Chamber and committees

I think that I responded to that. There has been a result, which is that there are acts of the Parliament, and the consultation that took place in advance of the bills being laid before the Parliament informed the legislation. I thank those who took part in the consultation processes, as their efforts informed our consideration.

On one of the three acts that we are discussing today, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, a substantial amount has already been enacted and put into effect. The consultation was an important part of the process. I make the point again that that work has not been wasted. It has informed the legislation and our on-going engagement with the stakeholders will continue to inform how we take forward the work as we seek to implement the act.

To respond to that point, I am not directly involved in the sense of having policy responsibility in that area. However, as I have been invited to the committee, I will pay particular attention to the implementation of the act.

What do you mean, “It just so happens”?

The Scottish Government is not responsible for taking forward prosecutions. That would ultimately be a question for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; it is not one that the Scottish Government can answer. The Scottish Government does not take forward prosecutions.

That remains the case. Covid-19 has had a substantial impact on the progression of a range of governmental activity, because people were required, as I think everyone would understand, to divert their attention to the immediate response to the pandemic. In that regard, there is a degree to which the Government has to play catch-up. There are capacity issues within the team delivering the implementation of the act. Nonetheless, work continues in that regard.

Clearly, we want to avoid any delay. The task at hand is to ensure that we take forward the provisions of the act. Resources have been mapped out for the implementation of the act and we hope to be able to fully implement it by spring 2026, but that will obviously require a lot of activity between now and then.

I do not know whether Nel has anything to add in that regard.

The—

First, we are talking about three specific pieces of legislation on which people have communicated with the committee. They are understandably concerned, and it is incumbent on us to respond to those concerns. However, I do not think that there is a general issue or trend across the piece of non-implementation of legislation. If you look across the statute book, you will see that, in most areas where Parliament has decided to pass an act, we get on with the legislation and implement it, but sometimes we find that there are challenges.

We are talking about three acts. I have already made the point that a substantial amount of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 has been put into effect. Going back to the point that I have just made, we have gone through that process. We have made sure that a substantial number of the provisions are in place. I have referred to—Simon Stockwell picked up on this, too—our plans to implement more of the legislation through statutory instruments that we will introduce next year. Of course, we understand the concerns that have been expressed by stakeholders, and it is incumbent on us to respond to them in so far as they relate to the specifics of the act.

We also need to respond to the overall concerns, which we can do in other ways. With regard to the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Act 2020, an awful lot of work goes on through our equally safe strategy, which is backed by a significant amount of resource from the Scottish Government. In that respect, £19 million of annual funding has been provided to 100 organisations to support 119 projects. So, yes, we must respond to concerns about the implementation of those acts but, equally, we also have to get on with dealing with some of the fundamental challenges that those acts are designed to deal with, in advance of their implementation.

I recognise that there will be disappointment—I am disappointed, too, that the act is not yet fully in place. I would refer back to my earlier answers on the general challenges that we face; nonetheless, this is a very important area, and the very stark figures that Ms Gosal has provided speak to the absolute necessity for us to try to ensure that the provisions are in place as soon as possible.

There is on-going engagement with various justice partners on the challenges of the current legislation and the changes that might be required to make the act operational. Various pieces of work are under way on how we better obtain the views of children involved in cases; Ms Gosal has indicated some of the figures involved, in so far as they have been reported, but we need clarity on the estimated number of cases and, in turn, on how we would cost and implement the scheme and on the timescales required to process and implement domestic abuse protection notices and orders, which justice partners have suggested could be a challenge.

Those are the issues that we need to work through. That work is happening, or will happen, as quickly as possible, and we would then seek to put in place part 1 as quickly as possible thereafter.

I will hand over to Jeff Gibbons to see if he can say any more on the activity that is under way and the timescales that are involved.

Happily, I will not take too long with this group, either. I am happy with the amendments in the group, which should assist voter education and increase democratic engagement, and I urge members to support them.

I support Ross Greer’s amendment 70, as I recognise the challenges that often exist in ensuring registration of students. Ministers already have to take into account the impact of their decisions under the Equality Act 2010, but I am of the view that there is no disbenefit in supporting amendment 71.

I am pleased to have been able to discuss Bob Doris’s amendments 55, 56 and 75 to 77 with him previously. It is clearly a matter of great concern if anyone loses their vote in error, and, to Mr Doris’s credit, he has been pursuing the issue of spoilt ballot papers in local elections for some time. I am happy to support those amendments and very much hope that they help lead to a reduction in spoilt ballot paper rates.

It is, of course, important to recognise that it is not only the Electoral Commission that works on the issue. Returning officers, in particular, have a vital role to play in ensuring that appropriate descriptions of the voting process are available in polling places, and in relation to training staff to give voters the information that they need to complete the ballot paper so that their vote can be counted.

I have been pleased to work with Jeremy Balfour on amendment 54. The access to elected office fund is universally popular, and rightly so. As Mr Balfour has reminded us, it has been so effective that others are learning from our experience and are seeking to implement similar funds. As committee members will be aware, the fund pays for practical support to allow disabled people to fully participate in the political process, and I am pleased with the feedback that we have had from elected representatives who say that they would not have stood for election were it not for the support of the fund.

The Scottish Government set up the fund to be run at arm’s length by Inclusion Scotland, which has the knowledge and capacity to run it so that it is tailored to the needs of individuals. Jeremy Balfour’s amendment will place the fund on the secure footing that it deserves, and I am pleased to support it. I was also pleased to see that the Electoral Commission welcomed the change in its briefing paper on the bill last week.

As I said, I urge committee members to support all amendments in this group.

Amendments 46 and 47 respond to concerns raised by the Electoral Commission and Police Scotland on the wording of the bill’s provisions in relation to digital imprints on campaign material. Both organisations considered that there should not be a direct reference to the police having regard to commission guidance, to better reflect the police’s operational independence.

The wording in the bill on introduction was derived from provisions in the United Kingdom Elections Act 2022, but I am pleased to respond to the concerns expressed by removing the references in question, and I urge the committee to support the amendments. In practical terms, I reassure the committee that the commission will still produce guidance in this area, and it will be a question for the police as to how they interpret their duties.

I move amendment 46.