 I welcome members to the 21st meeting in 2015 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and remind everyone to switch off mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. We do have apologies from Dave Thompson today. Agenda item 1 is for the committee to agree to take items 4 and 5 in private. Item 4 is for members to consider the evidence heard on the Scottish elections dates bill, and item 5 is to consider a note by the clerk on hybrid bills. Do members agree to take these items in private? We are agreed. Agenda item 2 on today's agenda is for the committee to agree to consider in private at future meetings. A draft stage 1 report on the Scottish elections dates bill and draft reports and standing order rule changes on legislation and hybrid bills. Do members agree to take these items in private at future meetings? We are agreed to so do. That brings us to agenda item 3, which is for the committee to take evidence on the Scottish elections dates bill. Joining us today we have Joe FitzPatrick, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Colin Brown, who is the senior principal legal officer, the director for legal service, and James Newman, policy adviser, directorate for strategy and constitution. Minister, if you wish to take the opportunity to make an initial statement, I would be happy to hear it. Okay, thank you, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to say a few introductory words about the bill before you this morning. As things currently stand, there will be a general action to both the Scottish and UK parliaments on 7 May 2020. This clash is undesirable for a number of reasons. Indeed, the Presiding Officer wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland earlier this year, setting out her views supported by all the main party leaders, that it is imperative that an alternative date for the Scottish election should be set. The Scottish Government believes that it is important that voters know the length of the parliamentary term that they are voting on before they go to the polls in May 2016. That is why the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed a section 30 order that transferred the powers to the Scottish Parliament that enabled us to come forward with this bill. Given that the Smith commission has said about the powers in relation to elections in Scotland, it is absolutely right that it should be this Parliament that legislates for changing the dates. Turning to the bill's contents, it is a very short and straightforward bill. It proposes moving the Scottish Parliament elections currently scheduled for 7 May 2020 to 6 May 2021. By way of comparison, you will no doubt be aware that both the Welsh and Northern Irish Assembly general elections have already been moved to May 2021 to avoid the 2020 clash. Moving the Scottish Parliament elections to May 2021 would mean that it would clash with the local government elections scheduled for the same date. That is obviously also undesirable, so the bill proposes moving the local government elections scheduled for 6 May 2021 to 5 May 2022. I hope that colleagues will agree that the bill presents a straightforward and pragmatic solution to the clash of election dates, and I look forward to answering your questions. Perhaps the obvious first question is in proposing a move for the next but one Scottish Parliament election from 2020 to 2021. Why was the alternative of bringing it forward to 2019 not the one that we see before us? The proposal for a five-year term mirrors the current session, so we currently have five years. It also mirrors the extensions in Northern Ireland and the assembly of Wales and, of course, the UK Parliament. I think that a three-year term would be particularly short in parliamentary terms. We have seen that you have consulted with a number of bodies of one sort or another, which is a fairly obvious one. Did any of the organisations consulted with raise any issues with the proposals in respect of the change of dates for either of the elections? I think that the responses to the consultation were all positive in terms of a pragmatic solution to the clash, but I do not think that there was anything negative. There were no other comments, as the minister said. All the organisations that we consulted recognised that that was a straightforward and pragmatic solution to the issue. The policy memorandum talks about the Government undertaking a consultation on a permanent change to a five-year cycle. Perhaps the obvious question is why we are not doing that in this bill and at this time. The obvious answer is that we do not have the powers. The section 30 order specifically gives us the power for this election. Clearly a permanent solution is something that will need to be considered by a future Parliament, and it would be appropriate for them to look at that, both in terms of the Scottish Parliament elections and local government. That is appropriate at the time that the next Parliament will go. If the Parliament has those powers, of course, they have not come yet. Is it anticipated, therefore, that those powers would be provided by a further section 30 order, or are you anticipating a change via the Scotland Bill that is currently before the Westminster Parliament? As it stands, the Scotland Bill would give those powers to this Parliament, so if the Scotland Bill is passed and enacted, those powers would come to this Parliament. It would have been too risky for us to wait until the Scotland Bill is passed to make sure that we have those changes in place in good time for this election. That was agreed by both the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am given to understand that the royal assent for the Scotland Bill, assuming that it runs to its present timetable, is likely to be in something like June. In other words, after the next session of the Scottish Parliament has commenced, is that the Government's understanding as well? I think that the risks around when that is going to be enacted would have been very difficult for the changes that require this very technical change to be made after that Bill, which is why the agreement was made to give us the specific powers of the section 30 order, which was agreed by the Parliament unanimously, as the right way forward. Have you come to a conclusion as to when the consultation on permanently changing the rate might take place and what the format might look like? That would clearly be a matter for the next Parliament to decide in terms of the way that should happen. Obviously, the consultation will need to happen before that. We need to include local government, of course, because I think that it would be very likely that the next Parliament would want to look at both the Scottish Parliament elections and the local government elections in parallel, the same as we are doing with this Bill, in order to find a permanent solution. I suspect that, from what has been said, we already know the answer, but I will ask it anyway. Does the Government have a view on what the cycle should be for the two elections in question? There is a strong argument for five years, however, that would be a matter for the next Government. We have a piece of correspondence from one of our members in Parliament, Dr Richard Simpson, who used the word interesting suggestion that one of the things that could be considered is having European, local government and Scottish Parliament elections all on the same day, and he suggests that there might be mutual benefit to that. Is that something that is either being considered or will be considered? I think that that is something that should be resisted at all costs. We have had the experience in previous elections of having more than one election and the conclusion that the Parliament came to universally was to agree with the Gould report that that was not desirable. One election would always supersede the other, so I think that that should be resisted at all costs. It may be worth saying, and I am not seeking and saying this to formally speak on behalf of colleagues, but informal discussions suggest that perhaps there might be some appetite for revisiting that decision made after the 2007 election. I just put that in the record for the minister's information, rather than an attempt to open up a discussion at this time on the subject. Interestingly, the clause in the Scotland Bill would prohibit such clashes, right? Oh, that is so interesting. Yes, and that is the recommendation from the Smith commission. Oh, well, that might not stop people—perhaps even myself, who is not a huge enthusiast for separation of these elections from bringing that up at a future date. However, that is for another day. Anything else that any member wishes to ask, and any concluding remarks that she wishes to make? I think that that is just a pragmatic solution, and hopefully the committee will support it. Minister, without anticipating the contents of our report, I do not think that we have heard anything today that is alarming the horses, so let us put it that way. Thank you very much, minister. We will suspend the meeting briefly. In fact, is that correct? We are moving into private session. I beg your pardon.