 Waitress Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to this, the first meeting of the Standards procedures and public appointments committee in 2022. Can I wish everyone a Happy new year? Our first or agenda item is discussing about taking the final item in private. The committee needs to decide whether to take item 6, which is an item for the committee sefydliadau i gyrwau blyg o'r proseddau ar gyfer yr ysglwllau a'r pracadau yn bryfodol, fel y rhan o wybodaeth y bydd. Fy gennym i'r Lywodraeth oedd o gyffredinogol yma. Yn y gydig iawn i gydig iawn i ffartydd fwrdd felol, i ddoch i'r ffartyddion fyddai, a hynny oedd i'r gyrwιαeth hwn cymryd i'r cyfryd felly fwyllfa ar gwestrwag fwyllfa ar gyfer raisedeol The first group that we will consider today is a proposed CPG on beer and pubs. I would like to welcome Craig Hoy MSP, who is the proposed convener of the proposed group to the meeting. Good morning, Craig. I would like to invite you now to make a short statement in relation to the proposed CPG. Good morning, Mr Footfield, and happy new year to you and to the committee members. The cross-party group on beer and pubs held its first inaugural meeting to prepare for this meeting on 7 December 2021. That was in recognition of the fact that there are now over 4,600 pubs and 120 breweries in Scotland. The industry is an emerging sector and there is presently no committee or cross-party group looking after its interests within this parliament. However, we also know that, as well as being an emerging sector, it is also a sector that is presently at risk as a result of the Covid pandemic and the restrictions that were imposed upon the hospitality sector. The purpose of the CPG is to celebrate, to recognise and to enhance the contribution that the brewing and pub-related hospitality industry plays in Scotland. We hope that the CPG will operate through semi-regular meetings, occasional visits and an annual event, where the best of Scotland's beer and pub sector can be showcased. The CPG will aim to develop constituency-level awareness of the contribution of the beer and pub sector and will aim to develop an awards programme to encourage recognition of local pubs and local breweries. I do believe that that is something that the convener is aware of due to the fact that, in his time as a member of parliament, he nominated my local pub in East Lothian, the Tynside Tavern, one of many excellent pubs in East Lothian and across the east south of Scotland for a local pub award. However, the CPG will also provide a forum to discuss the policies that will impact on the beer and pub sector and that will affect beer drinkers and pub-goers across Scotland. We will also obviously look closely and with importance the issues of responsible drinking, the social impact of alcohol and the public health implications too. We understand that beer and pubs play a huge part in each and every region that we represent socially and economically and they are job and wealth creators and that will also be a core focus of the group. With the committee's permission, I would be the convener of the group. Paul Sweeney would be the vice convener. We have a wide range of prospective members from across all parties and the Secretary would be provided by and supported by the all party parliamentary beer group CAMRA, the campaign for real ale, SEBA, the society of independent brewers and will also be supported by the Scottish beer and pub association. With that, I will hand back to you, Mr Woodfield. Thank you very much for that presentation. I was just going to point out before taking the matter further that I see in stark black and white my name as a member and as you may be aware, I have said that because of the role as convener that I will not be joining or associating with any CPGs to provide a distance for this committee to operate. With that slight unfortunate start, if that could be rectified, I would be grateful. However, my question, and I am very supportive obviously of the pub trade and its importance across Scotland, is in relation to the secretariat and the relationship between the CPG, which sits here in the Scottish Parliament and the all party parliamentary beer group, the APPG, which sits in Westminster. Is it the case that the actual secretariat support and work would be provided by both CAMRA and SEBA rather than the actual APPG itself in Westminster? CAMRA and SEBA, but Paul Hegarty from the all party parliamentary beer group attended as a guest and will be supportive in helping us to establish some of those programmes that have been very successful at Westminster, such as the awards programme and also the possibility of getting a guest ale or a guest beer into the parliamentary estate here at that Hollywood. Thank you very much for that clarification. I do not know whether any of the other committee members have any questions of Craig. I am not seeing anything. Thank you for attending this morning, Craig. The committee will consider whether to approve the application for recognition at agenda item 3. The clerks will inform you of that committee's decision in due course, but I thank you for coming along this morning. The next group that we are going to consider this morning is a proposed CPG on maritime and shipbuilding, and I welcome Paul Sweeney MSP, who is the proposed convener of the proposed group. Good