Chamber and committees

I make that mistake frequently. I apologise. There have been so many important commissions and conventions in Vienna throughout history.

I am conscious that this is a debate.

I suspect that this will be a shorter debate, convener, but I might be tempting fate.

The Government’s amendment 21 reflects the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report on the bill. The bill, as introduced, allows ministers to amend the categories of persons eligible to register with the Electoral Commission as third-party campaigners. The removal or varying of a category will require consultation with the commission, whereas the addition of a category will not.

Under amendment 21, which, as I have said, follows the committee’s stage 1 recommendation, ministers will be able to add a category of third-party campaigner only after a recommendation by the Electoral Commission. That reflects broad agreement that the Electoral Commission should be a key part of the decision-making process in this type of change to campaigning rules.

I agree that it is important to maintain confidence in the system and that it remains free of any perception of possible political influence. Requiring a recommendation from the Electoral Commission for any changes to be made to categories of third-party campaigners is a helpful safeguard in that respect, and provides for consistency of approach to all amendments to the categories of persons eligible to register as third-party campaigners. I therefore invite the committee to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment 21.

Actually, that was not the point that I was going to come to, but I take the member’s point. However, I come back to the issue that I was trying to touch on, which is that such a move starts to open up the notion that there is a requirement on returning officers and those involved in the process of accepting and processing nominations to take a step beyond the checks that they would otherwise carry out. I think that I am right in recalling that the evidence provided to the committee thus far suggests that the system that we have by and large operates effectively and that there has not been any substantial concern in that respect.

The point that I was going to make is that, strictly speaking, Mr Greer’s amendment does not, in and of itself, set out to create a full screening process, including in the limited circumstances that he has outlined, but I fear that it starts to move us in that direction. It is also not clear why we would pick out just this one aspect of eligibility for the Electoral Management Board to collate data on, and I am concerned that amendment 61 would send a signal that we were moving towards, if not a full vetting system of nominations, then a wider one, which would have huge logistical consequences. I note that the convener of the Electoral Management Board wrote to the committee yesterday to say that the amendment represented

“significant changes in both policy and practice”,

and that his estimation was that it should be “subject to further consultation”.

On that basis, I urge the committee not to support amendment 61, but I look forward to the debate that we will have on this group of amendments.

I move amendment 8.

None, other than to once again urge Mr Greer to consider withdrawing his amendment.

I am grateful to Ross Greer for having taken the time to discuss the amendments with me in advance of today's proceedings. I very much appreciate the points that he has made, which include that requiring candidate deposits could be viewed as a barrier to engagement in the democratic process; that there is a reasonable case to be made for requiring candidates to have demonstrated some support in the process of being nominated in the local area that they are seeking to be a candidate; and that by-elections can impact the proportionality of council representation. I understand the points that Mr Greer has made, and there is some merit in the case for his suggested changes.

However, in my estimation, removing deposits and doing away with local government by-elections represent fairly significant changes. I should say that I know Councillor Ken Andrew very well, and I will certainly be pressing him to not stand down in the Hillhead ward.

I am also taken with the point that Graham Simpson has made. There is a balance to be struck here, but, equally, although we ordinarily vote along party lines in a council election, we are also electing an individual.

Although there is merit in the suggestions, they require some further thought. They involve pretty big changes and they have not been subject to consultation during the bill process. I take the point that Mr Greer has made, that relevant work was done by the Electoral Commission, but that was some time ago. As far as I am aware, the issues were not raised at stage 1, and I note that the Electoral Management Board’s convener has raised some concerns about the changes in his letter to the committee.

I recognise that there is a case to be made for changing the arrangements and that the proposals ape elements of some systems in other jurisdictions, but I think that the difference in threshold for those parties that have had electoral success and those that have not, in terms of requiring them to collect signatures, would require some consideration.

I also note that there are some drafting issues that might require attention if the amendments were to be successful today, although, of course, we could deal with them at stage 3.

I think that the issues that have been aired are worthy of future consideration. They could and probably should be debated and discussed by the Parliament at some point in the future. However, incorporating them into the bill at stage 2 is probably not the best way to make such major changes to how we carry out our elections. On that basis, I urge the committee not to support the amendments.

I refer members to the letter that I have sent regarding the consultation that the Scottish Government has committed to on other areas, which we will turn to in the debates on other groups of amendments. If the issues that have been raised are of interest to the committee, I am more than willing to consider how we might be able to undertake a similar exercise in the area of election law.

I thank Mr Greer for lodging the amendments. It is worth airing the issues, but I ask him to consider not pressing them today. Should he choose to do so, I ask members to vote against them.

I will start with Mr Greer’s amendment 69, which, as he has laid out, ensures that any electoral innovation pilot that would change the methods used to cast votes must be approved by affirmative resolution of the Parliament.

From the discussion that I had with Mr Greer before today—and which, again, I was grateful for—and from what he has set out today, it is clear that his concerns relate specifically to electronic voting. I am concerned that his proposed wording might have an impact on some possible pilots in which changes to the method of voting might not reach his own threshold of concern with regard to this specific area.

Some pilots might, for example, be focused on accessibility improvements. I know that those who are not on the committee did not receive them, but I sent the committee samples of the new tactile voting devices that are being piloted. I could be wrong—the committee might take an alternative view—but I do not think that that example crosses the threshold to require an affirmative vote of Parliament.

