Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 8 October 2024
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 502 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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—

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

I will leave it there for now, convener.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

Meeting date: 5 September 2024

Oliver Mundell

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?