morning, Paul, and happy new year. Would you like to give a short presentation to the committee about the intentions of the CPG? Good morning, convener, and thanks for the invitation to address your committee. The proposed establishment of a cross-party group on maritime and shipbuilding is the first time that this is being proposed in the history of the Scottish Parliament, but it is a vital exercise to be undertaking, because Scotland has a longer coastline than the People's Republic of China, which is over 6,000 miles. For centuries, the maritime and shipbuilding sectors have been critical to the prosperity of the country. As we look to the world's future, particularly with the climate emergency, the opportunity economically and socially that the sector provides for Scotland presents to Scotland is very significant indeed. I thought that it was very timely to consider the setup of this cross-party group. Initially, I engaged opinion informally during the COP26 conference in Glasgow, where we were able to secure the support of 15 colleagues, so 16 members in total, supporting the creation of the cross-party group and also secured the agreement of maritime UK to provide the Secretary of State. I am very pleased at the level of cross-party support of the objectives and intent of the CPG to ensure that we have a focal point in our national Parliament to the industry, trade unions and other stakeholders from across the country to come together and create a sounding board for the progress of the development of this industry in Scotland. We can be more responsive as a Parliament to the whole Government to account and what it is doing to help to promote the sector and to give industry a voice in the Parliament as well and also the workforce within the industry. On all those fronts, it makes for a very good and worthwhile exercise for a cross-party group. There is also a similar cross-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair in the House of Commons and House of Parliament in Westminster, which we hope to also have a degree of collaboration with in developing responses to such as the UK Government's national shipbuilding strategy, which is due to publish a new version in the coming weeks. It is also a very timely exercise to set the CPG up at this moment. Thank you very much, Paul. I am now going to just invite Edward Mountain to come in just to make a comment with regard to your CPG, but I do have a couple of questions for you after that. Edward, can I just... Thank you, convener. I am not going to be on any of the glamorous cross-party groups on things like that. I have agreed to be part of this committee because it is very important. Having agreed to be part of it, it is not appropriate. I ask questions or anything in relation to this, but I just wanted that noted. Thank you, convener. Thank you for clarifying that, Edward, and it is on the record. Paul, the organisations that have expressed interest, in particular Maritime UK, are going to act as the secretariat, but although I suppose relatively short in number compared to some CPGs, it covers a substantial part of the shipbuilding industry here in Scotland. Will there be room for, if I can describe them, maybe smaller players? I am looking. I know that you have got Strathclyde University Department of Naval Architecture, and I am aware of other technical courses that relate to shipbuilding. Presumably, the CPG is open to those sorts of groups to approach as well. Absolutely. That is just a starter for 10, hopefully, and as the CPG becomes more well known, we are more than happy to invite a broader cross-section of participation from across the industry. Maritime UK very kindly, proactively agreed to steward the CPG by preventing a secretariat. We have also had interest from BE Systems, which is the biggest shipbuilding company in Scotland, and also the Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, which is a long-standing professional body for the industry. The Confederation of Shipbuilding Engineering Unions will also have CMAL, which is the public sector procurement agent for CalMac ferries, as well as academia. That was just a cross-section of interest. We have also had interest subsequently from Malum Marine, which is another SME operating in the shipbuilding engineering sector in Glasgow. It is going at a fair pace, and we are hoping to continue to elicit support as we go forward. Excellent. I suppose that my slightly cheeky question was a slight surprise that there was not a pre-existing CPG for shipbuilding in Scotland. Well, I suppose that the issue is one of capacity. When you take out Government ministers and members are able to participate in CPGs, the number of people available to participate in a given CPG is quite restricted. I have a personal interest in the industry, having previously worked in the sector. I felt that there was a gap in the market for setting it up, and I am very grateful to colleagues for their support. I hope that his first year will be a successful one. Thank you very much, convener, and welcome this morning to yourself, Paul. It is just a quick question with regard to cross-CPG working that could perhaps happen. I am a member of the Recreational Boarding and Marine Tourism CPG, as is Stuart McMillan, who notices on the membership list for this one. It is just to know whether there