Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to speak about that a little just now—

To be perfectly candid with you, convener, I am just operating on an open-door basis. Let me place on the record now that if any member of the Scottish Parliament wants to speak to me about any element of the bill, I am happy to speak with them. If it is felt that it might be useful to have some other form of consultation, I am happy to consider that, although it is not our usual approach. You rightly make the point—I share the perspective—that this is Parliament’s bill.

I am being reminded with a discreet note from Iain Hockenhull—well, it is not that discreet, because I am about to say it—that the Scottish Parliament political parties panel has also been contacted, so that is another way that we have engaged in order to get views.

I await a reply.

No, but I will be happy to write to the committee on that.

One of the things that we were asked to do, which we will be doing, is to bring forward an amendment to make it clear that pilots can focus on registration issues. I know that there is interest in that area. I have spoken to the Electoral Reform Society about that. It is keen on there being a pilot, although it would not necessarily have to be the Government that ran it. I am wide open to considering that. I do not know whether such evidence has been given directly to the committee, but some electoral registration officers have expressed concerns about the quality of the data, depending on the source that it is drawn down from, such as whether it is still current and up to date.

There are issues around registration that might lend themselves to being looked at in a pilot. As a Government, we have not said that there definitely should be a pilot on automatic registration, but we want to make it clear that that is something that could be piloted.

That is a reasonable point. I suppose that there is a certain tension—or a balance to be struck—between saying, “Well, we want to see if this works, so we have to pilot it in a certain area” and the fact that we would be adding a feature or a facet to electoral registration in only one or more areas, not across the entire country. That would have to be considered as part of any pilot.

That is largely with the members—it starts with them. I am happy to hear what people think. I am torn between two options—actually, I am not torn because, instinctively, I quite like the overnight count. I do not know what others round the table think, but I am willing to bet that they also like the overnight count. However, we have heard that there might be practical considerations in that regard, and we have to take those seriously and consider them. That also needs to be balanced against the practical experience that, as far as I can see, there have not been significant difficulties with overnight counts thus far. The perspective is being articulated that it might be more appropriate to do the rest of the count the next day, so we have to consider that, but I need to be persuaded of its merits. I am keen to hear what other members think.

At this stage, no, convener, but I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about the matter. As much as I am giving my perspective, I am genuinely interested in other people’s perspectives as well.

I will be as brief as I can. I start by thanking the convener and committee colleagues for inviting me to give further evidence to the committee on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. As this is my first appearance before the committee, convener, I take the opportunity to thank you for the work that was undertaken to scrutinise the bill at stage 1 and I look forward to working with the committee as we move into stage 2.

Over the summer, we have been working on a number of changes to the bill that are planned for stage 2, including my meeting a number of other members of the Parliament who have expressed an interest in lodging amendments. I hope that my letter to the committee last week on our considerations was helpful in that regard, although I am aware there was a slight typo. For absolute clarity, on the first page of the letter, the adjustment to the period of postponement for local government elections is for a maximum of four weeks and not a minimum of four weeks, as it said. I understand that my officials have been in touch with the committee clerks to clarify the matter.

As my letter explained, we have been preparing amendments in response to the points that have been raised in evidence and in the committee’s stage 1 report. I repeat my thanks not just to the committee, but to all those who have provided evidence to the committee in its considerations.

The amendments that are being prepared include provisions on emergency rescheduling of elections. That requires decision makers to publish a statement of reasons when they take a decision on rescheduling. The provisions will also adjust the maximum postponement period for local government elections from two weeks to four weeks.

Amendments on electoral innovation pilots are also being prepared to add the Electoral Commission as a statutory consultee and to ensure that pilots can encompass electoral registration changes.

The annexes to the letter set out proposed changes to the constitution of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and proposals to disqualify those who are subject to sex offender notification requirements from elected office. We are in continual discussions on its constitution with the Electoral Management Board and others and I am keen to ensure that there is as much consensus on that matter as possible. There is a question about the extent to which there should be formal provision for Scottish ministers and/or the Scottish Parliament to request, while respecting its operational independence, that the board undertake certain activities. It might be an option for the Scottish Parliament to set out its priorities for elections in a statement.

We continue to give active consideration to the subject of disqualification of elected members, including whether or not there should be any difference in approach between that for councillors and that for MSPs. Although it seems to be instinctive that we would apply the same rules across the board, which is the position that I lean toward, there are some important differences to consider. In particular, we do not have a process for councillors who have been accused of certain conduct to be suspended. We do not, as yet, have any recall mechanism for MSPs but, as a Parliament, we have by resolution agreed in principle that there should be one. We may well have the opportunity to consider that further if Graham Simpson takes forward his members’ bill.?

Although I have set out some of the Government’s thinking on changes to be made to the bill, I still consider it to be very much Parliament’s bill. As such, I am keen to continue to hear views from across the Scottish Parliament, including from the committee, as to how we might refine and improve the bill so that we can put in place the best possible legislation.

I look forward to discussing those matters with the committee. I and my officials—Iain Hockenhull, Chris Nicholson and Lorraine Walkinshaw—will be happy to answer any questions that the committee has for us.