Chamber and committees

I urge the committee to support my amendments in this group, which relates to the postponement of elections.

The bill’s provisions on the emergency rescheduling of elections are deliberately designed to restrict the postponement of an election by an office-holder, such as the convener of the Electoral Management Board. I think that such decisions should be made by Parliament, if that is at all possible.

The principal purpose of the nationwide postponement provision was to provide time to allow Parliament to pass a bill to set a new date for a local election. I am clear that it was never the intention to suggest that a nationwide local government election could be straightforwardly rearranged within two, or even four, weeks. Local government elections are complex and challenging to deliver, because of the e-counting system that is required to calculate results under the STV system. Rather than give the convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland the power to postpone an election by, say, six months, the bill provides for a limited postponement, during which Parliament can decide whether it wishes to pass emergency legislation.

Having heard the evidence at stage 1, I accept that the maximum period could be helpfully increased to four weeks—an aim that is achieved with amendments 25 and 29. I think that the approach is most likely to be of assistance at a local level, where an individual returning officer can decide to postpone the election in an authority area based on local circumstances. In individual areas, that could mean a postponement of up to eight weeks, as the EMB convener’s power to postpone could be followed by a local postponement by a returning officer.

The other amendments reflect the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report on ensuring a wider understanding of and confidence in decisions that are taken to reschedule or cancel an election.

The bill as introduced contains provisions to make arrangements to postpone elections and, in the case of certain by-elections, to cancel them. These amendments change part 4 of the bill to require that, when in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Presiding Officer, and, when in relation to local government, the convener of the Electoral Management Board or relevant returning officer, exercise their power to postpone or cancel an election, they must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for doing so.

As I said in my letter of 16 May to the committee, the bill’s provisions on emergency rescheduling seek to cover situations where postponement is considered essential, but they are deliberately not prescriptive. It is right that those who are entrusted with making those important decisions are not unduly constrained in doing so and are able to draw on their experience and judgment to take account of as wide a range of emergency situations as possible, both local and national.

That said, I also agree with the committee’s assessment that such decisions that impact on the democratic functioning of our country be easily understood and command as much confidence as possible among the public. Requiring the person who makes the decision to postpone or cancel an election to publish a statement setting out the reasons for the decision will help in both regards, and will add an important extra layer of transparency and accountability to the process.

I invite the committee to support the amendments in this group.

I move amendment 22.

Members will recall that we were already looking at this matter. We received a positive response to the consultation that we held on making the proposed changes through secondary legislation.

The Electoral Commission has said in writing to the committee that it supports the amendments in the group. I am supportive of the policy intent behind the amendments. As Mr Greer alluded to, we would have sought to make the changes through secondary legislation, but the amendments enable us to do so now. I am happy to support the amendments in the group.

Members will recall that we have written to the committee about plans for other changes through future secondary legislation. I commit to continuing to keep the committee up to speed with those changes, but of course that is for down the line. Today, I urge the committee to support Mr Greer’s amendments.

Will the member give way on that point?

I will take Mr Greer’s intervention, but I think that I am about to go on to address his point.

Yes, I suspect that that was a slip of the tongue.

We would all recognise and appreciate that point, as it would be an understandable human instinct. However, I wonder whether Ms Wells has reflected on the fact that we have had to very carefully consider the balance between the concerns that people reasonably have—indeed, they are why we have brought forward the provisions—and ensuring that we are on the right side of the requirements that have been laid out by the Vienna commission. I am genuinely concerned about that.

To put it in context, we had to give very close and careful consideration to the provisions, as we would with anything that we propose in law. At one stage, we considered whether we could even go as far with regard to parliamentarians, because of the requirements of the Vienna commission. I think that we have landed with the appropriate balance. Of course, the Government would have to robustly defend any bill, subsequent to it being passed and becoming an act of Parliament, so I want to ensure that we have legislation that is as robust as it can be.

Although I take Ms Wells’s concerns on board, which is the reason that those provisions have been lodged, I wonder whether she has reflected on whether the position that she has asked the committee to take strikes the right balance, and whether it might be a step too far.

The point that I was trying to make is that it is a strength of our process of deliberation that there is a stage 1 process in which the issues are considered in detail by the committee. It is clearly for the committee to consider what it wants to determine at that stage, but if the issue had been aired at that stage and if recommendations on it had been made, as I have demonstrated across the range of amendments that I am moving today, we would have listened to what the committee said and weighed the balance of the evidence that it had gathered, and we would have responded with appropriate amendments.

Indeed.

I think that I have said my piece.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24—Rescheduling of by-elections

Amendment 24 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25—Power of convener of Electoral Management Board to postpone ordinary local election

Amendments 25 to 28 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26—Power of returning officers to postpone election for their area

Amendments 29 to 31 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Section 27—Power of returning officer to postpone or cancel by-election

Amendments 32 to 34 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

After section 27

Again, I will not irk you, convener.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Choice of new First Minister after changed election date