I welcome everyone to the 7th meeting of the Standards Procedure and Public Appointments Committee in 2024. We've received no apologies this morning. Our first agenda item is for the Committee to agree whether to take items 3 and 4 in private. Agenda item 3 will be consideration of the evidence that we are about to hear in public session. Agenda item 4 is to consider our approach to a report from the Scottish Parliamentary cofrit bod y gallwn yn wneud fywyd. Rydyn ni'n fwyaf.  Andy Hunter, rydyn ni'n cef dechrau YAEA, yr Ycwyl Sel Cave i Norwgr than island branch, that's the association of elected administrators, and Robert Nicholl, who's vice chair, SAA, Electoral Registration Committee, and ERO for East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire Scottish Assessors Association. Very long titles, but you are all very welcome this morning for your contribution towards this matter. If you're content, I just really want to push off with questions, and the usual convener's provisor, not everybody, has to answer all of the questions, but feel free to do so if there's something that you want to contribute. I'd like to kick off with a proposal that is in the bill about extending candidacy rights, in particular to those with limited leave to remain. Malcolm, if I come to you first, what are your thoughts on this? Advantages, disadvantages, or possible concerns that you have? Extension of candidacy rights, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to give evidence today, is of course a policy matter, but there are a number of practical issues. I suppose that the main one is that if candidates are allowed to stand for election, who may not have the right to remain for the full term of office, there's a potential there for by-elections, which are arguably unnecessary and are certainly costly. It may be that the bill could be amended to restrict candidacies to those who have left to remain for the full term of office. One could argue that it's a legitimate expectation of the electorate that, except in exceptional circumstances, candidates will be able to serve the full term of office. Those are the only observations that we would make and string into the policy remit, I admit, but those are practical consequences of that extension. Otherwise, it's a policy matter. Thank you and absolutely respect the policy element as compared to the implementation. You talked about one possible amendment, where individuals had the limited leave to remain for the full period of proposed office. Are you able to comment about whether or not that's a practical solution, given that those who are issued with limited leave to remain are sometimes issued that over varying periods of time, and certainly there is no consideration of electoral office cycles in that discussion? No, there's no practical solution to that, really, unless the extension is for the full term of office. The candidate, of course, could be asked to declare whether they're qualified or not qualified then to stand for it. Robert Anderson, is there anything that you want to add to that? That's not really a matter for the year. No, I appreciate that. It's no problem with that. It is something that has received significant support in the consultation and, obviously, prior to that, with the Government consultation. The practical problems, rather than the policy decision, you see, if I can put it this way, twofold. Probably the most concerning is a rise in by-elections, which A costs money, but B is problematic within the structure, but then the other is in respect of being able to identify whether or not at the time of an election there is likely to be a problem coming down the line with the limited leave, either expiring or being rescinded. That's very helpful.  Are there any matters on that before I come to it?  The respondents to the consultation, 77 per cent of them disagreed with the proposals as individuals with extended candidacy rights. What I'd like to ask Malcolm is, in your experience, are there any other jurisdictions where this sort of extension of candidacy rights exists? What has been their experience, if you'd be willing to share? I haven't looked into the matter, I regret to say. Since it's a policy matter and therefore not strictly speaking within the remit of the EMB, I'm not aware of other jurisdictions with such an extensive potential candidacy. On the issue of the declaration that a candidate makes on presenting themselves as a candidate, they wouldn't currently have to say that this wouldn't be part of the test, as it were, that they were qualified, so it would be a matter of self-identifying as someone who is in the United Kingdom on a limited leave to remain. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct and of course it's not for the returning officer to investigate the claims that are made on a nomination form. If it is competent at face value then we accept it. So it's possible that someone could present themselves, not identify themselves as someone that's in the United Kingdom on a limited leave to remain, and then, during the course of the term of office, they could effectively be asked to leave the country. Yes, that's possible. Clearly there are many situations where someone could be elected to serve a term and then not complete that term, some of which may be known to them at the start of the term and others may not be known to them until later through the term itself, but on that specific you mentioned the fact that the public would perhaps be expected to have a right that if they elect someone they expect them to at least to the outset intend to serve the full term. Is there or would there be provision under the proposals or could there be for such candidates to make it known in the public domain so that the public vote in the full knowledge that there is the potential risk that they may not be able to serve the full term? Yes, I think that that would be possible through the nomination process. There could be a question asked if you have leave to remain for the entire term, if no state for how long, that would be possible. That would be in the public domain? That would be so. In the public domain? Yes. There is provision in the proposed bill for Scottish disqualification orders and I suppose just to start off by getting your perspective on whether intimidation or abuse of electoral workers in Scotland is itself a problem that needs to be addressed? Yes. To cover the administrative point first, that would have to be another line in the nomination process in that the candidate would have to state that they were not disqualified and did not have a relevant conviction. It is obviously a perfectly competent qualification. I think that we would say that the nature of intimidatory or abusive behaviour would need to be carefully defined to avoid any unintended impacts on freedom of political speech particularly. I think that there is a distinction, I am verging into my legal territory here. There is a distinction to