Chamber and committees

We would all recognise and appreciate that point, as it would be an understandable human instinct. However, I wonder whether Ms Wells has reflected on the fact that we have had to very carefully consider the balance between the concerns that people reasonably have—indeed, they are why we have brought forward the provisions—and ensuring that we are on the right side of the requirements that have been laid out by the Vienna commission. I am genuinely concerned about that.

To put it in context, we had to give very close and careful consideration to the provisions, as we would with anything that we propose in law. At one stage, we considered whether we could even go as far with regard to parliamentarians, because of the requirements of the Vienna commission. I think that we have landed with the appropriate balance. Of course, the Government would have to robustly defend any bill, subsequent to it being passed and becoming an act of Parliament, so I want to ensure that we have legislation that is as robust as it can be.

Although I take Ms Wells’s concerns on board, which is the reason that those provisions have been lodged, I wonder whether she has reflected on whether the position that she has asked the committee to take strikes the right balance, and whether it might be a step too far.

The point that I was trying to make is that it is a strength of our process of deliberation that there is a stage 1 process in which the issues are considered in detail by the committee. It is clearly for the committee to consider what it wants to determine at that stage, but if the issue had been aired at that stage and if recommendations on it had been made, as I have demonstrated across the range of amendments that I am moving today, we would have listened to what the committee said and weighed the balance of the evidence that it had gathered, and we would have responded with appropriate amendments.

Indeed.

I think that I have said my piece.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24—Rescheduling of by-elections

Amendment 24 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25—Power of convener of Electoral Management Board to postpone ordinary local election

Amendments 25 to 28 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26—Power of returning officers to postpone election for their area

Amendments 29 to 31 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Section 27—Power of returning officer to postpone or cancel by-election

Amendments 32 to 34 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

After section 27

Again, I will not irk you, convener.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Choice of new First Minister after changed election date

I make that mistake frequently. I apologise. There have been so many important commissions and conventions in Vienna throughout history.

I am conscious that this is a debate.

I suspect that this will be a shorter debate, convener, but I might be tempting fate.

The Government’s amendment 21 reflects the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report on the bill. The bill, as introduced, allows ministers to amend the categories of persons eligible to register with the Electoral Commission as third-party campaigners. The removal or varying of a category will require consultation with the commission, whereas the addition of a category will not.

Under amendment 21, which, as I have said, follows the committee’s stage 1 recommendation, ministers will be able to add a category of third-party campaigner only after a recommendation by the Electoral Commission. That reflects broad agreement that the Electoral Commission should be a key part of the decision-making process in this type of change to campaigning rules.

I agree that it is important to maintain confidence in the system and that it remains free of any perception of possible political influence. Requiring a recommendation from the Electoral Commission for any changes to be made to categories of third-party campaigners is a helpful safeguard in that respect, and provides for consistency of approach to all amendments to the categories of persons eligible to register as third-party campaigners. I therefore invite the committee to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment 21.

Actually, that was not the point that I was going to come to, but I take the member’s point. However, I come back to the issue that I was trying to touch on, which is that such a move starts to open up the notion that there is a requirement on returning officers and those involved in the process of accepting and processing nominations to take a step beyond the checks that they would otherwise carry out. I think that I am right in recalling that the evidence provided to the committee thus far suggests that the system that we have by and large operates effectively and that there has not been any substantial concern in that respect.

The point that I was going to make is that, strictly speaking, Mr Greer’s amendment does not, in and of itself, set out to create a full screening process, including in the limited circumstances that he has outlined, but I fear that it starts to move us in that direction. It is also not clear why we would pick out just this one aspect of eligibility for the Electoral Management Board to collate data on, and I am concerned that amendment 61 would send a signal that we were moving towards, if not a full vetting system of nominations, then a wider one, which would have huge logistical consequences. I note that the convener of the Electoral Management Board wrote to the committee yesterday to say that the amendment represented

“significant changes in both policy and practice”,

and that his estimation was that it should be “subject to further consultation”.

On that basis, I urge the committee not to support amendment 61, but I look forward to the debate that we will have on this group of amendments.

I move amendment 8.

None, other than to once again urge Mr Greer to consider withdrawing his amendment.