relates to where it relates to does it relate to this this referendum or some other activity and that's frustrating because you can't then deal with it specifically it's just one of these generalities and that does affect people's confidence in the system and that's why we take this issue very seriously and we have to do something about it and we will do something about it. The key to confidence in any in any result is the transparency of the people that have a stake in the outcome and i thought it was very very powerful when campaigners or politicians who cared passionately about the outcome came out and said we saw it and actually there's not a problem here and i think that message that that because throughout the day that there were so many opportunities for people to identify something along and it was so transparent to them at the end of it say we were there we were part of it we cared about it it's just as much as you do we saw it and actually you should have confidence in the result i think it's a very very powerful way to fight some of that stuff that then comes through afterwards. Thank you we've covered quite a wide area. Does anybody want to bring any other supplementaries in here or is it another subject any supplementaries in this area okay another subject rob Gibson yeah regarding your report about raising awareness of the referendum with 16 and 17 year olds you note on page 46 that some campaigners express frustration that there was not a consistent approach across councils in scotland or even between schools within the same council area and would you like to expand on that trying to quickly read page 46 political literacy for 16 and 17 year olds we were involved in early discussions and one of the benefits of the legislation coming early was we could do this with education scotland, ades, solace we all got together and started looking at what what do you need but of course political literacy is done by education by councils councils are rightly individual 32 of them councils and i think you've collected you've collected the information from from the 32 councils took different approaches to political literacy in schools and that was down to whatever the councils wanted to do but as our understanding is that a lot of a lot of activity was undertaken some allowed both sides to come in at the same time some allowed it separately and such it is something we think as we move forward with 16 and 17 year olds being on the register for the future we need to look at again and work on it learn the lessons from the past so we can go forward in the future without it being an accusation of centralisation from some people do you think it would be appropriate to allow local authorities to decide for themselves the approach to take with regard to the awareness raising or whether more uniform approaches would be more effective well um the comment in our report came from some campaigners who wanted to see consistency in the uniform approach but we're very sensitive to the matter that education is a local government matter and the professional people on the ground who lead the education services need local authority are the best people to make that judgment and we are sensitive to that so we did everything we could to work with the national bodies who were advising the local authorities the director of education services and the like and it did result as the list in our report shows it did result in activities across the whole country um some some people saw that as inconsistency other people saw it as matching the needs of their own different communities and i think i don't think we would want to take any further than that can be my daughter has got a supplementary in this area and then i'm going to come to the tribune yeah i mean some of the feedback the committee received from 16 17 year olds is the point at which they became most engaged with the campaign was during the final weeks and that was during the period when the the power of roles applied within schools became the most restrictive do you have a view on whether there should be a relaxation or a flexibility around those rules given that at the point at which those individuals are becoming most engaged they are also in a position where the ability to perhaps have that information provided reduces i mean it's definitely i mean that doesn't surprise me it is definitely um people's levels of engagement always goes up massively ahead of a poll and you think and that's why when we run our registration campaigns and we have one very as well as the general campaign one named specifically at 16 17 years we run that right up to the second of September registration deadline as to the restrictions and how those apply in schools as john i think andy was saying earlier the we did spend a lot of time very early on getting clear what our what what we could play in the the education authorities in scotland could play and looking at how that all works i think we'd be quite cautious about recommending a change in approach around the restrictions of what happens in in schools i think really for that reason that it's not an area that we felt we should go into other than making sure that we very closely coordinate with those that do have a view on that just to perhaps build slightly on the the question that rob Gibson asked and i know that you you don't want to to perhaps go too far on this but do you not think that there is an issue around where you have local authorities taking very different approaches i mean obviously different electors in different areas will find themselves more engaged or less engaged based on the visibility of campaigns the number of hustings meetings etc but what you have in a situation where the work that is going on within schools varies quite wildly between different local authorities and you have some first time voters who are being given much greater access to information or to opportunities for debate within school compared against other authorities or sometimes even between schools within local authorities do you not think there is perhaps an argument for a uniformity of guidance and a uniformity of approach to ensure that first time voters in one area are not more advantaged than in another area well certainly there are materials that are available you know the materials we produce them with you know that was produced with the national bodies were available to every 16 17 year old and we had materials on our website which were available to every 16 and 17 year old wherever they were and i do think as a matter for local elected representatives to consider this issue and take it seriously and to consider it and i'm also very much aware of the kind of feedback we've had and through our polling that the 16 17 year olds were not only getting information through their educational establishment whether it was a college a or a school there was a lot of local campaigning activities everywhere around this table knows across the whole country sensitising the 16 17 year olds to the issues at the referendum and how to take part in the referendum so they weren't kind of excluded if they were in a school that was doing less than a school in another local authority but i do think this this referendum has drawn attention to the special challenges of extending the franchise to the 16 17 year olds and getting information and getting them to put getting the 16 17 year olds to participate and there very was a very high percentage turnout among 16 17 year olds which was was encouraging and i'd be surprised if elected representatives around the country having seen our report would be considering the implications of that for their own schools. Richard? In your letter to the convener, Mr McComack, you said that there were 42 registered campaigners in the referendum split evenly on either side but clearly there were clear rules governing that in terms of the way they needed to act independently of each other and of the broad campaigns. Can I ask to what extent you feel that was monitored effectively and also in general how you think that worked and if there were any areas of concern at the end of the process in terms of how that was governed and how that might inform future events? Thank you very much. I think that I should ask my colleague and Anil who oversaw the monitoring and the rigorous monitoring to comment on that. The regulation of the 42 campaign participants, we thought that it went well but we would say that because we did it, I suppose. I think that the interesting thing was that we got early legislation and we knew that was coming and we were in the unique event of the independence referendum where, unlike in previous recent referendums, we knew who the yes and no side were before the referendum in a legal sense even existed. So we were already talking to better together and yes Scotland before the legislation was almost in Parliament. We were talking with them to ensure that they understood what was going to be the rules before the rules were there so we were ensuring compliance through discussion and we spent a lot of time actively monitoring campaigning to ensure that people who were about to appear as campaigners were aware of the rules we would engage with them, we would offer to meet with them, most of them we did meet with, so they understood their legal responsibilities. In the highlights in terms of the regulation, we thought the early legislation was very good. The prepo reporting legislation we thought worked well and needs to be looked at for other referendums. The longer regulated period was very good. The early designation of yes and no so that people could engage with them in a formal sense, including ourselves, worked very well. Of course, this is only half the story for the regulation of the campaigning because we have only just received the campaign returns from those under £250,000. We still haven't got, and we won't get, the other £250,000 until 18 March, which includes yes Scotland invested together. We have to analyse that and we will produce another spending report, hopefully, before summer recess. We have not finally concluded on what we thought of the regulation, but we think that it was well done. The legislation was an improvement and there is a lot of lessons to learn for other referendums coming. Once you have those returns, that might inform your views further at that point. Thank you very much. Okay, folks, thank you very much. That has been a very useful session this morning, so thanks to John McCormack, Andy O'Neill and Alex Robertson. We are now going to move into private session, but before doing so, just make sure that everyone is aware that the next meeting of the committee will be on Thursday 15 January, with evidence from references of civic society organisations regarding recommendations of the Smith commission. We are now moving to private, and I am sure that those around the table will know what that means.