be drawn perhaps between intimidatory behaviour, which is more objectively assessed and abusive behaviour, which is a tendency to be subjectively assessed. Those would be my only comments on it. In terms of process, it is easy enough to manage through the nomination process. Do you have any perspective on whether a disqualification order would be likely to attack as a deterrent to unacceptable behaviour? I am honestly not sure. A lot of certainly abusive comments are off the cuff of the moment and probably wouldn't be caught. One would hope that it would certainly deter anyone with political ambitions who was minded to act in a campaign of intimidation or a premeditated act of intimidation. I am drawing the distinction here again between intimidatory behaviour and what can be classed as abuse. Are there any practical considerations that you have already mentioned that we need to be declared potentially up front? Is there anything else? In other members of the panel, feel free to comment if you have any perspective on this. No, as a returning officer perspective, it would simply be that the candidate would have to state that they were able to stand. Of course, as always, we would take that at face value. We do not investigate the veracity of those claims. In one further aspect, please. No, just to go back to that, but the disqualification order would be on the public record. Would there be a challenge in an election if there was more onus on those who are checking the details to ensure that that voluntary information is correct? I think that it is slightly different from some of the other matters that are rightly taken at face value. If there was a disqualification order in effect, that would be in effect within the public realm. Would it be unreasonable to expect something further than just the candidate themselves having the obligation to propose it? I have to defend the principle that returning officers do not investigate. We do not have that resource and we do not seek that power. Yes, of course, we use our common sense. If things are known to us, we will raise that matter with the candidate. Should that be a resource implication, or is it a principle that the returning officers should accept what is presented to them by an individual or the supporting team around them? It is a long-established principle of our electoral practice. Whether that needs to change in future years is another question, but it is not something that we have ever done or needed or really needed to do. Just a final question, and I do not expect you to take a policy position on that, but just to comment on any practical considerations around about disqualification of candidates, MSPs and councillors that appear on the sex offender's register. Is there any comment that you would like to make on that as an issue? I think that the electoral community and the consultation generally was very much in favour of that disqualification. I do not end here, Robert. Any comments on any of those issues? In terms of the electoral registration staff, we are in contact with all members of society throughout the year. Thankfully, abuse of our staff is relatively rare. However, we do welcome the inclusion of ERO staff within that definition because it recognises the status of them when they are undertaken or walking. Amant itself is an important element of this, irrespective of the numbers that we are talking about. There should be a recognition of an increased role of respect towards particularly individuals who are seeing the vehicle of democracy being rolled out and brought about. That is helpful. Excellent. Stephen, can I come to you about various changes?  I feel as if there should be a big spotlight coming down on that. Why would it be important that the EMB have a change in its legal status as is outlined in the bill? What is the reason for that from your perspective? What are the advantages of that? Quite a long story there of the evolution of the EMB since its formation as a statutory committee, I suppose, in 2011. Our wish for us to support and assist and help has increased substantially since the EMB was created in 2011. There are two immediately practical reasons. One is that, if we are to perform the role that is now expected of us, for example, to lead the e-counting process, the contractual process, we need some form of legal status to enable us to enter into contracts, which we cannot do at the moment. We are not a legal entity. It is done through quite a convoluted but workable way in which the 32 returning officers give agency to Scottish Government to procure the e-counting contract, and that is managed through a project board of which the EMB plays a key role. Does it work currently? It worked very well last time, but it would be easier if the EMB on behalf of returning officers could run that process directly. The bill proposes some increases in the responsibility of the convener. However, there is another very practical reason. The Electoral Management Board, as an institution, is quite a fragile one because it is entirely voluntary activity. I would not intend that that change significantly, but I am a serving returning officer and chief executive of a council. The secretary, Chris Highcock, is deputy returning officer for Edinburgh and also has duties to that council. We are hosted by and supported by the City of Edinburgh with Scottish Government funding support, which I want to acknowledge when we have asked for things that that funding has been made available to us. However, there is a fragility in that undoubtedly. It all flows from our roles as returning officers or deputy returning officers and those are linked to our other jobs. As the workload has increased particularly over the Covid period, the work on the bill, the coronavirus bill for elections, has become quite intense. I should say that we have tried to mitigate those by the appointment of a deputy convener. You will see my comments on that later on. I would like to see two deputy conveners, one on the returning officer side and one on the electoral registration officer side. There is a practical point about the capacity to contract. There is a very practical point about the fragility of the current arrangements. Just talk to us about how the role has expanded. You mentioned, since it was founded in 2011, how has it expanded? In what ways has it expanded? In what additional pressures has that created? I think that, as the board has become established, there is a representational role on behalf of the electoral community, including such invitations as today's. You are not speaking to returning officers perhaps from a big council or a small council. You are speaking to me as convener of the board, so there is a representational role. Significantly, the expectations for support from the electoral community have increased, partly because of capacity issues. Corporate services, law and admin departments and councils are not what they were. There is not the in-house