are plans to ensure that, where we can dovetail that work and together between CPGs that we do that, is that something that you anticipate? Absolutely. Thanks very much for that comment. I think that that is exactly what we really want to achieve. Even just in conversations that we have had in the initial informal meetings, just to consider setting it up, the amount of opportunity that is suddenly presented itself, where companies are saying that they really want to bring everyone's attention to the level of interest in building boats, building ships in Scotland. There is so much work out there to be done. If we tie all those ideas together, we could seriously increase the number of jobs and employment around the sector. Recreational boats, for example, would be more manufacturing around that, more skills, more apprenticeships. That is just one example, fish farming through to lifeboats, through to offshore support vessels to the bigger ferries and cruise ships, etc. That is a huge area of opportunity for us. I think that tying together adjacent CPGs to make sure that we are making the most of that is absolutely crucial. I am very much excited about that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, Eleanor. Do any of the committee members have a question that they would like to pose? I will take the general silence. Can I thank you for attending, Paul? The committee will consider whether to approve the application for recognition at agenda item 3. The clubs will inform you of the commission's decision thereafter, but can I thank you for attending today? Thanks very much, convener. The next group that we will hear from is a proposed CPG on poverty. I would like to welcome Beatrice Wishart MSP, who is the deputy convener of the proposed group to this meeting. Good morning. I invite you to make an opening statement setting out the ideas behind the CPG. Thank you, convener. Good morning and good morning to committee members. Yes, the cross-party group on poverty aims to act as a forum for exploring the drivers of and the solutions to poverty in Scotland. It would act to connect MSPs with organisations working to tackle poverty, as well as with people living on low incomes across Scotland in order to better inform anti-poverty policymaking and contribute to the ending of poverty in Scotland, something that I think that everybody in this Parliament wants to see. The group intends to explore the drivers of poverty and different experiences of poverty across Scotland, covering issues such as stigma, rurality, race and disability, as well as looking at the particular risk of poverty experienced by certain groups, such as lone parents. We are keen to explore how we can gain greater consensus on the need to tackle poverty, both across political parties and across Scottish society at large. With over a million people in Scotland living in the grip of poverty, we believe that this group is hugely necessary and one that can make a real contribution towards on-going efforts to prevent and reduce poverty in Scotland's communities. Already, we have been hugely encouraged to see the enormous interest in the group's work with the inaugural meeting and a subsequent informal meeting of the group, attracting a large and diverse group of organisations and individuals. Importantly, many of the organisations are smaller community-based organisations who often struggle to have their voices heard in policymaking processes or in the Parliament. We hope that the group would act as a forum for them to help to shape and influence discussions around poverty in Scotland. Subject to the committee's decision, the convener will be Neil Gray and deputy conveners Pam Duncan-Glancy, Jeremy Balfour and myself. The secretary asked for the group to be provided by the Poverty Alliance, Scotland's national anti-poverty network. We believe that this is the first-ever cross-party group on poverty and consider that it is in the public interest for MSPs of all parties alongside expert stakeholders to work together to tackle poverty in Scotland. Thank you very much, Beatrice. Just before we move on, I know that Bob Dorris would like to put something on the record. I should note in the papers that if the group was to get the approval of this committee, I would be a member of the cross-party group. Indeed, I attended the first meeting that Beatrice Wishart spoke about. Clearly, I may have been a bit prejudicial as to whether the group should go forward or not, in a positive sense. I very much hope, and I am sure that it will do, that Ms Wishart will draw on the lived experience of those who have had to endure poverty, not just currently, but over a number of years. Thank you, Bob. Your interest is noted on the record. You have a very substantial list of organisations, and you rightly pointed out that people working in the field are often small, geographically located in one area but doing extremely good work. I assume that, if the proposed CPG goes ahead, the CPG will be open to other third parties joining in bringing their lived experience and, hopefully, solutions to the appalling problem of poverty across Scotland? Absolutely. If more people want to be involved, the door is open. It all helps everybody's lived experience and groups that are working. Smaller groups in communities are an issue that affects everybody across Scotland, so