Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are a few issues at play. The first thing that I would set out, as a general perspective, is that, where it is possible, people should be in the Parliament. Whether there is a need to be prescriptive and to make it a matter that might lead to someone’s disbarment is a wider question. However, as a general principle, I think that we all recognise and understand that, if people do not have a good reason not to be here, they should be here on a fairly regular basis, accepting that Mr Simpson’s proposition is that, if people have a good reason, they will not fall foul of the requirement. That is a general observation, rather than a comment on whether that requirement should become part of the process by which someone could be disbarred.

It might be helpful to have a list of acceptable reasons for a person being allowed not to be here. The challenge, which could be accounted for by saying that it is a non-exhaustive list, is that things could arise that we consider to be legitimate reasons but which we had not foreseen and prescribed as legitimate reasons. We could deal with that by different means: the list could be updated or, as I said, we could say that the list was non-exhaustive.

I concede that it is inevitable that the requirement could have an impact on specific cohorts. It is not for me to speak to Mr Simpson’s bill, but, to be fair to him, that is why he has suggested that, if someone has a good reason not to be here, they would not be disbarred.

However, there are some fundamental questions, because the requirement is predicated specifically on physical attendance. Putting aside my personal perspective, which is that people should be here when they can be, we have embedded in our system the ability to participate remotely by digital means—I think that that has been a good thing—and we do not draw a distinction in that regard in relation to a person’s ability to participate in proceedings. If we do not draw a distinction in that regard, a reasonable question might be why we are now saying that, in any six-month period, a member must have been here in person. That question needs to be considered. Again, the Government does not have a perspective on that, so I am merely suggesting that these are questions that need to be considered.

The other fundamental thing that needs to be considered is who the gatekeeper is who will determine whether a reason is legitimate. In effect, for proxy votes, that is the Presiding Officer, but who it should be in this instance is another question.

I am sorry, yes—let me be clearer: I suppose that it is perfectly possible to do that within the law, but practical experience tells us that it is inevitable that people will speculate.

That is a perfectly legitimate question. I am not convinced that it is one for me to answer. Again, it would be for the bill’s proponent—Mr Simpson—to articulate his rationale. However, I would just observe that that is the provision for councillors. I presume that that is the rationale for the threshold in the bill, but I do not want to second-guess Mr Simpson, and I am sure that he will soon give the committee evidence to explain why he has determined that to be the threshold. My only other observation is that we are aware that, although it does not happen often, some councillors have fallen foul of that requirement, so it seems possible, although unlikely, and your question is fair. That takes us into the realm of casting light on the situation of the only people who are likely not to be here for that length of time—those who have a good reason not to be. I offer no perspective or Government position on that, but the Parliament needs to consider these questions.

You might see a wry smile on my face. Our chief whip happens to sit on this committee—

—and I would offer the observation, which she might or might not agree with, that I tend to let her get on with that type of issue, although that is a supercilious answer. We need to consider these issues, and, yes, that experience would certainly inform our thinking on these matters, which must be handled sensitively.

Yes, indeed, although that is an interesting concept.

I like the idea that we would rely on people watching the television and us putting out our beach towels to ensure that we were in the optimal line of sight of the camera.

Your question again takes us into area of parity of esteem and, again, it is for Mr Simpson, rather than me, to answer on what the rationale is. At the time, when we talked about the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill, I observed that, by and large, there should be parity of esteem for all the different layers of government, so that could be a motivating factor. You steer us in the direction of the practical challenges, convener, and those would have to be considered if the requirement was to become a prescribed part of our processes.

I will go back to a point that I made earlier about the fact that requirements for councillors’ attendance might differ from one local authority area to the next. I have never been a councillor, but my understanding is that, in my local authority area, the requirement is not to attend the full council meeting; if councillors attend a committee meeting within a six-month period, that fulfils the criteria. Those meetings come round with greater regularity than the monthly full council meetings. Again, those are all issues that the committee might want to consider.

For example, we are considering whether increased costs in the future have been factored in. There is a process of casting forward to consider what the costs might be in a specific period. You will need to forgive me, because I do not have that information in front of me, but we know that costs will increase in the future, and we are not sure that that has been adequately reflected in the financial memorandum—

I do not want to fall foul of misleading the committee—the committee would not like me to do that—but I think that the Government bears the cost of by-elections, even for constituencies. I am looking to my officials and Ailsa Kemp is nodding, so I have remembered that correctly.

That takes us into a wider question around the timescale, because the bill prescribes that everything should be in place within six months of royal assent.

Candidly, no, I am not confident. If the bill had become legislation two years ago, I would probably have said that we could implement it within six months. I should caveat that with the reassurance that I see nothing in the parliamentary timetable that means we cannot pass the bill before the end of the session, but if we are required to implement all the provisions within six months, that will be pretty challenging.

We go into dissolution in March, and it can take about a month after the election before committees are up and running. I would be surprised if the relevant committee of the Parliament—most likely, the successor to this committee—did not want to take evidence from the Government on what it is planning to do, just as we are about to do in relation to another act of the Parliament.

There is a wider question about the timescale for implementation. Right now, it would be very difficult to do it, and to do it justice, in the timescale prescribed.