experience as well as numbers that there was in the past. There is a much greater consultative and support role, particularly at the time of elections. The directions that we give in the case of Scottish Parliament and local government elections are necessary. I think that they are appreciated and negotiated with the electoral community. We do not have anything to do with UK elections, of course, but we issue recommendations that look very like the directions to be a Scottish Parliament election. As the number of elections and electoral events, even though there may be UK-related in general elections and, for example, the EU referendum, membership referendum, that has also created tension. Does that make the past 13 years different from the average period of the work of the board? It has been exceptionally busy. There is no question about that. We had two UK elections in a short period. We have had referenda. We do not have European elections now to deal with. The other part of the work is not just about elections. It is about accessibility. It is about the focus on the voter. That is the strapline that we use to deliver a result that will be accepted as accurate. I would probably say now that it will be accepted by all reasonable people as accurate. To focus on the voter, that is what came out of the Gould report a way back in 2007, when it was felt that the voter's interests had not been properly recognised. The policy interest in elections has grown, too, when one thinks of electronic counting and some countries of electronic voting. There are issues about registration. There is a lot more policy interest, I would say, in election matters from both parliaments. I have been involved in one or two elections. I have only ever seen our elections conducted in a very professional and efficient way. The work and the quality of the electoral experience, speaking as a candidate, has been absolutely first class. I have got to be clear about that. I have got to declare interests, but I am also interested in what you said about the voluntary and fragility questions. For the clarity of those who are watching the proceedings and for the official record, everybody connected with the EMB currently is doing so on the basis, in essence, in a voluntary capacity. There are no paid positions. We receive a grant from the Scottish Government that pays for a certain amount of the time of the secretary, Mr Haycock, who works on behalf of the board four days a week on a secondment from the City of Edinburgh Council, but those are the only paid positions. The relationship with the Edinburgh City Council, you have just described that a little bit more fully. The secretariat, in effect, is sitting within the head count of the council and four-fifths of the cost that is being paid by the Scottish Government? Yes, that is correct. If, for example, we needed communications assistance or specialist IT assistance or anything of that kind, our first port of call would be City of Edinburgh, because they host us in their offices. By and large, that has worked well up until now? It works well even now. It is simply that it is a very fragile structure because it is heavily dependent on the goodwill of that council, and for all I know, City of Edinburgh, I may require the services of its own employees in different ways. I have a very tolerant council about the time that I spend on electoral matters, I would have to say. Another council could take a different view. It is simply a little too fragile. I should say that the new arrangements that we would seek, I do not see as being unduly expensive or demanding on the public parts that we are very conscious of that. The roles would continue to be voluntary. In the bill there is one deputy convener, but you have asked for two. Maybe you can explain why you feel there needs to be one, and then why there needs to be two. However, those would continue to be voluntary within the jobs and the employment of those individuals in other respects. I think that that will depend on the detail of the constitution of the EMB, which I think needs to be taken forward before the bill advances too much further. I think that it is important that members of the EMB, the electoral community and everyone is aware of exactly what a new EMB with legal personality would look like. My question is somewhat unresolved in the context of the bill, because the bill does not describe what you have just said. No, the bill simply says that there will be a body corporate. That requires further work. I have had a meeting with Scottish Government colleagues yesterday about how we take forward that work. It is extremely important that that is clear and that is known before the bill is, in my opinion, before the bill becomes law. So, what was agreed yesterday then? We will look very clearly at the legal options, because body corporate is a generic term. That can include anything from a company to a partnership. Obviously, those would be inappropriate, but should it be a public body? Should it be an enhanced statutory committee? None of this, as I should say, is detrimental to the purpose. Nor, I think, need it to be particularly expensive. However, legal status requires a constitution, and it is important that that is clear. Critical to that, of course, is the independence of the board. That is fundamental. We are all dependent on someone for funding, of course, and the relationship with Scottish Government colleagues has been very good, very supportive of the EMB. However, anybody who advises, supports, delivers elections must have independence as much as possible from the political process. That is the other reason that I think that it is important that the constitution is agreed at the earliest possible stage. What is going to happen then? It is very important what you said this morning that, before the bill can properly proceed through its legislative processes, we should have a clear understanding of that. What specific actions are flowing from what you discussed yesterday? The EMB will work very closely with the Scottish Government to, in my opinion, draft a potential schedule to the bill, on which it will set out in clear terms how the EMB will be constituted, how it will go about its work, what is its line of accountability, and what is it's water to be? From where is its funding support to come? Is the timetable for the production of the schedule? That is a priority, I think, for over the next three months. Where is the balance of the work that lies with the EMB or with the Scottish Government? It is the Scottish Government's bill and, of course, it is the parliamentary draftsman that will take that work forward, but we will play an active part in that process. I apologise for the length of my answer. No, that is precisely why we invite you to give this level of detail and evidence, which is very good. My final question is about why we need a deputy convener and why you feel that we need two deputy conveners. I think that any