Question: What are you hoping to achieve in your review of electoral law?

Sam Younger: It goes back to the report we did on the general election of 2001 just after we were established. I think we were struck in that by how many issues there were in the realm of electoral law and practice that concerned a lot of people involved in elections and needed looking at.

So we set up an extensive programme of reviews of everything from registration to ballot papers to nominations processes, to absent voting - right across the range and right from the beginning we said that we would complete those reviews by the Spring of 2003 in order to give the possibility of electoral legislation before the next general election.

We were recognising that actually in electoral law terms, there's little chance of more than one opportunity in any given parliament for a piece of electoral law, so what we're doing today is publishing the last of the individual reviews in that set of reviews and an overarching report, calling for some changes in electoral registration and voting arrangements and a range of other things.

So it is pretty extensive, and is based on that experience of the 2001 general election and a major consultation process since.

Question: Which specific areas are giving you the most cause for concern?

Sam Younger: Against a background of changes in voting methods, particularly the extension of postal voting and the possibility in the future of internet and other electronic forms of voting, we're looking at two broad areas.

One relates to issues of security and integrity of the system, and the other relates to making sure you appropriately can encourage participation.

It's fair to say at the moment that the key area which we think needs to be changed is the registration system and then a number of arrangements relating to absent voting in particular and then the form of the ballot paper and the electoral timetable and so on.

Question: Given the success of all-postal ballots in increasing turnout, would you say it is inevitable that we will move towards a system of postal voting once security concerns have been addressed?

Sam Younger: Well, I think certainly postal voting will be extended. I have some scepticism about whether one wants to go entirely to all-postal, because I think the great thing about postal voting is that although it's opened up opportunities for the electorate, there are still some people who like the option of voting in a conventional polling station.

So I'm a little bit concerned about necessarily shutting off any other option other than the post. But there's no doubt that the electorate has appreciated having all-postal ballots, I think appreciated in particular getting their ballot paper through the post and being able to return it and not having specifically to apply for a postal vote.

So I think it is very much the trend that we'll move in that direction, and it will certainly be, I think, one of the dominant ways of voting over the coming years. That's why we also need to make sure that the legal underpinning and the security measures are right to make sure it can be done with confidence.

Question: Why do you think there are some who believe we should move towards a system of state funding when a large number of people are not voting or joining a political party? Why should they pay for a politics they have no faith in?

Sam Younger: A review of funding of political parties wasn't part of this set of reviews, it's one we separated off. We launched it formally last week, which I think was reflected in ePolitix last week and we'll be looking at that over the coming six or seven months. There are obviously a lot of complex issues involved.

At the moment, I think the debate hasn't been a particularly informed one, because in a sense if you look at public opinion, the public would probably say by a healthy majority, 'we'd like to see a cap on what individuals or companies can give to political parties in order to get the notion of influence in politics out of the equation' but at the same time an equally healthy majority are likely to say that they don't favour an extension of state funding.

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that the way our system works requires healthy political parties able to operate and able to engage with the electorate.

That's the backdrop to the review of the funding of political parties and if you do go down the road in order to make sure there's confidence in the integrity of politics of making sure individuals can't donate large sums, which is one of the propositions on the table, then something else has to be there to fill the gap.

That's the context in which the possibility of extension of state funding comes up but at the moment I'm agnostic about what the solution is, that's really what the next six months' investigation is about.

Question: There is a sense that parties are facing financial crises because of the large sums they spend, particularly in the run-up to elections - is that something that you think needs further investigation?

Sam Younger: Yes, I think one of the elements of the whole equation about funding is whether there's a case for putting a lower limit on campaign spending because it's interesting that those on the Neill committee five years ago who recommended a limit that was effectively £20 million, which was put into legislation, £20 million in the 365 days before an election, felt they were being very radical and daring, and indeed they were at the time.

But after the experience of the last election, there were quite a lot of serious commentators and those involved in the parties who questioned whether £20 million isn't considerably too high, and that parties could, so long as everybody was operating under the same regime, operate at a much lower level so reducing the need for money.

So I think that is one of the elements of the equation and it's certainly something we're going to look at.

