Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. One of my concerns is that returning officers in different authorities could have to interpret very complicated circumstances. It is imperative that the rules are clear.

I will move on. I am minded to agree with the position that you have set out, but are you confident that it will meet legal proportionality tests, particularly given that some individuals can be subject to such requirements indefinitely? Are you confident that, in setting that threshold, it is legally proportionate?

On amendments, I think that you mentioned meeting MSPs from across the Parliament and that detailed work has been carried out on amendments. Given our interests in this section of the bill, are you in a position to share the proposed amendments with the committee at this stage, or will you be in such a position in short order, so that we can decide whether we need to take more evidence? There are detailed aspects to the issue, but it is not something on which we got a huge amount of detailed evidence during stage 1. We agree on the principle; this is about making sure that the proposals are workable—

But you would recognise that there is a difference between concerns being raised in the way that you are describing and formal statements being made that either set out a definitive position or collate views in a definitive way. I think that that ups the question of how seriously an independent body would be expected to take those things into account.

The devices exist and electoral staff are used to using them. I just think that it would not do any harm and it might give people confidence, which I have, in what you are saying—namely, that they will not be disenfranchised in the short term.

I was going to come on to the point that, in our current system, the responsibility is placed on the candidate—

I want to go back to the point about priority statements. Are you not concerned that, whether it is the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government, if politicians are seen to be making statements, particularly with regard to some of the pilot areas and other bits and pieces, it would call into question the democratic legitimacy of the board or the things that it is planning? I worry about the stolen-election type of stuff. Colleagues have come to the committee and talked about randomised ballot papers and other quite novel electoral provisions. You could have candidates or, potentially, political parties saying that they had been disadvantaged or cheated. Do you not think that we could get into that kind of space? Would it not be better to keep it completely separate from politicians?

That is different from being consulted, is it not? I would expect politicians, the Government and elected representatives—a wide range of stakeholders—to be consulted on changes, plans and ideas, but when some stakeholders are given the chance to make formal statements that have to be given due regard, that feels a bit different to me.

I will leave it there for now, convener.

It is on the current tactile voting device. Would it not offer reassurance to some people to say that those will continue to be available until the other options are developed? I do not understand why that is difficult. We all accept that better things are available, but people are legitimately concerned that something that they are used to using is to be taken away. Would that not be quite easy to do?

I want to ask about disqualification, particularly in the context of the sex offender notification requirements that you touched on in your opening statement. The committee has considered that area and, to me, there is clear reason to act in it. However, I want to understand how disqualification would work in practice and what the Government’s thinking on it is.

It was previously indicated that disqualification was being proposed where an individual was subject to the sex offender notification requirements. The committee understands that to mean where an individual had been convicted of certain offences and was required to appear on the sex offenders register. Your recent letter to the committee mentions people being subject to the sex offender notification requirements where there is no conviction, but there is a relevant order. Can you explain the difference in those categories and say a bit more about your latest thinking on what would trigger disqualification?