organisation with any kind of statutory power should have a deputy. Things happen. The power to give directions is personal to the convener. The directions are not given by the board, they are given by the convener of the board, so there should be just for reasons of efficiency as it were. There should always be a deputy who is able to exercise full powers of the convener in the event of incapacity or worse. Scotland is a fairly unique system of returning officers and electoral registration officers now, and the board brings those two professions together. I think that it is right that it recognises that the convener must be a returning officer in terms of the current establishment, and that is right. It is right that there will be a statutory position that recognises the electoral registration officer part of the electoral process as well as the returning officer side, so that is the recommendation. However, if that is not agreed with, there should at least be one deputy who can act for the convener in the event of incapacity. From whichever function that would come from. I think that I might have perjured myself, because I think that I continue, do I? No. Unless you have anything that follows off. That is fine. Do any other members have questions on that before? Please, Jackie. Just for some clarification, what you are saying just now about the ERO and the returning officer, are you suggesting that the deputy conveners should be one of each to ensure that all bases are covered, so to speak? I am sorry if I am mistaken. Yes, I am, because that reflects the informal arrangements that we already have in place. I have a deputy, small D, small C, a deputy convener who is a returning officer and a deputy convener who is an electoral registration officer at present, but that is under the current informal structure. If we are constituting the board, I would like to see that continued rather than, yes. Only one of those deputes would have full powers and that would be the returning officer deputy. I would like to move on to another area that the bill is proposing, which is about the postponement of elections. I know that all three of you representing the organisations have made submissions on that. Maybe Andy, if I come to yours first, because I thought it was interesting in the submission about the proposal is that, in essence, the elections could be postponed by up to 16 weeks. Now, in essence, there is a policy decision there. I am not expecting you to comment on that, but with regard to the practicalities of either a sort of double suspension or a single suspension, what is the effect at, to use an old teaching phrase at the chalk face of when that phone goes and you're told it's postponed? Ultimately, it depends on timing. When that postponement comes, if it comes really early and you're not that far down for a better word of the project, then it's much easier to make changes and things. If you've already started, for example, engaging with your printer and have things printed in advance with dates and that on it, all that stuff goes to waste. You then book in premises, staff for working at elections. All that, if it changes, is bad enough. If you then change it or extend it again, then you're, in essence, doubling that difficulty. If I dare use an example, the UK Parliament elections is exactly like that, where it's extremely difficult to organise and plan for because it's not fixed date and it could come anytime. A postponement, which ultimately needs to happen because of the circumstances that require it, if it's just looking for an easy, make sure that it's a smoother, possible transition to deal with that. I think that a double step does make that more difficult than it needs to be. We put aside the cause of the postponement. Would a fixed period that was set be more useful and, albeit, a longer period than this idea of two short periods? Would it be helpful if there was a postponement you know before postponement even happens that it will be for a set period of time? Would that make the administration easier? I suppose it would make it easier because there would be absolute clarity of when that was, but I do, I can see why you might need to want some flexibility in that for whatever the particular circumstances are, and I think different reasons for postponement might give a reason to extend it for different periods of time. I think it's more the sort of changing to one date and then changing again, so I suppose having a proper reflection of what the cause for the postponement was and making a judgment and ensuring it's long enough that it won't need to be extended again, I think, is the point. Would it be helpful or otherwise if the postponement, rather than just being a sort of pause for a period of time, resets the clock in a sense, so if we were four weeks into what's colloquially called the short campaign and there was a postponement for a period of time that when the clock started again it would be a six week short campaign or the remaining two week short campaign. Would that make any difference from a practical point of view from the delivery of it? I don't think it makes any difference with the practical delivery point because you're going to reset all these parameters anyway. Just before I open up, one of the challenges that you highlighted was the recruitment of staff. Do you want to just explain why that's a challenge given that there aren't a significant number of people who only ever do elections and then sit around on their holiday homes for the bits in between? Yeah, no, I think that most people that are employed at Poland, sorry. I've just said that the convener was brave saying that. Yeah, employing the Poland staff is obviously a significant job. Most people do that one day but they're doing many other things in many other days and so therefore it's not as easy just to say can you come back in two or three weeks to do that. They may have already planned even holidays so that people that are just do it once a year. Others will have work commitments that they can no longer maybe keep up to. So it's just that change and just being people have made arrangements and know that that day and kept that free and staffing is a problem. Make sure you get enough staff currently. It's more difficult than it's ever been so that change is making it difficult. Thank you. Robert, you'll experience it, well not experience it, but the postponements, the concerns. Yeah, from the registration side of things, registration of the year round activity, but when you know there's an electoral event happening, that is a number of months in the planning in conjunction with returning officers. So we're currently faced with a position where we know there's going to be an electoral event in the next 10 months. We just don't know when, which makes planning complicated. So it's not something that we haven't done in the past and what we're incapable of. In terms of postponement, I think that we'd need to look at how