Question: Do you think the commission has the teeth to match its bark?

Sam Younger: I think in terms of the regulation of political parties, there are some things that need to be adjusted in the law, not surprisingly, you know. It's two and a half years since we've been going, little more than two years since all the measures came into effect. I think the interesting thing to me is that the teeth that the commission has related mostly to naming and shaming.

I'm not sure at the moment that the underpinning legal framework and the framework of penalties is actually adequate to the task and that's something we need to look at, and indeed there are one or two small adjustments that we're recommending in a sort of interim review of the operation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which again we'll publish today.

I think there is some way to go and I think its wrong to think that two years in we're at the end of the story on how those powers and the commission's exercise of them develop.

Of course, it's also important to remember that the regulation of parties is one facet of what we do but these other areas are also important in terms of the review of electoral law, which is what we're effectively launching today, and voter awareness and other issues.

Question: On voter awareness there still seems to be a confusion among Scottish voters regarding their second vote for the parliament. What can you do to overcome that?

Sam Younger: Well, I think it's a very big challenge to us and indeed to a lot of others to make sure the electorate are properly informed: A, when you have increasingly diverse systems relating to particular elections; and B, when you have more occasions where there are combined elections with different systems applying to them. That's quite a tall order.

I think we did make some progress in Scotland this year because we did have a coordinated information campaign in relation to the Scottish Executive to make sure that people were aware that by and large they had three votes: Two for the Scottish Parliament and one for the local elections. I think the previous time, there'd been a lot of publicity saying, 'you've got two votes' and most people were voting in local elections at the same time and so in fact got three.

So I think there are ways that we've been making progress but I wouldn't underestimate what a tall order it is to make sure that people are well enough informed to exercise their vote coherently.

Question: Do you think there should be some concern that there are so many electoral systems and that they can conflict with each other?

Sam Younger: I think it is something we need to be concerned about and think about hard because there is a trade-off. Clearly if you've got increasing numbers of elections there is a good case, in terms of avoiding voter fatigue, for combining those elections.

On the other hand, there is the danger of confusion and I think we are going to live with differing systems for different elections for some time. So I think it is something we need to be concerned about.

Interestingly we have just embarked on an investigation the government have required us to undertake into the cycle of local elections, looking essentially at elections by thirds as against all-out elections.

One of the dimensions of that is going to be looking at what the voters' view is on whether they would rather fewer election dates with more to vote on on any given day, or whether they would rather more elections in order to retain simplicity and clarity for each one.

I don't know the answer to that yet, I think everybody follows their own instinct and judgement and what we're seeking to do is try and find out a bit more about what the electorate thinks.

Question: What about your role in referendums?

Sam Younger: Looking widely at the dimensions of the Commission's role, there's of course sort of lurking in the background all the time the responsibility of running referendums.

The only referendum that's specifically on the table for us to run at the moment is a referendum in one or more regions of England on an elected regional assembly, which there's already provision for.

Fairly shortly government will be saying which regions they expect to have referendums, probably in the autumn of 2004. So we've been developing our planning for referendums, knowing that those are likely to happen, but of course there's always a possibility of a UK-wide referendum.

Question: What about a referendum on the single currency running alongside another election?

Sam Younger: Well, we did make a statement last year when there were suggestions that there might be a referendum on the euro to coincide with the May 1 elections that have just gone.

We made a statement to say that we thought there shouldn't be such a combination. A, because the euro is an issue of major constitutional significance and ought to be separately treated; but B, you shouldn't be combining a decision whose advocates and opponents cut across party lines with an election that's being fought on party lines.

You'd have the confusion for the electorate of two people appearing on a platform on the same day against each other in one set of elections and with each other on a referendum issue.

Question: Would you resist attempts to hold a referendum on the same day as other elections?

Sam Younger: Well, I wouldn't want to commit the commission beyond what we've already said. We made a statement in relation to that specific idea of the May 1 last year, I think we'd want to look at any particular combination that was suggested.

But I think you could say that it's pretty clear from that statement we made that we wouldn't like the idea of a major referendum being held at the same time as party-based elections.