Chamber and committees

I just briefly want to observe that, if the spending limits were correct and proportionate before the rules and regulations about canvassing and campaigning changed, those limits surely need to be reviewed after the change. It is as simple as that—the limits cannot be right both in a pandemic and outwith one.

Overnight counting was not the norm as it has been in the past. Is that a good thing? Are there lessons to be learned from it regarding staffing and speeding up getting the results out, rather than delivering ballot boxes on slippery roads throughout Scotland in May? Should we do overnight counting or should we just delay it until the next day and make it easier and safer for staff and counters?

If a count is planned for the next day, it allows everyone to get their ducks in a row, so it can happen quickly. I have known an overnight count take until 11 o’clock the next morning in Highland. That is just dangerous for people who want to get home after at least 36 hours up and about.

My question is about campaigning. The election was extremely different from any other that I have taken part in. I will not go back to the one in 1979, which was my first. Do you think that the rules regarding campaign activity were clear enough for candidates and campaigners?

My question relates to the Highlands specifically. We have heard that it was a great election because lots of people stood: 16 parties stood on the regional list. When it came to the count, we were all allowed four people to hover around the few counting stations. However, we could not go from one region to another, which effectively rendered watching the count impossible. I have absolute confidence in the staff having done an excellent job, but I have no way of proving it. Do you think that that is satisfactory? Where there are big regional lists, do you take a different view to that of Highland Council on how to count the votes and how the count can be watched?

Are you aware of any circumstances in which somebody has not been approved by the committee that has interviewed them? One of the problems is that, because the committees are appointed and run on the d’Hondt system, there is a natural bias towards the Government, as you are aware. In the previous session of Parliament, the examples that I saw and took part in were perfunctory.

I think that it has worked—I have unmuted.

Good morning, Ian. I have been hearing you and I hope that you can hear me. I have a series of questions. The first one is a simple yes or no question. Do you think that there is a problem in Scotland with serial board members?

Thank you. I think that we may have to agree to differ.

I take your explanation, but to me it is a very small pool and the people in the pool keep getting picked. I would not accuse them of wanting to be serial board members but, if someone has been a board member for 31 years, they are obviously doing something. I can give other examples. One person morphed from the Deer Commission for Scotland to Scottish Natural Heritage to Scottish Water. Just as one appointment expired, they seemed to pop up in another one. Expanding the pool might be the answer, and I am sure that the convener will push on that.

I have a further question to do with ministerial appointments during the previous parliamentary session. I sat on various committees that were given the chance to interview people who were being appointed by ministers. I have to say that it was a tick-box exercise. Do you have any evidence of the Parliament ever rejecting somebody, and do you think that the parliamentary committee system of interviewing people who are appointed by ministers is sufficiently robust to ensure that ministers do not shoehorn in the person they want?

I definitely agree—I am not going to disagree—but I just want to make the general point that CPGs are a way to get people to involve themselves in the Scottish Parliament and what it does, so it is very difficult for us to ever say no to them. However, I am with Alexander Stewart on the need for a formulaic process that would allow them to continue, because it would be only in very exceptional circumstances that we would stop people engaging with the Parliament, which I think is our priority and the priority of all parliamentarians.