that interacts with the timetable for likes of registration and such like. So that if, for example, to pick random dates, a first of May election was postponed to the first of June, during that period, there would be churn within the electoral register, there would be people who become now qualified or unable to vote because of age, for example, during that postponement. So we just need to see how that interacts in terms of the timetable to make sure that whatever we are putting into place is in line with the law around that. So it's not uncomplicated, but it's equal. It's not doable. If you explore that a little bit and if you're not in a position to advise at the moment, I'm all unhappy for you to write to come back on this. Do you think that postponement should be a postponement in time so that, in essence, it freezes and doesn't allow additional people to come on to the register? Or would it be better to accept that the passage of time means that there is an entitlement for people to come on and indeed go off the register, which would be from an administrative non-policy position the best of those answers? I think that it is a policy position. I think that it would depend on the precise regulations. I think that either would be possible. It depends very much on what point of timetable it happens. If, in essence, we ended a period where there was going to be a 16-week suspension, let's take it a longer period, but it was actually quite close to the election day, so you would have had the effect on postal votes, you would have had the effect on registration. The 16-week period could open up, as you've described it, a churn in that. I agree that postponement and the decision are a policy decision, but from an administrative point of view, what are the challenges between the register-in-effect reopening for those who are then triggered into it, or are they remain enclosed on the original dates and the electorate being that that was fixed at the point of the original intention of when the election should take place? I think that one of the problems with electoral laws is that it's very complex with a number of different regulations and acts following it, so I wouldn't want to give you a precise answer at this point in time, and I do suspect that the answer would depend upon which point within the timetable. However, I would prefer if the committee allowed me to come back to your own. Please do. That was a genuine offer, because it is one of the things of what appears on the face of it, a useful provision to have. The unknown unknowns become very important in this, and as you say, I think that you're right. Whichever way it goes, it's workable, but I think that there should be an input as to the practicalities of it in when those decisions are made. That's very helpful. Can I also just push on the costs element of a postponement, both from the point of view of the registration but also on the implementation? How, in effect, is the cost of it on those that administer it? Andy, do you want to? As I said, there are a variety of costs that could come into that. Booking premises, because some premises are private, so there won't be a fee regardless if you cancel it, and then you'll have our fresh booking again, so you may be paying twice for polling places. You may have to pay for a more expensive polling places, for example, because you can't get the one that you would normally use. Staff and costs, you may have already been through training, and that's why you've paid for training of staff, and then maybe follow that up again to some degree. You'll have costs for printing, so boat cards will probably have to be redone, postal packs, depending on what stage you're at with that, may have to be redone. The paperwork that actually goes to the polling station, again, may only be done, depending on the timing of that. There are all those kinds of expenses as well. There's always one somewhere. Thank you for that. Jackie, did you want to come in on that point? Thank you. It's on that point as well, because of premises. I'm aware that a lot of schools are used as well, so I think that that might give you another issue that you may have, because some schools close. How long would you need to give the education authority? Have you the ability to say, sorry, you have to close, or is it the education authority that's willing to do so? The return officer can use the premises that's owned by the local authority, so it would be the return officer's ability to close it again, if you like, but they do, in most cases, work very closely with education to minimise disruption for obvious reasons. If you don't mind, convener, the postal votes, if the local authority, local government elections could be postponed for two weeks, that has a huge impact if your postal votes have already gone out. Would you envisage that the postal votes, they would all be null and void and they'd have to be reissued, or would you see them, the ones that come back would just be used for the postponed election two weeks later? I think that there's problems either way that we go. I think that one of the comments about the two weeks for local government is probably too short a period to postpone for reasons just like that. It then becomes into the detail of what the postponement actually means. If we were talking earlier about the registration side, what the actual, are you postponing or freezing it, or are you canceling and redoing it from scratch, in which case the postal box would all be scrapped, but you're right. That short period makes that very difficult because I think holding on to them and in other people having to be issued, you can see all sorts of integrity questions that may arise from that. Yes, thank you, convener. It was just to make that point on the two weeks that the committee will have noted that the submission from the EMV was strongly in favour of a maximum period of four weeks, and that is recognising, of course, that election should only be postponed for a minimum period, but there are practical issues, particularly with an electronic count, which requires a certain type of venue. Often not a school, it will be a sports centre, there may be other bookings, there may be other... I think that two weeks is simply too short, frankly too short, a period to make all of these arrangements, complex arrangements with contractors. Electronic counting is our contract, but it's not, it's delivered by other people and I think that two weeks is simply not practicable. Short question, Stephen? No, it's been answered. That was the question that I was going to ask about the e-counting, and in the submission I think you say, even six weeks is too short, a period to reset the e-count, is that right, Malcolm? Well, no, in our submission we've said that two weeks may well be insufficient, those are diplomatic words, I think I would say they would be insufficient, and we're saying a maximum of four, a maximum of six would be very helpful indeed, I must