Chamber and committees

There is something in that, potentially—if, instead of

“boundaries of local government areas”,

it had said “ward boundaries”.

I was not talking about the construction of the constituencies in the regions. I meant some of the explanations that have been given to constituents of why their proposal has not been taken up. The correspondence shows you pointing at one of the four rules, rather than the explanation that you have just given.

Is it much easier to attach automaticity of boundary changes to such a rule than to what we have in Scotland—and to justify changes?

Let us take what has happened in South Scotland as a regional example—which is a slight reflection of what has happened in the past—of satisfying the numbers and a geographical identity, which is the Lothians. If we go along the boundary of South Scotland, another area had to go down into the South Scotland region. That is all in the give and take of the process.

What was it that led you to conclude that your proposals were the right moves, given that it was a removal of an area compared with what has been the understanding for a long period of time? What was it that triggered that being the solution, rather than sticking to the status quo?

So the map is driven by the written description. The map is illustrative of the consequences of the description on the ground.

Perfect.

It would go further than that, in the sense that there would be parity up to the trigger of the event that would lead to a recall petition. Parity commences when a member takes the oath. There would be parity up to the point at which a member is shown—if proved through the process and after appeals—to be unfit to hold the office. Is the Scottish Government comfortable with the idea that that is the edge of parity and that the recall process could reflect the different ways in which people come here before taking the oath?

Does the Scottish Government not having a view also extend—we are getting to the unknown unknowns—to views or opinions in our stage 1 report if we suggest changes? Is the Government in any way concerned that there might be different journeys for different MSPs after a recall has been triggered?

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?