that would be absolutely essential. Excellent. Thank you for that. Do any of the other committee members have any questions that they would like to raise? No, that is fine. Thank you for attending this morning, Beatrice. The committee will consider whether to approve the application for recognition at agenda item 3. The clerks will inform you of the committee's decision thereafter. I thank you for coming on this morning. The final group that we will consider today is the proposed CPG on sustainable transport, and I would like to invite Graham Simpson, MSP, who is the proposed convener of the proposed group to this meeting. Good morning, Graham. Would you like to make an opening statement about the intentions of the CPG, please? Thanks very much, convener. It is a pleasure to join you this morning. Before I get into my pitch for the CPG, can I just say how much I enjoyed the committee's debate recently in the chamber? I thought that it was excellent, and I appreciated your kind comments afterwards, convener. During that debate, I mentioned that I am being really cheeky here, but it is to inform the committee. I mentioned that I have a proposed member's bill coming up. The consultation for that will go live next Thursday, and I will send that to the committee. Having that out the way, if I can talk about the CPG on sustainable transport, the background to this, convener, is that, in the last session, we had CPGs, so there was one on cycling, walking and buses, and there was a separate CPG on rail. Those of us who were members of one or both got together and decided that it would make sense to merge those two and call it a cross-party group on sustainable transport. It would appear that Mr Simpson's video feed has frozen, and I do not know whether we are going to be able to return to it. I will give him a moment to think from looking at the tendence that we may well have lost, Mr Simpson, and he has dropped offline. Unfortunately, the travails of IT is just to give more evidence to our committee for later discussions. For the record, I thank Mr Simpson for his comments about our debate and the discussions that we had afterwards. In eager anticipation, I look forward to his bill winging its way to us. I am not getting any indication that Mr Simpson is going to be able to rejoin us. What I intend to do is to move on to a gender item 3, which is the formal part of approving the three cross-party groups that we have heard from this morning, on beer and pubs, maritime and ship building and poverty. Do any of the members of the committee have comments or views to express before I formally put the proposal to the committee? Can I formally propose that the three CPGs are recorded recognition? That is the cross-party group on beer and pubs, maritime and ship building and poverty. Are we in agreement? Excellent. Thank you. I would now like to formally suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses. Can I welcome viewers and audience back? We are now at agenda item 4 to deal with some subordinate legislation. We are going to hear evidence on the Scottish Local Government's elections amendment order 2022. Joining us today are George Adam, Minister for Parliamentary Business and his officials, Lackland Hall and Ian Hockenhull. Can I welcome you all to the committee this morning? I invite you to make a short opening statement. Good morning and I take this opportunity to wish you all a happy new year. I hope that you had a restful and enjoyable festive period. I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to discuss the proposed changes to the procedures for running local government elections in Scotland. During the productive session on 28 October last year, we had a discussion about a number of other SSIs. Committee members raised a matter of monitoring of election expenses and the guidance that is available to candidates on this issue. Following that session, I reflected on these points with my officials, helped fuller discussions with the Electoral Commission and as a result I'm now proposing the provisions in this order, setting out a statutory role for the commission in producing and policing guidance in this area. I would like to make it clear that the commission already produces guidance on candidates expenditure but this has carried out on a non-statutory informal basis. The commission is welcome to propose to make its role statutory. This move would also bring arrangements in line with those from the Scottish Parliament elections. Overall, I consider these changes will provide greater clarity and oversight of electoral spending. The order will bring forward the date when poll cars can be issued to electors. This change has been made specifically at the request of the convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. I would not normally have made this change at this relatively late stage but the convener has requested it and the change is to the benefit of the voter so I've decided to bring forward this amendment. These changes are, of course, relatively minor, albeit important and will clearly not have a significant effect on candidates, electoral administrators or others in relation to preparing the elections in May. I therefore do not consider the gold principle as relevant in this case and the Electoral Commission has indicated its agreement on that assessment. I