say, but I was working on the basis that the election should be postponed for the minimum period possible, and I think four weeks is the minimum period possible, but six weeks would of course allow us a little leeway. And what are the reasons, other than cost, from your perspective obviously, that, for example, we wouldn't be able to buy elections in the Scottish Parliament six months before a general election? Are there practical reasons for that, or is it simply a matter of cost? Yes, I think that as a policy decision it's simply a matter of cost, is the cost relative to the benefit given there will be a fixed term election in a fairly short period. Right. My last question in relation to this again, I know a lot derives from policy, but your input would be helpful. Clearly, if there's a postponement being considered, there should be consultation. Are there any organisations that you feel you would like to see on that consultation list before the decision is made? I think that it's right for a Scottish Parliament that the presiding officer under the bill will consult the commission myself and the returning officer as appropriate for local government elections. I would consult the commission and Scottish ministers. I think that one can always extend consultation, but given that we're talking about, hopefully, very short periods of postponement under a statutory framework, that's sufficient. Would it help if there was an explanation of the sort of grounds that would lead for a postponement if there was a clarification of the test that the presiding officer had to apply? Would that be helpful from your point of view? I think that it's reasonable for all parties concerned. It's a basic principle of law that if you're exercising a power and taking a decision, you should give reasons for that decision. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to request that these reasons be given and recorded. I would like to talk about the electoral pilots aspect of it and your submissions. You all seem fairly supportive of it. I was wondering whether there were any areas already under discussion for future pilots or is that simply an enabling function for future pilots? It's a little of both. I think that we all recognise the practical delivery of elections. Changes over time, electronic counting of course, was the big one for local government. That reflects positive changes, i.e. the capacity of technology to assist. It's also negative. It may in time be negative things like supply and other factors, security, perhaps. I think that it's always good to try things out. I really think that that's a very valuable thing to do, where it's explained fully in advance what we're doing. There's a practical point about increased accessibility. We are always trying to increase accessibility of the whole electoral process. We would like to try different means of making the ballot paper available. For example, you can phone a number, have it read out. I think that's a very good, I think that's a very good. That's been trialled in the north of Ireland recently. You need the ability to suspend those elements of the rules. That's what this provision would seek to do. The board has asked that the board be added to the list of those able to initiate pilots. We're very keen to do that, practically and in principle. Thank you very much for that. The other aspect of the electoral pilots is that the consultation and reporting requirements on the electoral pilots are satisfactory? Yes, I do. That was an easy answer. I'll take up no more of your time, gentlemen. Can I just pose a problem about the pilots and if the board are added as an initiator, it might be challenging for regions to say no to the board? I would hope not. The electoral community is a close one and a supportive one. We have a great respect for each other's views and the views of those whom we serve. I wouldn't anticipate any undue deference to the board in that regard. If there was a robust argument to be made, I think that it would be made and it would be listened to. That's very helpful. I would like to ask about section 29 of the proposed bill about the Democratic Engagement Fund. I'd be keen to hear your views on the engagement fund that's going to be enabling, but it doesn't actually commit funds at this time. I'd be interested in your views. Andy, you're catching my eye. I'm going to go at you first. Yes, I think that we're all keen to see what we can do to increase engagement in both getting registered and turning out, which is people's free choice, of course. However, it's an extremely difficult thing to judge and improve because there are a huge number of factors that affect why people don't register ranging from just not interested and don't want to to maybe an accessibility issue. It may be unawar or I think we've also moved to this sort of event driven style in the modern world where people will leave it to the last minute. Or something to drive their way forward. I may be speaking out of turn, but I do think that people tend to leave it to the last gasp. If we can get them to engage earlier, then that makes the whole business much easier and prevents any issues arising when it doesn't quite happen for one reason or another. The fact that there's no funds, it needs to have something against that, but it also needs to be very clear and very purposeful about what we're doing. A bit like pilots, you want them to have a clear objective and not just confuse the matter even more, and certainly make use of any funds that would be available in a most efficient way. I think that a democratic engagement power is a good one. I mean, I think that we all do our best and try to do our best with all areas of society, including the hard-to-reach groups, to encourage participation, to publicise what we do, to publicise how to vote, that's, of course, helped by the Electoral Commission and its work. There may be hard-to-reach groups that we're not aware of or who have needs that we're not meeting. Having that power is a useful one if such groups can be identified, but, of course, there has to be a right just to withdraw from the political process in our culture. And the independence referendum always reminds us that, where people are energized to vote and participate, the turnout can be very, very high indeed. I've had a lot of experience of a local government election in the Western Isles where the turnout was 89 per cent because there were particular issues and particularly strong candidates, so we can't forget that too, but I think that having that potential financial assistance for specific hard-to-reach groups, some of whom we may be unaware of, I think is helpful. Robert, I'm going to come to you, but I'm also going to say, I know as a former councillor that the local government, they are in Aberdeen, the council at Aberdeen City, their tenants, their housing officers, when they were doing the new tenants agreements, part of the PAC would be to encourage them to sign