Electoral boundaries - determination process: independent review report

Summary of Recommendations

In this report, I make a number of recommendations for changes to the process of implementing Boundaries Scotland’s reviews of Scottish Parliament and local government electoral boundaries. The first thing I considered as part of this Review was whether a move to automaticity would be an improvement on current practice or not, and whether other changes would be warranted as a result of such a change. Following extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public, and a review of practice in selected comparable countries, I recommend that Scotland does adopt a form of automaticity for approving electoral boundary changes. Automaticity would mean that Boundaries Scotland would go from being a body which makes recommendations to a body which makes decisions on electoral boundaries for Scottish Parliament and local government elections. It is only right that with this change, the wider process of how reviews are conducted is examined, and that the level of scrutiny and safeguards present in the current system are not downgraded as a result.

1. Scotland should adopt a process of automaticity for reviews of Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions, and for local government ward boundaries and councillor numbers. Boundary reviews should not be subject to a vote in Parliament as they are at present but, following consultation, Boundaries Scotland will be able to make the final decisions on electoral boundaries.

Automaticity would mean that proposals and subsequent decisions on boundary changes would be made by Boundaries Scotland at all stages of the process. This would align Scotland with international good practice, as I have concluded from the research during this Review, which is that many comparable countries do not allow politicians to vote on boundary changes. This does not, in my view, mean that politicians should not be able to contribute to boundary reviews. Indeed, to the contrary, they have invaluable experience, perspective and local knowledge that can help inform proposals for change. In my view, it is most appropriate for Parliamentarians to contribute in the early formulation of proposals.

2. The Scottish Parliament and local authorities should be statutory consultees for the relevant electoral boundary reviews. This should take place as the first round of consultation.

While I have concluded that the Scottish Parliament should not be able to approve or reject proposals made by Boundaries Scotland, it is important that politicians, as the elected representatives in the democratic process, have an appropriate status and place to express views during boundary reviews. Currently, local authorities are consulted for 2 months at the beginning of reviews of local government electoral arrangements – a system which Boundaries Scotland and COSLA have indicated works well the majority of the time. I believe that a comparable system for Scottish Parliament reviews, where the Scottish Parliament is formally consulted at the start of a review, would strike the correct balance of appropriately including politicians in the process without giving them a power to veto changes.

3. Boundaries Scotland should publish notifications of upcoming consultations as part of its reviews, giving individuals and groups information on the key issues which will be considered as part of the review. Boundaries Scotland should consider how best to improve communication with the public about upcoming and ongoing reviews.

Early information about an upcoming boundary review will help the public and community and other groups to better understand the aims of the review and prepare for engaging in it. An information document could, for example, set out timescales of consultations and public events, data on the demographic changes expected to impact on certain parts of the country or council area, and make clear what changes to electoral boundaries would – and would not – mean in practical terms for local areas. This information document could be published in tandem with the statutory consultation with Parliament or local authorities. In their responses to the consultation for this Review, a number of members of the public said they felt they had insufficient notice of boundary reviews which affected their areas. This, coupled with the view expressed by some that there was insufficient time to respond to consultations (particularly for Scottish Parliament reviews), suggests that a ‘pre-consultation’ period may benefit public understanding and knowledge of the process, and provide enhanced opportunities for as wide and full a formal consultation period as possible.

4. Consultation processes for reviews of Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions, and local government electoral arrangements should be made as similar as possible to aid public understanding and consistency of process.

I believe that, as raised in a number of responses to the consultation, creating greater consistency between the different types of boundary review, where possible, may aid public understanding of what can be a complex and difficult to navigate system. While there is still some divergence between the system and processes used for boundary reviews at a UK-level (i.e. for Westminster boundaries), and the recommendations I make here for Scottish Parliament and local government reviews, there would be increased alignment across all three systems, and in particular for the latter two.

It is worth noting that alignment of boundaries across elections, which is a suggestion I heard raised during my engagement, is not feasible due to the differences in electoral systems and significant differences in size of constituencies and wards.

5. Public consultation on proposals should last for 12 weeks. This should come after the statutory consultation with Parliament or local authorities, and be followed by a final round of consultation on the revised proposals lasting at least 4 weeks.

Current practice is that Boundaries Scotland consults publicly for a 12-week period when conducting reviews of local government electoral arrangements (following a consultation with local authorities) but the length of the public consultation is not set in legislation. I recommend a similar process takes place during Scottish Parliament reviews, replacing the current system of repeated rounds of one month consultations. This will give a longer period for individuals and organisations to respond to the public consultation, and provide certainty over the length and number of consultations. Holding an additional, final consultation on revised proposals will allow a last opportunity for feedback and refinement of proposals, which should be manageable in a 4 week period but could be extended if deemed helpful to finalising the changes. This is similar to what takes place during reviews of Westminster constituencies. These rounds of public consultation should take place after the statutory consultation with Parliament or local authorities.

