Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would you like to comment on any of the other areas, Andy O’Neill?

That is helpful. Andy, do you want to come in?

Do you have confidence that, when the decisions in principle are made by those who should make them, you could facilitate the landing of those provisions?

Automaticity would not change the Boundary Commission’s process for amending boundaries, because there would still be local engagement and feedback loops. It would just come in with the final recommendations and relate to whether they can be blocked, perhaps—as you suggested earlier—by people who have reasons for doing so, rather than as a result of the existing process. Even if automaticity existed, there would still be a level of protection if—of course, this would not happen—the Boundary Commission itself were to stray from the statutory requirements. There would still be a process for holding the commission to account for any errors that it made. It would not make you the all-powerful unquestionable decision makers in this situation.

We come to our second panel as we take evidence on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 1. Dame Susan Bruce is the electoral commissioner for Scotland, Andy O’Neill is head of the Electoral Commission Scotland, and Louise Edwards is the commission’s director of regulation and digital transformation. I welcome you all to the meeting.

I think that you wish to make a few opening remarks, Dame Susan.

My first question is about that tried-and-tested period of six months. Substantial amendments and changes are proposed in the bill. Are you confident that six months is still a sufficient period for developing an understanding, so that people who stand for election, those who support them and the people who will exercise their democratic right and vote will understand the changes?

I want to press you on the symbolism point. I am more than happy for you to say that this is outwith your remit, but is it the purpose of primary legislation to send that signal?

Do you want to add anything, Dame Susan?

Particularly on the symbolism point, is the purpose of primary legislation to send symbolic statements with regard to the security and safety of elections and democracy?

This is a slightly silly question, because, when there is a difference in process, there is always a risk, but is there a risk of there being too great a difference in process between devolved and reserved elections, or would it be manageable if a consultation existed?