up, and that was through joint work with the Grampian Valuation Board and the ERO there. Robert, if I could come to you and ask for your views, is there anything else that you think that could increase voter registration and how best to take that forward? That's a big question. If I can take the first part to begin with in terms of the engagement strategies, I think that within the consultation, the Electoral Commission actually summed up pretty well in as much as I think said that we are looking at highly dependent and working with partner organisations. Within that, with the best will in the world, a member of my team or somebody like myself going out and talking to groups to try and get the engagement is not always most productive. Sometimes you need almost cheerleaders within the communities that are harder to reach, and many of those civil society organisations do experience funding issues, so if there was something direct that they could access, I certainly think that that would be a positive, although we need to almost know in advance what success would look like, so that we can measure what we are getting for the taxpayers' money out of that. Certainly I would welcome it. I think that the solution under registration, if that's not too much of a pejorative term, lies with the community, as much as it lies with the officials and other stakeholders. As Malcolm have just said, those of us who survived the referendum from the electoral community, it was a difficult, difficult time, but it was also empowering. It was good to see that what you were doing was valued and was engaging in a wider population, so no matter your feelings on the outcome of that, as an administrator, it was a horrendous difficult time, but at the end of it you came through and you think, well, I've taken part in something that was worthwhile, and that's what we want from all electoral events effectively, is to know that the community is valuing what you're doing and are using, what you're putting in place for them. In those terms, in terms of the potential for a fund, I absolutely welcome it. We do a lot of partnership working within the arrow community with the electoral commission and our local councils and some local groups within each of our areas, and that's one of the strengths of having local electoral registration officers as well. However, we need to face the fact that a lot of the community groups whilst electoral registration is important to them, there are other aspects of people's lives that they're helping them with as well, but funding would help to raise that profile. Do you think that schools have got a part to play in this as well, encouraging our younger generation to have their say and get their names on the electoral rule? Absolutely. We do, again, in conjunction with the electoral commission, look at things such as the welcome to your vote week, which runs annually. I think that getting registration at the forefront of young people sets it for life. We want to, if you like, normalise being registered within the communities and make that part of just everyday life that you know that you're registered is an important thing to you. By doing that at that early stage, you hope that you grab hold of them, if you like, for the remainder of their life as they move through the different stages. However, yes, absolutely, schools and young people and young persons organisations are vitally important. Do you think that the welcome to your vote week is good? I would also just step back and say that it's sometimes difficult to resource all of the demands at various times, and we probably need to improve it training the trainer, if you like, rather than necessarily us being the people that are going out and doing these things. Again, I understand that there is a policy to this next question that I'm going to ask, but I want to talk about the practicalities. Would automatic registration cause any problems from the administration point of view of it? I know that it would be a different landscape, but is there anything that concerns you about it, rather than the policy of decision about whether there should or shouldn't be automatic registration? From an electoral registration perspective, at this point in time, I've got two paymasters. Part of registration is devolved and part is reserved. Each Parliament—or Government, whichever your point of view is—is absolutely entitled to making the decisions that I think are right for them within each of those spheres, and I wouldn't want to interfere in that in any way at all. However, it's myself, my teams, who interact with the electors. If there was divergence in this matter, I think that it could have impacts on both registers. The Representation of People Act says that I have to have two different registers. I have to have one for the UK Parliament and one for Scottish elections and where possible they should be combined. I have divergence in the method and the criteria that is required to be able to be on either or both registers makes the administration harder and makes it harder for the elector to understand at the end of the day. The commonality between the two registers is certainly in excess of 90 per cent, but 95-96 per cent. We need to be careful with any changes that we either do via pilots or substantive changes. We must make sure that we don't harm the vast majority who are already registered and are already playing their part in the society. I'm not—I said that I wouldn't rule it out, but I think that there are real difficulties. I can go on. I will wee bit more on that if you want. That's fine. It was really from the administrative point of view that I was interested just so we could have that on the record. The other thing that I was just going to ask really is about one thing that seems to be emitted from the bill, which is the sort of emergency proxy vote, particularly for carers, particularly in circumstances. I don't know if I come to you first, Andy, from the practicality point and then to you, Malcolm. What are your views on that emergency proxy situation? Certainly from my experience running around on election day, that's the one thing that keeps coming up, and no one seems to know the answer to that. From the practical point of view of processing the forms, it doesn't matter—again, it's a policy thing about who would be entitled to and who is not. Administrator of the point of view of the system, as it exists at the moment, is fine, and could take other names added to it as to those who could apply without too much challenge? I think that that was a bit—I think that being able to take huge volumes does have an impact on it, because it is quite a resourceful exercise on the day, particularly on polling day, because you've obviously got to do that. You've got to get the information across to the returning officer and so on, so there is a volume element to that, but I appreciate the policy, then you need to deal with how you resource that. That's always election day, it happens, isn't it? Yeah, no, that—so you get one or two before, but not many. Malcolm, did you answer? I have very little to add to that other than there has to be a cut-off point during the day, otherwise it's impossible to administer. That's very helpful. If we have finished the questions from the committee, Andy Malcolm, Robert, can I thank you very much? As I said, the offer, once you've had an opportunity to consider if you'd like to write to us, and particularly with regard to the one matter that we raised, the committee look forward to receiving that, but can I thank you for your attendance this morning, your contribution both beforehand in the call for evidence and this morning. So can I say thank you very much, and I will now move this meeting into private.