hope that you will agree with the provisions that are positive changes that will benefit voters, candidates and administrators and that you will therefore give your support to the order. Once again, I am happily open to any questions that you may have. Thank you minister for that. Just before we come to the questions, I'm going to invite Eleanor to come in on something that she would like to put on the record. Thank you very much convener, and it's just during the consideration of this item to refer to my register of interests that I am Stella Sutton councillor at Eastershire Council. I'm very grateful for that Eleanor and my apologies for not doing it before inviting the minister to present his opening statement. Minister, if I can just hone in on a couple of points, which it may be helpful to get some clarification on, what do you think that the implications are going to be for the transparency of election expenses with regard to local government elections as a result of those proposed changes? I thank you for that convener. I don't believe there will be any impacts. Candidates, expenses, returns and declarations are already available for public inspection for two years following the receipt by the returning officer, and copies can be requested on payment of a fee. The new requirement for returning officers, convener, to send copies of candidates' expenses, returns and declarations to the electoral commission if requested, allows for the commission to request copies without payment of a fee. Thank you for that. I suppose that, just as well, we should formally put on the record that the intention, if this amendment order is agreed to, that it will affect any polling on or after 5 May, which would include the forthcoming local elections, and hence your evidence with regard to the Gould principle of it not affecting it. I've got a question with regard to the policy note that you delivered with regard to paragraph 10. I'm fully aware that the answer to this may not rest with you, Minister, but hopefully it will rest with those who are also here today, which is with regard to the duties of the commission with respect to compliance. I understand when the act came in that the extensions that are being sought in this were specifically excluded from the commissioners monitoring and compliance role. I was just wondering whether you or indeed those around you are aware of why that was specifically excluded at the time? Well, I'll probably ask Ian to give you a more detailed answer than myself and we can take it from there. That's very helpful. Ian. Good morning. Essentially, the preparer act is a UK piece of legislation, and at the time, Scottish Parliament elections were within the control of the UK Government. The change in that preparer provision was made in relation to UK elections and Scottish Parliament elections, but Scottish local government elections were devolved, so it would have required Scottish legislation to make the same change. I'm not sure why no-one has made this change until now. It is probably a reflection of the point that the minister has made that in practice the commission is fulfilling this role already. This is formalising a role that they've been performing since that date. There probably isn't a great pressing need for the commission. We're keen for the role to be made formal in this instrument, so we've responded to that. That's very helpful, Ian. Ironically, convener, it's been a conversation that I've had with officials as well when we were asking the questions because my question was, why hasn't it been done before now? It just appears to be yet another one of the quirks of the local government elections, which we've already experienced in the previous session as well. That was my understanding in reading through the legislative consent at the time. It's nice to be able, after some 22 years, to get this on a more formal statutory setting if it's agreed. That's very helpful. My other question relates to a statement that there are no cost implications in respect of that. Does that extend, as far as the monitoring role, that will become a statutory requirement for the Electoral Commission as well? On discussions that we've had with the Electoral Commission, they've indicated that, since they've already carried out this role on an informal basis, they do not anticipate that any additional expenditure will be incurred. The hope will be that, as they go down this more formal route, it will be business as usual for them. The whole process is just to enable this to be part of the formal process, instead of them being like almost the Electoral Commission being like an afterthought, which is not a place where we want to be. It's just to minimally formalise the whole process. It also helps in that movement away from, in essence, the government having to ask the Electoral Commission to do that, to put it on a statutory footing for the Electoral Commission to be able to pursue it. Indeed, and it also gives us the opportunity, as far as transparency and everything else, that it just looks and feels a lot better. I'm grateful for that. I am aware that a number of committee members have some questions about the polling card situation. Edward, if I could pass over to you. Thank you, convener, and George, I welcome the fact that you bring these issues back to the committee and it's