Seòmar agus comataidhean

The challenge of using priority statements has been spoken about, because the EMB must remain at arm’s length from those whose election it is overseeing. I understand the mention of the Scottish Government’s priority statement, but you have indicated that, potentially, the Scottish Parliament—I assume that you mean the Parliament itself rather than the SPCB—could make a priority statement. Will you explain that further?

Absolutely—they are achievable. Again, the devil will always be in the detail. Predominantly, elections are handled very successfully here in Scotland and there is a great deal of confidence in them. One of the assurances that this committee is seeking is that, as the bill becomes a piece of legislation, that vehicle of trust and security can move forward, and it is one of our roles to ensure that.

An issue that could arise with an automatic registration pilot is that—I say this ever so slightly flippantly—there might be a postcode lottery when it comes down to those who might be part of it. When you look at the figures for the number of people who are not on the electoral register, you can see that a pilot could make a very significant difference to the electoral pool in an area, be it for a council election or, indeed, a Scottish Parliament election. If we agree in principle that there should be automatic registration, it should happen universally to ensure that no individual voter is excluded. The flipside, then, is that it will ensure a playing field across the whole of Scotland.

We have a couple of questions about other bits of secondary legislation, but if you do not mind, minister, it might be easier for the committee to write to you for an update on each of the areas that you have highlighted, plus others, particularly for the benefit of members who are not on this committee. For example, a number of members are rightly concerned about and seek reassurance on the issue of tactile devices.

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?

Would it be fair to say that setting the period at four weeks, irrespective of the cause, might be too restrictive? We seem to have agreement that two weeks would allow insufficient time, so we are in an interesting bidding war between those who are in favour of two weeks and those who are in favour of four weeks. The question is whether that in itself would cause us problems.

Are you prepared to go away and discuss that with the people who gave evidence, to see whether there can be agreement, in principle, on whether four weeks is the right time, or on what the wording should be? I am concerned about use of the word “maximum”, because it means that there could be a one-day postponement, which would cause chaos. I am similarly concerned about use of the word “minimum”, because the period might need to be shorter than four weeks.

Excellent. Thank you, minister. I will hand over to the more-than-capable hands of Oliver Mundell for the next section of questioning.

That is very helpful. May I ask for clarification with regard to the relevant stakeholders that the Scottish Government has engaged with on the specific matter of the sex offenders notification requirements and disqualification? Who have you engaged with? I do not want to assume anything, but I imagine that Police Scotland has had an input, along with criminal justice social workers and even the human rights bodies. Who have you reached out to and who has fed back?

As I said, we will probably encompass those questions in our correspondence.

My other question relates, ironically, to next-day counts. Should we continue to count overnight, or should we give the staff a break so that they come back the following morning slightly more refreshed? In correspondence, you talked about reaching out for the views of the Scottish Parliament. To go back to where we started today, is that the Scottish Parliament as a corporate body or the Parliament as made up by the members? Where are you with that consultation?