6. Local inquiries should be replaced with public hearings, as the format is more in line with current public expectations of consultation events. There should be a set number of public hearings, with sufficient geographical spread.

7. Boundaries Scotland should have discretion to hold public consultation events, including public hearings, in the format that allows for most effective engagement, including the option to hold digital, or hybrid events.

The current system of local inquiries are evidence-gathering sessions which are often chaired by senior judges (Sheriffs Principal in recent years) and at which Boundaries Scotland does not play an active part in the discussions. In contrast, public hearings are a more flexible, consultative event, where Boundaries Scotland would be better able to interact with members of the public. I believe that local inquiries are no longer in line with what the public expects from events of this nature, and that the restrictive nature of local inquiries means Boundaries Scotland is not always able to communicate outwards or gather the information it would wish or require. I suggest that public hearings would provide a space where members of the public can voice concerns or support for proposed boundary changes but also allow Boundaries Scotland to respond to issues, concerns and questions at the time and in an interactive manner. Public events should, above all, promote understanding of the issues being considered among the public.

These public hearings should be set from the start of a review, and not arranged in response to objections lodged by local authorities or others at various stages of the review as they are at present. There should be sufficient geographical spread to allow in-person attendance for those who wish, for example, one per Scottish Parliament region, or one or two per local authority for local government reviews. Consideration should be given as to how best to reach residents of remote, rural and island communities. Boundaries Scotland should have sufficient flexibility to choose how many events are held for any given review. These events, and others, should be able to be held in a range of formats, including hybrid or digital, to better reflect modern consultation practices. The accessibility of consultations, and consultation events should be a central concern during boundary reviews.

8. Boundaries Scotland and the Scottish Government should consider how best to simplify language used around reviews of electoral boundaries, and take steps to ensure that processes and proposals are clearly communicated to the public.

Throughout the course of engagement and consultation to inform this Review, much of the feedback I heard from members of the public noted the complexity and difficulty of engaging with consultations on changes to electoral boundaries. I believe that both Boundaries Scotland, when consulting and publishing reports, and the Scottish Government, when designing legislation and policy, should ensure that the language used is more accessible and meaningful to the public. I acknowledge that there are by necessity technical and detailed aspects of legislation and the processes which underpin boundary changes, however every effort should be made to remove jargon and simplify explanations where possible, in order to aid as full and meaningful a process for as many people as possible.

9. The Electoral Commission should provide an extra level of scrutiny by reviewing the process followed by Boundaries Scotland and reporting on it after the final stages of an electoral boundary review.

Automaticity means that a form of scrutiny under the existing process, Parliamentary Committee scrutiny and a vote in the Scottish Parliament, will no longer take place. I believe that scrutiny of Boundaries Scotland’s proposals should not be ‘downgraded’ as a result of automaticity, and consider that the Electoral Commission is the relevant body to bring additional and appropriate scrutiny by reporting on the process followed by Boundaries Scotland. This would not be a full audit of Boundaries Scotland’s reviews or an audit of its spending, nor a veto over its decisions, which should still rightly sit with Boundaries Scotland. It would, though, provide feedback on best practice and an additional expert and independent assessment of Boundaries Scotland’s adherence to the rules in reaching its final decisions. This would be accompanied by ongoing engagement between Boundaries Scotland and the Electoral Commission throughout the course of reviews taking place.

10. The rules Boundaries Scotland follows when drawing boundaries should be clarified to aid understanding of the criteria. There should be a 15% limit to the degree to which parity can be deviated from.

I received clear feedback from members of the public, and some stakeholders, that the rules which dictate how boundaries are drawn, and how they interact with each other, are sometimes difficult to understand and interpret. I suggest that one way to improve clarity around these rules is to re-emphasise that parity is the most important factor when drawing boundaries. A limit on the deviation from parity means that while local ties and communities can and should very much continue to be taken into account, this is always balanced against ensuring the value of each elector’s vote is not deviated from too significantly.

11. Legislation flowing from recommendations in this report should ensure that Boundaries Scotland’s independence, and its role in making final decisions, is clear.

The importance of the perception of objectivity and independence cannot, in my view and as raised by many respondents to the consultation, be underestimated and this needs to be clear in any legislative changes. The central aim of a move to automaticity is to ensure the continuing independence of Boundaries Scotland, and to ensure that it is able to review and adjust electoral boundaries in an apolitical and independent manner. In order to do this, legislation will be necessary to change the existing system and to introduce automaticity. While not every recommendation or suggestion in this report requires a change in law in order to be implemented, the Scottish Parliament should progress legislation which, above all, ensures Boundaries Scotland can continue to work independently, and in the interests of the Scottish people.