as a result of listening to the committee's earlier evidence session. I would remind you gently that I raise the issue off the level of expenses and hope that you will bring that forward at another committee meeting in the future just telling them the issue of poll cards. Is this another quirk that just seems to have slipped past the thing? It seems to make logical sense to bring it into line with Scottish parliamentary elections. Mr Mountain is probably correct. It is probably another one of those quirks. When we look at the local government elections, they are effectively exactly what they say in the tin. Local government elections are run by the local authorities in each separate of all 32 local authority areas. They are, by the essence, a local election. Many of the changes in this one in particular as well as another one, we have taken another look at it and we have come back to the conclusion of saying that there is a better way of working and that does a better way. Incidentally, I am always happy to listen to you, Mr Mountain, on any of the ideas that you have. We may not agree all the time but I think that over the years you and I have managed to develop a reasonably good friendship and be able to work with one another. At the risk of damaging your political career, I think that this is a good idea to bring polling cards forward. There is a level of agreement. Let us hope that we can reach one on election expenses for candidates. Thank you, convener. Very grateful. Do any other members have any questions relating to the polling cards before I invite Eleanor, who has a point that she would like clarified? Eleanor, can I pass over to you, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Given the on-going Covid-19 pandemic, are there any plans in place to bring forward the postal voter deadline at the local government elections, as was the case with the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021, bearing in mind that this might affect voter ability to register for an absent vote? So, the earlier that we have this, decided the better? Yes. Thank you, Ms Whitham, for that question. In answer to probably the exceptional circumstances of the world that we currently live in and obviously what happened in the 2021 election, we are driven by the need to ensure adequate time for administrators to process a potential search of postal votes due to the pandemic. Given the increase of postal voters last May, we do not anticipate a similar increase this year, as many who want to vote by postal now already have that in place. I know myself, I have been voted by postal since 2007. Mainly, that was a quirk of my being so busy in my own working life, but I won an election that year. Not being someone who is superstitious, I decided to just remain a postal voter, been winning elections ever since. So, we do not anticipate there to be the same issue. It will still be the people that are already down as postal voters, but bringing forward the deadline would reduce the amount of time for people to apply for a postal vote. So, in the whole, and the way I can answer your question is, we do not anticipate just to summarise it to be any more than last year, but we already have a solid group of individuals who have requested that that is the way that we wish to vote. Thank you very much. Thank you, Eleanor. If I just pursue that point, Minister, because I am aware that there was a significant rise in respective postal votes in the Holyrood election, but I am also aware that there are a number of people who are unclear themselves as to whether or not they registered just for one election or for on-going postal votes. Indeed, I have spoken to members of the public who have been slightly caught out with that over a by-election that I am aware of. Has any analysis been done in relation to the figures of people who signed up for just the Holyrood election rather than on-going postal votes for up to the years that are required? As you will be aware, convener, the actual registration to vote will be as a rolling poll, and we will keep updating our information all the time. From my own perspective and everyone else's perspective, it will say that you are a postal voter and you do, you wish to retain that, and it is up to each individual to ensure that that happens. On the whole, I do not believe, but that is just me saying from here. I will ask Ian to give you some solid facts on that. We have asked electoral registration officers if they could provide us with some updated figures on the levels of postal voting. The drive last year got postal voting registration up to around about 23 per cent of the population. As you have said, some people choose to only register a postal vote for a one-off occurrence, so we would anticipate a bit of drop-off because of that. Hopefully, most people have gone for a continuing one, but we do not know the exact splits. We have asked for that data to see what the current level is. I think that going back to the initial question, that substantial increase that was achieved last year, the concern was that electoral registration officers would not have enough time to process all of those additional applications, which is why we modified the deadline. Speaking to the electoral registration officers, we are not anticipating as big a surge this year because of the work that was