Electoral boundaries - determination process: independent review report

Structure of Boundaries Scotland and Additional Scrutiny

As part of this Review, it was necessary to consider whether any supplementary changes would be required or desired as a result of a change to the approvals process for electoral boundary changes. The structure and resources of Boundaries Scotland was a logical area to consider in this context.

Automaticity would mean that Boundaries Scotland goes from being an advisory body which makes recommendations, to a decision-making body. It is therefore important to consider whether the processes and rules around who makes these decisions are fit for purpose.

Boundaries Scotland is an advisory non-departmental public body which is made up of a number of Commissioners. Commissioners are politically neutral people who are appointed by Scottish Ministers, after being recommended through a public appointments process which is overseen by the Ethical Standards Commissioner. There are no specific requirements such as experience or professional qualifications that dictate who can and cannot be a Commissioner, however it is common for Commissioners to have experience in fields such as academia, local government, public administration, data processing or communications.

While Ministers have the power to appoint Commissioners, Boundaries Scotland works independently and makes its own decisions about how reviews are conducted, as set out in legislation. It is supported by a small secretariat team made up of civil servants, who manage the administration of Boundaries Scotland. Boundaries Scotland’s budget is provided by the Scottish Government, and is used for paying for the operating costs, for example, the costs of conducting reviews, secretariat salaries and Commissioners’ fees.

Different countries have a range of different approaches to who sits as members of boundary commissions. In the UK (Westminster), Australia, New Zealand and Canada, a current or retired judge sits on or chairs the boundary commission. Some consider the involvement of the judiciary in these kinds of processes as a way of improving trust in the independence of the boundary commission.

It is also common to have senior public servants in specific roles either sit as members or as advisors on boundary commissions. For example, the Director General of Ordnance Survey (a mapping expert) and the Registrar General from the National Records of Scotland sit as advisors to the Boundary Commission for Scotland (the Commission which reviews Westminster constituency boundaries in Scotland). Similarly, in Australia membership includes the Surveyor-General and the Auditor General.

In some other countries, the Electoral Commission (or comparable body) plays a role in boundary reviews. In Australia, the state Electoral Commissioner sits on the boundary commission (called the Redistribution Committee) for each review of constituencies within a state. Similarly in New Zealand, the Chief Electoral Officer from the Electoral Commission sits on the boundary commission for national constituencies. The Electoral Commission also provides secretariat support to boundary commissions in some other countries.

In the consultation for this Review, I asked whether any changes should be made to the membership of Boundaries Scotland, or the appointment process. There were a variety of views. While there was a split in people and organisations who said changes should be made or not, there was a general consensus among respondents that the important aspect of the membership of Boundaries Scotland was the political independence of its Commissioners. While some responses questioned whether the Ministerial appointment process was the most appropriate one for selecting Commissioners, there did not appear to be a strength of feeling that the current process of appointments was not fit for purpose.

Some consultation responses noted that the inclusion of public servants with particular skill sets (such as surveyors or mapping experts) would be welcome, however there was again no broad consensus on this point among respondents. Boundaries Scotland in its response noted that existing powers allow for persons with expert knowledge to be appointed to assist Boundaries Scotland, and that it welcomed this flexibility.

I have considered the engagement and consultation responses on whether a move to a system of automaticity would merit changes to the membership of Boundaries Scotland. While there was not a clear consensus on membership and the appointment process among those who responded to the consultation, there was also limited criticism of the existing process and make-up of Boundaries Scotland. While I can see merit in requiring advice from professional bodies such as Ordnance Survey, I believe the existing appointment process has sufficient flexibility to allow for particular skills or experience to be specifically addressed. I am therefore not recommending changes to the membership of Boundaries Scotland be made as a result of a move to automaticity.

That said, I believe that there are further ways that public trust in the changes that would be made by Boundaries Scotland can be improved. I believe it is important that scrutiny and accountability are central components of automaticity, despite the removal of Parliamentarians from deciding on recommendations passing or not. For this reason, I recommend that the Electoral Commission be required to report on Boundaries Scotland reviews as a statutory part of the process.

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 consideration 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’ – or be seen to be – as a result of automaticity, and consider that the Electoral Commission would be the appropriate body to report on the process followed by Boundaries Scotland, as well as engage with Boundaries Scotland throughout the process of conducting reviews.

The Electoral Commission is the independent electoral regulator for elections in all parts of the UK, and is responsible for overseeing elections and electoral finance. One of the Electoral Commission’s responsibilities is to consider and report on aspects of the electoral process. Some examples of its reports are those published after each major election, how Returning Officers fulfilled their legal duties in delivering an election, and reporting on the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. In this context, the Electoral Commission is the logical body to report on the process Boundaries Scotland follows when conducting a review of electoral boundaries.

The purpose of the Electoral Commission considering and reporting on Boundaries Scotland’s reviews would be to scrutinise the process that has been followed throughout the review, as well as the adherence to legislation when setting boundaries. I do not suggest the purpose of this report to be for the Electoral Commission to propose alternate boundaries, or to attempt to ‘edit’ the boundaries drawn by Boundaries Scotland in its reports, nor is it for the Electoral Commission to be involved in auditing spending by Boundaries Scotland. Instead, it would be an opportunity to scrutinise the process followed by Boundaries Scotland, which would also receive recommendations from an independent body with expertise working in electoral and legislative contexts. I anticipate that this would resemble a kind of ‘lessons learned’ report alongside some form of declaration of assurance which, as well as providing independent assurance of the process followed, would allow Boundaries Scotland to constantly build on and refine its processes and practice across reviews.

As well as publishing a report after the end of the review has taken place, the Electoral Commission would engage with Boundaries Scotland on a more informal basis throughout boundary reviews, to discuss best practice and planned public engagement. This informal engagement would allow Boundaries Scotland to address any potential issues before they impact on the end product of the review.