Hello. Myself, Sunil Kalshetti, assistant professor, department of electronics engineering, Walchen institute of technology, Solapur. Today, I am going to discuss the LEADLAC compensator, learning outcome. At the end of this session, students can analyze LEADLAC compensator. A LEADLAC compensator is a type of electrical network that generates phase lag as well as phase lead in the output signal at different frequencies when a steady state sinusoidal input is applied to it. It is also known as a LEADLAC network. In case of LEADLAC compensator, the phase lead and phase lag occurs at a different frequency region. Generally, at low frequency, phase lag characteristics is noticed in the output of the circuit while at high frequency, we have phase lead characteristics. Thus, we can say a phase LEADLAC network is a cascade combination of phase LEADLAC network. A LEADLAC compensator improves the steady state performance of the system. But at the same time, such a network causes a reduction in the overall bandwidth. A LEADLAC compensator offers increased bandwidth, thus provides a faster response. But this increases the susceptibility of the system towards the noise. Now, what is the necessity of the LEADLAC compensator? Generally, compensation in a control system is majorly done for two main reasons. Like for an absolutely unstable system, compensation is done in order to stabilize the system, while sometimes the system is stable. Still, we do not achieve the desired performance, where the desired performance on the various system performance. More simply, we can say to have the accurate transient and steady state response, a combination of LEADLAC compensator is used. Control system is added with a compensator in order to improve the specification of the control system. However, each of the compensating network introduces some drawbacks along with the improving characteristics. This is the circuit diagram of LEADLAC compensator. A combination of LEADLAC compensator is nothing but LEADLAC compensator or network. Now, let us see derive the transfer function of LEADLAC compensator. Let us obtain the transfer function of LEADLAC network. Now, the sum of current through the R1 and C1 is nothing but I of t. Therefore, EI minus E0 divided by R1 plus C1 into d by dt EI minus E0 is equal to I of t. Now, take the Laplace transform. So, the equation becomes 1 upon R1 into EI of s minus 1 upon R1 into E0 of s plus SC1 into EI of s minus SC1 E0 of s is equal to I of s equation 1. Now, the output equation I of t into R2 plus 1 upon C2 integration of I of t dt is equal to E0 of t. Now, again take the Laplace transform of this equation. So, the equation 2 becomes I of s into bracket R2 plus 1 upon SC2 is equal to E0 of s. Now, substitute the I of s from 1 in equation 2. So, we will get EI of s into 1 plus s R1 C1 into 1 plus s R2 C2 divided by s R1 C2 is equal to E0 of s into bracket 1 plus 1 plus s R1 C1 into bracket 1 plus s R2 C2 divided by s R1 C2.  Now, simplify the equation therefore, so E0 of s upon EI of s is equal to s plus 1 upon t1 into s plus 1 upon t2 divided by s plus beta upon t1 into s plus 1 upon beta t2 equation number 3 where t1 is equal to R1 C1 t2 is equal to R2 C2 beta upon t1 plus 1 upon beta t2 is equal to 1 upon R1 C1 plus 1 upon R2 C2 plus 1 upon R2 C1 and alpha beta t1 t2 is equal to R1 R2 C1 C2 and alpha beta is equal to 1. Therefore, the transfer function becomes E0 of s upon EI of s is equal to 1 plus t1 s into bracket 1 plus t2 s divided by 1 plus t1 upon beta into s into bracket 1 plus t2 beta s where beta is greater than 1. Now, pole 0 plot here 2 0s and 2 poles are available. So, the location of 0 s is equal to minus 1 upon t1 and s is equal to minus 1 upon t2 and the location of pole s is equal to minus beta upon t1 and s is equal to minus 1 upon t2 beta this is the pole 0 plot. Now, pole R plot of lead lag compensator already we know the transfer function of the lead lag compensator. So, E0 of s upon EI of s is equal to 1 plus t1 s into 1 plus t2 s divided by 1 plus t1 upon beta into s into 1 plus t2 beta s now substitute s is equal to j omega. Therefore, the transfer function in the frequency domain as follow 1 plus t1 j omega into 1 plus t2 j omega divided by 1 plus t1 upon beta into j omega into 1 plus j t2 beta omega. Now, determine the magnitude of transfer function. So, m is equal to under root 1 plus omega square t1 square into under root 1 plus omega square t2 square divided by under root 1 plus t1 square omega square divided by beta square into under root 1 plus beta square t2 square omega square. Now, the phase angle is given by phi is equal to tan inverse omega t1 plus tan inverse omega t2 minus tan inverse t1 omega upon beta minus tan inverse beta t2 omega. Now, for omega is equal to 0 m is equal to 1 phi is equal to 0 while omega is equal to infinity m is equal to 1 phi is equal to 0 this is the polar plot of lead lag compensator. Let us see effect of lead lag compensator. It is used when first response and good static accuracy is required. It increases low frequency gain which improves the steady state. The lead characteristics of the cascaded compensator provide improvement in the overall bandwidth. It increases the bandwidth of the system making system response very fast. Also, due to the use of the lag network, the steady state performance of the system gets improved. So, we can say a lead lag network provides quick response with good accuracy. Hence, we use the combination of lead lag compensator to provide required compensation to the control system. Now, give the answer of this question. The compensator required to improve both transient and the steady state response of the system is lead lag, lead lag none of these. The correct answer is lead lag compensator advantages. Due to the presence of lead lag network, the speed of the system increases because of it shifts the gain crossover frequency to higher value. Due to the presence of lead lag network, the accuracy is improved. How the speed of the system increases in lead lag network? Due to the lead lag network, the gain crossover frequency shifts to higher value. Effect of this, the speed of the system increases. These are the references. Thank you.