done last year, not even though that is the point that all of those requests were for continuing postal voting. That is why we are not suggesting a change to the deadline because we are not. I am grateful. Bob, you wanted to come in. Thank you, convener. Just a very brief question inspired by your own line of questioning. Of course, the minister said that election officers in each local authority area will remind individuals, first of all, in relation to making sure that their voter registration is still valid at the address that they stay at, but also to remind them that they have a postal vote and they wish to retain that. I am just wondering whether there is a uniform approach to that across Scotland. I know that there is an electoral management board for Scotland for each election, but I am just wondering whether there are 32 ways that happens in Scotland per local authority, or whether there is a more standardised approach that is expected to answer your fingertips, minister, but it is just in case the committee works in the future to look at the management of postal votes across Scotland. I am not saying that we will, but I just thought that the convener's question was an interesting one. Actually, it is a very good question, Mr Doris, and I would be interested in answering myself. I would assume that it is a standardised approach through all 32 authorities, but I might be asking him to give us some further information on that. The several ER rows cover more than one local authority, so I am trying to remember. I am desperate to try to remember exactly how many electoral registration officers there are. I think that it is around 12 or 16, but I think that his colleague may be about to tell me, but I cannot remember exactly the number. Yet, I think that they effectively do follow very similar approaches. They have a variety of systems. There are at least two systems, probably three systems that are used, but I think that they follow the same processes that are guided by the electoral management board. I am grateful for that. One final question, I suppose, is more to make sure that it is on the record. Obviously, that was a shortened period because of the urgency and respect of the legislation. With regard to the consultations that took place, there were a relatively small number of groups that were consulted. In the policy document, you said that it was supportive. Was there any disagreement in that consultation with regard to the early issuing of polling cards? Well, just so that I can equally get it on the record, the preferred changes were shared with the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Registration Committee of the Scottish Assessors Association, the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, COSLA itself, political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament and community groups representing protected characteristics. It is also probably worth stressing that the change was specifically requested by the convener of the Electoral Management Board itself. On the whole, I do not believe that there was something that was actually wanted and it was a way forward. The Electoral Management Board actually asked us to do it, approached us and asked us to do it. When we looked at it, the discussion that we are having at the moment, we actually looked and said, this makes sense to actually do this. We decided to progress with this. Would this be the normal way that I would like to go about business? Probably not. Again, I do not believe that it makes any difference in the election for candidates and administrators. Also, it makes sense, but I will bring Ian in to say if there was anyone in the consultation that might have come up with anything that might have been construed as a negative. That would be helpful. Ian? No, I do not think so. Essentially, we think that these changes only really affect the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board, both of which actively requested the changes. We do not think that the impact on anyone else should be notable. A colleague has highlighted to me that it is 15 electoral registration officers, by the way. Sorry, I am inflating more numbers. Thank you for putting that on the record. Do any other members of the committee have any questions? No response, so I am thankful for that. Thank you, minister, and your officials, as ever, for your evidence today. We will now move to agenda item 5 for which the minister will remain present. On agenda item 5, I would now like to invite the minister to move and speak to motion S6M-02576, that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2022 be approved. Minister? Moved formally, convener. Very grateful. Would any committee member like to speak to the motion? Minister, would you like to make any closing remarks? Quite happy at this point, not to, convener? I am grateful. The question is that motion S6M-02576 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I believe that we have agreement for that. The motion is agreed to. Can I confirm that the members are content for me to sign off the committee's report to the Parliament on this instrument? The agreement for that. Thank you, minister, and to your officials for attending this morning. Thank you. Thank you again, if you know. I will now close the public part of this meeting and move into private.