Chamber and committees

I was certainly not inviting an additional point of order before decision time. [Laughter.]

That you enjoyed it might be the kindest comment the committee has ever received. We will not go further than that.

I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow those attending the evidence session to leave.

What does “physical attendance” mean in the bill?

Are members content to delegate authority to me to sign off the terms of the report?

Members indicated agreement.

I absolutely concur with what Bob Doris has said. There are various ways of looking at post-legislative scrutiny, and the bill could perhaps be a vehicle for considering the matter more widely across the Government. He is right to point out that there is also a challenge in relation to the capacity in the Parliament to carry out post-legislative scrutiny successfully.

Good morning. Before I start, I refer to my declaration of interests in the register of members’ interests in relation to wind power interests that rest on land, for those who know.

It has been an interesting opening to this group with regard to post-legislative scrutiny, which has been an important matter for the Parliament during this session. A number of the proposed amendments in this group take different approaches to the issue. I very much welcome Bob Doris’s comments and Mark Ruskell’s comments on behalf of Ariane Burgess with regard to the level and intent of reporting that we need. However, I feel that there is also a need to back that up with post-legislative scrutiny so that the Parliament can have a full and proper say, but only when there is evidence before it about how well or otherwise the bill is working.

My amendment 383 contains a very widely drawn provision that invites the Government to consider post-legislative scrutiny. Without trying to anticipate anything that the cabinet secretary will say, I have already had useful discussions with her and her advisers with regard to the right format that the proposed provision should take. Only once we know what the bill looks like post stage 2 will we be able to come to a view and determine what form of post-legislative scrutiny would be best.

Amendment 385 has its roots in the very unfortunate events, which are almost two decades old, relating to my constituent, Andrew Stoddart, who farmed at Colstoun Mains in East Lothian. When previous legislative amendments that were made in relation to how farmers could operate on land were held to be illegal, there were consequential financial losses that were truly devastating to, I think, nine farmers. The number affected was very small, but the consequences of those actions were enormous and are on-going. Therefore, there is an interest outside of this place in how legislation is scrutinised and in how we deal with how legislation will work in practice before it is progressed, and in whether there are any further challenges for our farming community and farming families with regard to tenancies and ownership.

A substantial part of the bill deals with tenancies and ownership, but as Andrew Stoddart has told me on a number of occasions, when the matter was last dabbled with, the effects for those families were catastrophic. I merely put that on the record as one of the reasons for lodging a number of my amendments. I also point out that the period for which my question to the Scottish Government about what the consequential costs of that action were has remained unanswered is the longest period for which a question of mine has remained unanswered—the question dates back to the first few months of this session—so I might renew my pursuit of details on that.

To sum up, my amendments invite a discussion to be held once we know what stage 2 produces by way of amendments to the bill, so that we can provide for effective and meaningful post-legislative scrutiny that is based on evidence that will be collected on how the bill operates in practice.

I will leave my contribution there.

The cabinet secretary speaks to the challenging situation in which families found themselves, as they were trapped between two institutions that were unable to adequately compensate them for their losses. Her point about the challenge that exists for whoever is in government is pertinent, given the unforeseen consequences that can, unfortunately, arise very quickly.

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?

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?

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?