I suggest that I discuss the matter further with him. I should say that, in doing so, I am not necessarily going to agree with him at stage 3. If his concern is as narrowly focused as it is, it might be better if he did not press amendment 69 today and instead brought back at stage 3 a more specific amendment on a specific area of concern relating to electronic voting. Indeed, I urge him to consider doing that today.

Amendments 35 to 43, which respond to the committee’s recommendation that the Electoral Commission should be added to the list of bodies that must be consulted on proposed election pilots, will mean that persons who propose an electoral pilot must consult the Electoral Commission before making such a proposal. They will also mean that the Scottish ministers will be obliged to consult the Electoral Commission as well as the Electoral Management Board before making any modifications to a pilot scheme that has been proposed by a local authority or a registration officer under section 5 of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002.

Mr Doris’s amendments 4 to 7, which will allow the Government to make regulations on pilots for the registration of electors, set out how such pilots may be proposed and evaluated, and made permanent if desirable. They relate to a recommendation that was made by the committee at stage 1. I am grateful to Mr Doris for lodging them, and I was pleased to work with him in advance of stage 2 to help to develop them.

Amendments 4 and 5 will allow the Scottish ministers to make regulations for temporary pilots on voter registration. Any pilots that are proposed to ministers must be the subject of consultation with the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Commission before they can be approved, to ensure that the expertise of the electoral community, for want of a better term, has been taken into account. Those bodies will be involved in implementing the roll-out of any successful pilots.

Amendments 6 and 7 will ensure that the pilots will be fully evaluated by the Electoral Commission. Ministers will be able to seek to make a change permanent through an affirmative instrument, but only if the Electoral Commission has independently made such a recommendation in its evaluation report.

Information sharing is likely to be a key aspect of any pilot on voter registration, such as a pilot on automatic voter registration, and Mr Doris’s amendments include provisions to facilitate that. Specifically, amendment 4 includes provision about the processing of information in relation to registration.

The Government supports amendments 6 and 7. We are committed to ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to register. Complete and accurate electoral registers are an important part of that. We know that certain groups, such as young people, people in private rented accommodation and foreign nationals, are far less likely to be registered. Piloting innovative forms of voter registration, such as those that make better use of public data, is one way in which we can seek to improve the electoral registers.

Mr Doris’s amendments set out a robust procedure to ensure that such innovations will be proposed in consultation with those who have responsibility for administering elections, piloted on a temporary basis and fully evaluated before being put to Parliament for a decision on whether to make the reforms apply generally and on a permanent basis.

I urge members to support all the amendments in the group, save for amendment 69, which I ask Mr Greer not to press.

The amendments in this group are either technical adjustments or seek to make changes that tidy up drafting and correct minor typos in the bill as introduced. They make no policy changes.

Amendment 23 adjusts section 23 of the bill for technical reasons. That section currently seeks to amend section 46 of the Scotland Act 1998 by adding two new subsections to take account of any delay in Parliament meeting after a rescheduled election. However, because the Scottish Parliament can modify only certain listed provisions in the 1998 act, that structure would mean that there could, arguably, be doubt about whether our Parliament would be able to amend the section further in the future. The amendment restructures the proposed amendments to leave no doubt that the text can be changed in the future by this Parliament, if that is desired.

Amendments 26, 27 and 30 add the secretary of state to the list of consultees when the convener of the Electoral Management Board or a returning officer is considering rescheduling a local government election. That is to ensure that any rescheduled local election does not fall on the same day as a UK parliamentary election. Although such a situation is considered to be unlikely to arise, were it to happen it would result in a combined election, which would add considerable complexity for administrators and risk voter confusion.

I turn to amendment 44. Existing secondary legislation powers for Scottish Parliament elections allow ministers to make provision for sub-delegating certain responsibilities to other persons. The specific sub-delegation that we have been considering is to place a requirement on the Electoral Commission to provide guidance on ways in which returning officers can assist voters with accessibility needs. The Government plans to legislate on such guidance in 2025 for Scottish Parliament elections, and before 2027 for local elections.

We have established that, as the legislation stands, Scottish ministers have the necessary legislative powers to require the Electoral Commission to provide guidance for Scottish Parliament elections, but do not have the power to do so for council elections. Amendment 44 therefore seeks to change those powers in relation to local government elections so that they match the existing powers on sub-delegation in relation to parliamentary elections. It will allow secondary legislation and council elections to refer to documents such as guidance or forms that are prepared by the Electoral Commission and others, and will provide that those documents form part of the rules in relation to local elections.

Amendment 45 simply corrects a typo. Similarly, amendment 48 corrects an inconsistency in language where the word “code” appears when it should say “plan”.

I invite the committee to support the straightforward amendments in this group in my name.

I move amendment 23.

I am happy to deal with it at the end, if you would like.

I have underlined at the top of my notes that it is Venice and not Vienna, convener—that is a mistake that I make frequently.

I will start with Ms Webber’s point, lest I forget. She is right, in that amendment 20 creates transitional provision. She cited the convention, and that is the very purpose of the provision. We need to strike a balance, by creating a set of provisions that I believe will fundamentally improve public safety and trust in our democratic system, but in a way that is proportionate and meets the requirements of the Venice commission—I nearly said “Vienna” again—around the disqualification of parliamentarians. The fundamental point is that there should be a high threshold for disbarring someone who is already in elected office. We need to approach that carefully.

I am happy to give way if Ms Webber seeks more information.