Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that a few colleagues around the table are long in the tooth when it comes to this, but the first thing that I should emphasise is that expedited bills are very unusual, and I do not think that they should become a feature of our legislation-making processes. I just want to give you that reassurance, Mr Eagle.

I guess that this brings me back to my earlier point that I am always willing for us to learn, to improve and to refine the process. If the committee feels that, when it comes to taking forward expedited bills—as much as I do not want us to have to do that very often—there is something that we can do to improve the process to better involve this committee, or indeed the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which you have also mentioned, I am more than willing to hear what that might be.

I take very seriously the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny in this place, and we will always seek to communicate that to the UK Government. Primarily, it comes down to an issue of timing. I want to make sure that this Parliament has as much time as possible to consider and properly scrutinise these matters. We would always seek to achieve that as much as we can, but given that these things, by their very nature, emanate from UK Government legislation, some of the timing is outwith our hands. My answer to your question, then, is yes, we would always seek to press the point that—and I suspect that this applies not just to this committee but to all committees of the Parliament and, indeed, Parliament more generally—there should be adequate time to scrutinise powers within devolved competence.

Yes, there will be consideration. You have talked about the co-design process, and that is quite specific to the approach that was taken with the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Under other circumstances, that will not be the rationale. Let us take the example of social security. I think that we would all agree that, if we were to uprate benefits or make slight alterations to qualifying criteria, it would be ludicrous to have to introduce primary legislation in every instance when such matters can be dealt with through secondary legislation that is usually brought forward annually. The circumstances under which we would consider that the utilisation of secondary legislation is the appropriate way forward to make the law will differ, depending on the rationale.

The rationale that you have cited is specific to the circumstances of the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which contrasts with other circumstances in which using secondary legislation is a well-established part of our process for uprating benefits, altering registration fees and so on.

As do I.

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.

A balance has to be struck. By and large, yes, of course, on an operational basis, the Electoral Management Board must be able to operate independently of political direction and interference. That is a given; we would all agree with that. I have made the point about the activity that the Electoral Commission might undertake, funded by the Scottish Government. We cannot compel the Electoral Commission to undertake work, so that would be done through a process of dialogue and agreement.

Of course, Parliament is a pluralistic entity, and if any individual member of the Scottish Parliament has concerns, they will raise them. In the same way, if organisations out there have concerns, I am sure that they will raise their voices, too. By and large, we have a transparent, open and democratic system that enables people to raise their concerns and allows us to deliberate on them.

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.

There is a fine balance to be struck. From an operational perspective, we must let the Electoral Management Board get on with its work. Clearly, we would not want the Government or the Parliament to be seen to cut across its operation. However, we are also democratically elected representatives, and there is nothing wrong with our being able to identify issues and lay those out in a statement to the board as something for it to have regard to rather than as something that prescribes or directs it to do anything in particular. Rather, the intention is that it would be something that it should be aware of in the context of its work.

There is then a question as to where that responsibility should lie. Should it lie with Government or with Parliament? You raised the reasonable question about the corporate body. Yes, I would envisage that that responsibility would lie with Parliament as a whole, but could the corporate body also raise issues? Could it be a mixture of Government and Parliament? Those are issues that, frankly, I am keen to hear a perspective on from other members, because we have not reached a definitive position in that respect.

People are absolutely right to caution against anything that could be seen to compromise the independence of the Electoral Management Board. I observe that it is already the case that the Electoral Commission is responsible to the Scottish Parliament for its activities in Scotland. However, there is provision for the Scottish Government to fund certain activities for the Electoral Commission, with its agreement, and it is still able to operate entirely independently of Government, so such things are achievable.

We would be happy to do that. Earlier this week, I had a useful and fruitful conversation with my counterpart in the UK Government, Alex Norris. There is a lot that we agree on. I take this opportunity to make it clear that we still have no intention of creating a requirement for people to show ID to cast their vote, and I pressed that point with Mr Norris, as I do not think that that should be a requirement in UK elections, either. We do not have responsibility for legislating for that, but I made it clear that I see no necessity for that requirement. That is the Scottish Government’s perspective, and I hope that the UK Government will act accordingly. However, when we can work together on these things, I am absolutely committed to doing so.

I am open to persuasion on that. Again, it is for the committee to consider from whom it wants to take evidence. It might be useful to hear the perspective of returning officers on the matter. As you have accepted, the bottom line, which we must press, is that there is no desire to reduce the quality of support that is available. On the contrary, we want to enhance it. However, if in the process of conversation with all stakeholders it is felt that that could offer a degree of reassurance, I am open to hearing that.