Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not questioning the rights and wrongs; I am questioning the comparator and the change. It is the difference between saying that this is where we are at following a proposal and saying that this is where we were at the beginning of the previous review and this is how we have changed.

You have hinted at the challenge that we have had with the process, which is that the public’s understanding is far removed from the reality. People are frequently confronted with questions that come to them as individuals living in a town or village or on an island and cause them to say, “Don’t be ridiculous.” Then there is a big learning curve to find out what the four rules are for constituencies.

I wonder whether you have looked at something else in the responses. It is almost impossible for an individual to create an inquiry. They have to belong to a group that fits under a title. A church that represents X hundreds of the registered electorate stands a far greater chance of triggering an inquiry. Local authorities can trigger inquiries and have done. However, when individuals send responses in and ask, “What do I do now?”, although you think that the effect of the proposals that are being made would probably be best seen in an inquiry, you say that the individual cannot ask for one, because it has to be a pool that is looked at.

I understand why that came about, because otherwise you would be holding inquiries all over the place, all the time. However, is the balance right on what triggers an inquiry, given that local authorities can demand an inquiry but other groups—if they can show you that they have grouped themselves appropriately—also have to be considered when deciding on an inquiry?

Can I just pick up on a few points about the rules, because again, it boils down to the language and the understanding that comes out of that? As you say, all four rules should be looked at simultaneously, and you gently move between the four quadrants to try and come up with the best results. However, there are some challenges in that, because rule 1—I will just call it that—is prefixed with

“So far as is practicable”,

but it also says

“regard must be had to the boundaries of the local government areas”.

So, even before you are talking about electorate numbers, the public see that it is supposed to be the local authority area, and I think that that is probably how most people perceive all of the parliamentary stuff, even though it certainly is not true for Westminster, and it is far from true now here at Holyrood.

Then, rule 2 talks about the “strict application” of rule 1—so there is statutory evidence to say that rule 1 has to be strictly applied. However, rule 1 opens with

“So far as is practicable”.

Therefore, we now have a misunderstanding.

I have picked those two rules specifically because of the concerns that have been expressed about an individual MSP representing up to three local authorities and tension between those authorities forming a lot of concern in their work. For example, someone in a school placing situation can be in another constituency with another constituent MSP, but the high school is in the first MSP’s constituency. It makes the role very difficult

To look back as to why it began with the boundaries of local government, those were the specific reasons why that was put in. As a constituency MSP, you were representing your constituents, who fitted into a local authority area; you could advocate for them but you could also defend against others coming in. From a practical MSP’s point of view, the situation creates a tension that is really difficult to reconcile. Secondly, however, it is also a challenge for constituents.

I am not sure whether I expect a comment. Could it perhaps be meritorious for the appropriate committee to look at?

In opening the discussion, you talked about the Venice commission’s strong suggestions that any variation from the electoral quota should be up to 15 per cent of the quota. In essence, that speaks to the weight of value of an individual vote in any area. That is why it exists—so that my vote has the same value as another’s. However, much of the Scotland Act 1998 talks about moving away from that approach when the circumstances of an area speak to it. Do you have enough flexibility to reflect the intention of the Scotland Act 1998?

That speaks to what Emma Roddick said about the association of those islands outside of the protected islands, while you have spoken about the distances that exist in some constituencies, Professor Henderson. Is there sufficient flexibility for you to reflect what you have to achieve and—this is the difficult bit—reflect what the people of Scotland expect to be achieved by creating constituencies and then grouping them into regions?

Absolutely—what if there is one sitting on top of that? That is why I ask the question of the Government.

The expenditure on a petition might or might not be an election expense, irrespective of when it happens. If it falls within certain periods and it is such an expense, it will cause problems. I am inviting the Scottish Government to consider the issue in a bit more detail, because it potentially ties into whether a petition—if it becomes an uncontrollable event—is the right vehicle to do that first part.

Thankfully, it is not the committee members who are giving evidence today.

Let me say “situation” rather than “responsibility”.

I will leave that there.

I turn to the Scottish Government’s point of view on another piece of evidence. The situation for councillors relates to the failure to attend a specific event that tends to be held monthly, but the bill talks about a period of time. Is the Scottish Government concerned that there is a fundamental difference between the requirement of a councillor to attend full council meetings and the requirement in the bill, which is just to attend physically?

You have expressed a view about physical attendance, and we have heard views in the committee and in evidence that it is actually really easy just to come and swipe in. However, we do not have a registration rule in the Parliament. People who have voted can be identified, and I understand that there are often freedom of information requests about who was in the chamber—we can always look at the television. However, is the Government concerned that identifying attendance in the Parliament is very different to identifying whether councillors have attended a specific meeting that falls at various times, with times in between?

I again welcome Graham Simpson, given his interest in the matter, and I will be more than happy to bring him in at the appropriate time, if he has questions.

I will kick off. Minister, you said that you had 77 responses. I will not go into the split between individual and group responses, because I do not think that the responses have been published yet, so we have only headline figures. Were you satisfied with the level of response?

Let me put my question differently. Are you satisfied with the range of responses? Will they allow you to take your thinking forward with confidence about the view that is out there?