���˿���

I am now totally confused. It has been suggested that the figure is aligned with the MSP code, while the obligation in paragraph 4.18 that I previously asked about is not. One argument goes one way, and another goes the other way.

In any case, the £25,000 figure seems fairly arbitrary. It is a lot of money, but then £10,000 is a lot of money, as is £1,000. I do not understand where the figure has been plucked from; after all, it is not as if a £25,000 investment in the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example, would give you a controlling interest in it. As I have said, the figure seems arbitrary, and I would like some clarity on how it has been selected. Just rolling it forward from the previous code does not make it acceptable.

I am sorry, convener—I was gazing happily at the microphone to see whether it had been unmuted.

First, I absolutely believe that it is in the interests of all public bodies and elected individuals to comply with the highest standards of behaviour and to be open with the people who elected or appointed them, and I would never move from that position. However, I am concerned that paragraph 4.19 of the draft model code does not reflect the requirement in the MSP code; in fact, the declaration is more onerous. At the same time, the explanation for paragraph 4.20(b) was that it was put in because it complied exactly with the requirement on ���˿���. There is therefore a slight mismatch in that respect.

I do not want to hold this up, convener, but I believe that it is important that members of public bodies do not have to—or are not made to think that they have to—declare their private residence as part of any declaration that they might wish to make. That should fall outwith the scope of any declaration, as is the case for ���˿���. Moreover, the £25,000 figure in paragraph 4.20(b) seems to me to be extremely arbitrary, which is why I sought clarity on it.

I know that you have to consider the committee’s position, convener, given the limited time that we have before the matter has to be considered by the Parliament. As I have said, I do not wish to hold this up. However, should the matter come before Parliament before I have had sufficient answers to my questions, I reserve the opportunity to comment on the motion at that time. At the moment, I do not think that the proposal is equitable or fair to members of public bodies, and we have not had a suitable explanation of the £25,000 figure.

I have a question about paragraph 4.20(b), which refers to a registrable interest

“Where, at the relevant date, the market value of any shares and securities (in any one specific company or body) that I own or have an interest in is greater than £25,000.”

Will the minister please explain where the £25,000 figure came from?

My question relates to category 5, which is houses, land and buildings. Is paragraph 4.18 on registrable interests in houses, land and buildings compatible with or an equivalent standard to that for ���˿���? Are the two the same? I am not convinced that they are. If they are not, could that lead to confusion?

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?

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?

Having been on the doorsteps, I know that the issue was very much just about delivering leaflets. Candidates were not encouraged to engage with people on doorsteps until the very last part of the campaign, when a lot of the postal votes had already been sent. There were certainly no public meetings or hustings, which was difficult for candidates.

Taking it to the next level, I understand why candidates were restricted but, if that is to happen again, should we consider whether there should be an increased budget for candidates to get their message out? For example, the budget for a candidate in a constituency remained the same in 2021 as it was in 2016. It went up in 2011, but the constituency limit for party spending has remained the same since 2011 and the figure is very little. If candidates are to be restricted in how we can get our message out on the doorsteps, surely we should have an increased ability to use media and postal systems to get our message out. That was probably the safest way to do it.

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.