Electoral boundaries - determination process: independent review report

Public Consultation

While the primary focus of this Review, and my report, has been to consider the way electoral boundary changes are approved and implemented, I am firmly of the view that any recommendation for changes to the end of the boundary-setting process should come with improvements to all stages of the process. Public consultation rightfully makes up a key part of the current system, but feedback from the public and stakeholders throughout this Review has made clear that existing practice could be improved.

Currently when Boundaries Scotland undertake reviews, the consultation process for Scottish Parliament and local government boundaries are different from each other.

For Scottish Parliament boundaries, Boundaries Scotland makes initial proposals which are then subject to a public consultation. This consultation lasts 4 weeks, after which Boundaries Scotland considers the consultation responses and publishes any updated proposals for the boundaries. Another one month round of consultation is then held, and this process repeats until final recommendations are made. Feedback from members of the public and from Boundaries Scotland has shown that this system is not fit for purpose. Many people feel that 4 weeks is not a long enough time for a consultation, as groups such as local authorities or community councils often need longer than that to consider, draft and approve a response. This is particularly difficult for some community council groups who meet less regularly than every 4 weeks. The repeating rounds of consultation do not have a set out end point, and this makes planning reviews difficult for Boundaries Scotland.

For reviews of local government wards and councillor numbers, Boundaries Scotland must initially consult with local authorities for a 2-month period before holding a public consultation. Recommendation 2 is to maintain this period of engagement with local authorities and introduce a comparable process for reviews of Scottish Parliament boundaries.

During local government ward and councillor reviews, after consulting local authorities, Boundaries Scotland holds a 12-week public consultation. This consultation allows members of the public and organisations to respond to the initial proposals, and indicate support for or raise any issues or concerns they may have about proposed changes to boundaries.

There are a variety of approaches to public consultation in other countries whose systems were considered during this Review. In the UK when Westminster constituencies are reviewed, there are three rounds of consultation with the public, lasting 8 weeks, 6 weeks, then 4 weeks. A similar process takes place for reviews of Welsh Senedd constituencies. In Australia, the public are first asked for suggestions for how existing boundaries should change in a 5-week period. This is followed by a 2-week period where people can comment on the suggestions, before the Redistribution Committee (a boundary commission equivalent) draw proposed boundary changes which are then subject to a 4-week public consultation period. These examples suggest that there is not an obvious single case of best practice for how to conduct a public consultation, with varying formats and lengths of public consultation.

The public consultation I conducted as part of this Review asked a number of questions relating to Boundaries Scotland’s consultation processes, and possible ways to improve them. A theme that was evident in a number of consultation responses, and in my ongoing engagement with stakeholder organisations and members of the public throughout the Review, was that the process of consulting was complex and sometimes confusing. Some people felt they were unable to engage meaningfully with the process, either due to not knowing a review that might affect their boundaries was happening until it was too late, or feeling that the time to respond to consultations was insufficient.

I suggest that ‘front-loading’ the information that is available to the public could help improve general understanding of the purpose of the boundary review, as well as the broad principles that will inform any proposed 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.

I believe that if members of the public had an early understanding of why electoral boundaries need to be amended periodically, this could help diffuse tension which sometimes occurs once changes have been suggested. For example, demographic changes and population movement across the relevant area could be described in broad terms in a publicly available document. One such example from the most recent review of Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions is the gradual shift of population from the west to the east of Scotland resulted, in essence, in an additional constituency in the east of Scotland, with a corresponding loss of one constituency from the west. While this description is a simplification of complex population data and its impact on electoral boundaries, this kind of early information and explanation could help inform people’s views before proposed changes to boundaries are published.

This would also be a helpful point in the process to remind people what electoral boundaries do and do not affect, and what impact they have on local communities. It is clear that some people misunderstand their electoral boundaries, confusing them with local authority boundaries or changes to local services. I believe there are some who would benefit from an information document clearly setting out that these kinds of boundary reviews only change the constituency or ward represented by an elected member, and not, for example, access to local services, school catchment areas, or council tax rates. This document could also clearly set out the process and timescales for when the public can make their views heard, whether that be in public consultation, or in consultation events. In terms of timing, this information document could be published in tandem with the statutory consultation with Parliament or local authorities, but I believe Boundaries Scotland should have the flexibility to judge how best to inform people of the document and reviews.

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.

Consistency in the processes between the different types of boundary reviews, where possible, should aid public understanding of what can be a complex and difficult to navigate system. Feedback from some stakeholders and members of the public was that in some cases, it felt like boundary reviews were taking place too regularly, with confusion between the boundaries for different levels of government.

Alignment of boundaries across elections, as some called for in the consultation and other engagement throughout this Review, is not possible due to the differences in electoral systems and significant differences in size and electorate of constituencies versus wards. The systems are further complicated by the fact that UK-wide Westminster constituency reviews are outwith the control of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on. However, while there will always be a degree of divergence between the system at UK-level, and the recommendations I have made for Scottish Parliament and local government reviews, there would be increased alignment through the collective recommendations I make in this report.

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.

Currently, Boundaries Scotland consults publicly for a 12-week period when conducting reviews of local government electoral arrangements (following a consultation with local authorities). This contrasts to the one month repeating rounds of consultation which take place during Scottish Parliament boundary reviews.

I recommend that both kinds of electoral boundary reviews should have the same process, where the first round of public consultation takes place for 12 weeks. This will give a longer period for individuals and organisations to respond to the public consultation, and provide certainty over the length of consultations.

A desire for a longer consultation period was a key response put forward in the public consultation held as part of this Review. While the most popular timeframe given by consultees was an 8-week period, I believe the 12 weeks available for consultation during reviews of local government electoral arrangements, which is the current practice, works well for most people and organisations. A point of view put forward by some consultees, and by organisations and people I met, was that the public consultation during boundary reviews should be open long enough for community groups and other interested parties that meet infrequently to consider and respond. One example is community councils that might meet less frequently than monthly needing more time to respond.

In similar fashion to the way Westminster constituency reviews are conducted, I recommend that after Boundaries Scotland has considered the responses from the public consultation and made any amendments to its proposals, there should be a final consultation period of at least 4 weeks for people to provide final views on the proposals. I anticipate that this final consultation period will result in far less significant changes to boundaries then the previous rounds of proposals. Instead, it allows for smaller details to be corrected or improved. The shorter time frame for consultation at this stage reflects this different emphasis of the kind of consultation which is being sought.

In totality, what this process would look like for both Scottish Parliament and local government electoral boundary reviews is:

• An initial consultation with the Scottish Parliament or local authorities is held, lasting 8 weeks.
• At the same or similar time, Boundaries Scotland publishes an information document aimed at informing the public of the start of a review, the planned timeline of consultation, and the broad principles informing the review.
• A 12-week public consultation on the initial proposals is held, and following this Boundaries Scotland publishes revised proposals.
• A further consultation period of at least 4 weeks is held on the final proposals, following which Boundaries Scotland can make further changes and refinements if necessary.