Electoral boundaries - determination process: independent review report

Consultation Events and Engagement

Alongside the opportunities for people to provide written responses to Boundaries Scotland through the public consultation process, consultation events are also held as part of most boundary reviews. During reviews of Scottish Parliament and local government electoral boundaries, these are called local inquiries.

Under current rules, for both types of reviews, local inquiries are held if Boundaries Scotland so chooses, or if local councils or a body of at least 100 electors (500 for Scottish Parliament regions) lodge an objection to the recommendations. Local inquiries are meetings chaired by an independent figure, often a judge or Sheriff Principal, and allow people to put their views forward on changes in a specific area. A summary of the issues raised is then prepared by the Chair of the inquiry.

Through discussions with members of the public, and with Boundaries Scotland, it became clear to me that the format of local inquiries has become outdated, and does not fully meet expectations around modern engagement and consultation. Local inquiries are primarily evidence gathering sessions, where members of the public or organisations can make representations to the Chair of the inquiry. While Boundaries Scotland provides a briefing and short speech for the Chair to use at the meeting, there is no opportunity for Boundaries Scotland to respond to questions or provide further explanation on the day as to why a particular boundary change was proposed, or other relevant information. Public consultation events should, above all, promote understanding of the issues being considered among the public and help them provide meaningful feedback to Boundaries Scotland. This was a point of view that was frequently raised in the public consultation conducted as part of this Review, with many calling for modernisation of the consultation process and consultation events, in order to maximise understanding and participation.

I suggest that public hearings are a more appropriate forum for meaningful consultation, as while they are still often chaired by a senior independent figure, the format allows for more conversation and explanation between parties. The term ‘local inquiry’ may also put off members of the public from taking part as it is not a common form of consultation and risks being confused with public inquiries or other events with different legal status.

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 rules which determine when local inquiries are held can be challenging for members of the public to navigate. The ability for a ‘body of at least 100 electors’ to lodge an objection to the recommendations and trigger a local inquiry is a high hurdle to clear, as the types of body that would qualify are less common than in the past, and 100 electors represents an increasingly arbitrary figure. I believe there should be a clear number of public hearings that are known early on in the process and not contingent on the number of objections being lodged 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.

Notwithstanding a requirement to hold public hearings, I believe 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 geographical challenges of conducting in-person events, particularly in rural and island communities means that technology should be employed where possible to widen access. It is the ability to access consultations and consultation events that many members of the public feel is lacking or needs improved, and my experience of holding a mix of in-person, hybrid, and online engagements throughout this Review is that it helped people up and down the country to engage and contribute to the results discussed in this report.

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 consulting for this Review, much of the feedback I heard from members of the public was about the complexity and difficulty of engaging with consultations on changes to electoral boundaries. I believe that both Boundaries Scotland, when consulting and publishing documents and reports, and the Scottish Government, when designing legislation and policy, should ensure that the language used is as accessible and meaningful to the public as possible.

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, in order to aid as full and meaningful a process for as many people as possible. I heard from members of the public who struggle to engage with boundary reviews due to the complexity and jargon-heavy technical language that is sometimes used. While, of course, Boundaries Scotland should ensure the information it publishes is accurate, I believe more emphasis on clearer language that members of the public who are less confident engaging with these kinds of processes can engage with would be advantageous.