Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. Welcome all to the 21st meeting in 2024 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received apologies from Annie Wells this morning.

Agenda item 1 is to decide whether to take items 2, 3 and 4 in private. Item 2 is consideration of correspondence on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill from the Minister for Parliamentary Business; item 3 is consideration of correspondence on strengthening net zero scrutiny arrangements; and item 4 is consideration of an update on a meeting with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Are members happy to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Excellent.

That is helpful. To echo what the committee has already said, we are in agreement with the basic principle, but the second that we delve into it, we are confronted with more questions than answers. Given the importance of the matter for individual voters’ trust in democracy, it is an important issue to consider.

As there are no further questions on that point, I will turn to the matter of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. Thank you for your comprehensive coverage of that in your letters. I would like to pick up on a couple of areas in those letters, the first of which relates to the proposed constitution. You have set out the areas that the constitution would need to cover. Is there anything further that would assist the committee with regard to this matter?

That is helpful. I might have been slightly surprised had anything further been in existence because, at the moment, it is a living document, and I know that you need to reach out to various people on that.

There seems to be agreement that a corporate body is the right legal entity. When it comes to the finance for that corporate body, you point out that the intention would be to fund it in the same way as the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets out—namely, that it would be a reimbursement to the Electoral Management Board rather than, for the sake of clarity, something like the process that our commissioners have, whereby they present a budget for approval. Are you confident that that funding model will be satisfactory for the future?

That leads me on to my next question. What discussions have you had with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, rather than the Parliament itself, about that? Are you able to share its views on taking on another body?

If no one else has any comments, I will pass over to Ruth Maguire.

It is the other changes that we are asking about. Clearly, there is primary legislation that has already created secondary legislation, and that will continue, but the bill hints at other secondary legislation and we just want to find out where the Government is on that matter. There seems to be a huge amount of secondary legislation; there were initial discussions when the bill was very broad, and now that things have been narrowed down, we want to establish where the Government is.

Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting in 2024 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received no apologies.

The first agenda item is for the committee to decide on whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Agenda item 3 is consideration of the evidence on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.? Agenda item 4 is consideration of correspondence from the Parliamentary Bureau on allocation of time for Opposition business. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much for that opening statement, minister.

I refer to the two letters that the committee has received from you, the more recent of which clarified—as you have confirmed today—that the postponement should be for a maximum of four weeks. Have you any concerns about using the words “minimum” or “maximum”, given the challenge that was indicated in evidence that we heard, which said that at least four weeks would be needed to rejig the machinery of election if it were to take place safely and securely? What consideration have you given to the period being set at four weeks, or to using wording other than “minimum” and “maximum”, to meet the evidence that we heard, which was that it would be difficult in practice to organise an election in a period shorter than four weeks?

Annie Wells, do you want to cover anything?