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—

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?

—to self-declare on a range of issues that might prevent them from putting themselves forward. My understanding is that, if a person goes into the process, their nomination is open to challenge. During the election window, people could bring to light information that would potentially disqualify a nominated candidate. Therefore, it is important to have clear rules on that. Have you considered that circumstance? Is it your view that such individuals should be blocked from candidacy, as well as being disqualified if elected?

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?

In her opening remarks, Beatrice Wishart referenced the cross-party group on cancer and the potential for some crossover. If this group gets approved, will there be a chance in the future for the groups to work together from time to time?

Given the significant damage to the reputation of the Parliament and public trust in it and its members, I believe that a significant suspension is necessary. It is clear to me from the evidence that we have considered that those who have sent us here would not look kindly at a short suspension for one of our own when many in the real world would have faced the very real possibility of losing their job in the same circumstances. I therefore would have supported a higher sanction, but I recognise the need to come to a majority view.

The Law Society of Scotland and the Accountant of Court have both expressed concerns about the subsections of sections 12 and 39 that restate the current legal position in relation to data protection legislation, making clear that those sections do not authorise anything that would breach that. Various stakeholders have highlighted to the committee that legitimate information requests, especially by judicial factors, can already be denied or delayed. It is said that that is due to an unjustified reliance on data protection legislation, coupled with a failure to fully understand the judicial factor’s role.

Do you see any validity in those policy concerns? If the bill is to cross-refer to the data protection legislation, do its legitimate uses need to be explained in more detail, either in the bill or in associated guidance?