Chamber and committees

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.

I have nothing else to add, convener.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 42 to 44 agreed to.

Section 45—Boundaries Scotland: changing date of next review of local government wards and number of councillors

I am aware that there is a substantial number of amendments in this group, but they are fairly straightforward, so I should not take too long.

I ask the committee to support the amendments in the group, which provide for the Electoral Management Board for Scotland to be constituted as a body corporate, including the required adjustment to the funding model.

The EMB has been successful in supporting the smooth running of elections in Scotland as a statutory committee, and these amendments will mean that it is accountable directly to the Scottish Parliament. That will consolidate its independence and build on its strengths.

The amendments reflect the points that were made to the committee by the convener of the EMB at stage 1, as well as the committee’s recommendations. They also provide for two depute conveners, and the rules for membership and staffing are fully set out in a new schedule to the Local Electoral Administration (Scotland) Act 2011. Provision is also made for the EMB to submit to Parliament a five-year plan on its activities and for ministers to be able to ask the EMB to consider specific issues. That could, for example, include matters around spoilt ballot papers and the script that is used at polling stations. The new framework has been developed with the support of the convener of the EMB and parliamentary officials.

I acknowledge the remarks that were made by the convener of the EMB in a letter that was sent to the committee last week. The convener of the board questioned the policy of allowing electoral professionals from elsewhere in the UK to be members of the EMB. I want to make clear that the amendments in no way require returning officers or electoral registration officers from other parts of the UK to be, by necessity, appointed as members of the EMB. The amendment merely expands the possible pool of candidates. Paragraph 2(5) of the new schedule that is added by amendment 51 is designed to ensure that the membership as a whole still has Scottish experience. It states:

“When appointing members, the convener is to have regard to the desirability of the membership taken as a whole having a broad range of experience in relation to—

(a) different local authority areas (including different kinds of areas) throughout Scotland, and

(b) the different constituencies and regions provided for Scottish parliamentary elections”.

Although the pool is made bigger, the convener will still have to appoint a board that, taken together, has relevant Scottish experience.

I am grateful for the input of the EMB in pulling together these amendments, which will give rise to a new chapter for the EMB and ensure that it is even better equipped with regard to the running of elections in Scotland—elections in whose results the voter can have full confidence.

I move amendment 49.

Amendment 49 agreed to.

Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 47, as amended, agreed to.

After section 47

Amendments 52 and 53 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Sections 48 to 50 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Certainly, convener.

I am very pleased to have been able to discuss these amendments with Ross Greer. I am supportive of the principle behind them; I see the benefits in putting in place the proposed 18-month period before elections to give constituents, candidates, administrators and, indeed, political parties certainty about boundaries.

Ross Greer said that he will not be pressing any of his amendments, but I can tell him that we are more than willing to support amendment 72. However, the wording of amendments 73 and 74 would see the 18-month rule applied to the next set of scheduled local government elections in 2027, which would clearly not be practical in terms of Boundaries Scotland’s work after the current Scottish Parliament review is completed. I am clear that the proposed change in approach, although sensible, can apply only to the local government elections scheduled for 2032. Mr Greer has indicated that he will not be moving the amendments today, and I am happy to work with him to ensure that similar amendments can be lodged again at stage 3, on the basis that I have laid out, when I will be happy to support them.

Now that this area has been opened up, I should say that I believe that, if such a change is to happen for council elections, it would be sensible to apply it to future Scottish Parliament reviews, too. I suggest that we will end up revisiting this issue at stage 3.

We can support amendment 72—it is up to Mr Greer whether he presses it—but, although we support the principle behind his other amendments, I suggest that we return to them at stage 3.

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 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.

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