Chamber and committees

I welcome the inquiry. We had a private meeting to discuss that a few months ago and I think that it will be helpful for the committee to undertake that inquiry because there is a narrative about framework bills. There is no definition of what a framework bill is, although we have some sense of what one might look like. I welcome the committee dedicating some of its time to look into that in more detail and I will be happy to participate willingly and just as excitedly in that process of deliberation.

In relation to the current programme for government, bills are still being finalised, so it is difficult for me to answer that question in specific detail. As soon as we are able to, we will provide that detail to Parliament, notwithstanding the point that there is no definition of a framework bill. I am therefore unlikely to come forward at this stage and say, “This is a framework bill for you,” but we recognise that there is legislation where a fair bit of the detail has still to be worked out through secondary legislation.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with us determining the law through secondary legislation. It is a well-established part of our process of making law. The question is—and it is a legitimate question—about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to do so. We will always be happy and open to discussing that with Parliament, either on an in-principle basis, as your inquiry might lend itself to, or, when push comes to shove, when a specific bill is debated. It will be for Parliament to decide whether it considers that to be an appropriate approach.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for inviting me to be with you this morning. I am pleased to be able to join you for what is my first public appearance before the committee and to be able to discuss matters in your committee’s remit.

My predecessor joined you in March. Since then, there has been limited parliamentary time due to summer recess, but I am grateful to you, convener, and to colleagues on the committee for your work in considering a number of instruments since I took on the role as Minister for Parliamentary Business.

In addition to secondary legislation, I highlight that we have introduced the long-awaited Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill, which I know that you, in particular, convener, were keen to see progressed.

I welcome the steady progress that we continue to make with implementing Scottish Law Commission reports.

We continue to strive to introduce the best-quality legislation that we can, and we always seek to maintain high standards in drafting. I know that my officials and your committee clerks continue to work closely together, and I remain committed to listening carefully to the views of the committee and doing my best to resolve any issues that arise.

I look forward to engaging with you today, and I am happy to take any questions and to answer them to the best of my ability, with the assistance of Steven MacGregor, Nicola Wisdahl and Douglas Kerr.

I think that it will be across the range; some may come to this committee.

Without doing what was suggested before, I re-emphasise the point that my predecessor made. The issue is complicated, and there are complexities involved, but I am conscious that it needs to be resolved.

Official level engagement continues to take place to progress an amendment to correct the drafting errors that were identified in the Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Functions and Transfer of Property etc) Order 2019. We are continuing work to address those issues and we think that it should be complete by next year. I reckon that that is still a very long time, but I again make the point that I expect us to complete that work as soon as possible.

It should be resolved by the order. The key thing is that when we come to the next budget, we do not revert to making the same error.

First, I am sure that we would all be delighted to know Mr Johnson’s undisclosed location, but it is up to him whether he discloses that information to us.

With regard to the new leases (automatic continuation etc) (Scotland) bill that we have committed to introduce, I do not have a specific date for the committee just now—as ever, that is contingent on the progression of the rest of our legislative programme. I can say that I hope that it will be a nice festive gift for the committee, but I make no promises as to whether that will come to pass. I expect that the bill should come to the committee under the agreement that was made when standing orders were changed to enable the committee to consider Scottish Law Commission bills.

On the question of why that particular bill is being brought forward, it is partly—to be candid—on the basis that the bill is more ready than others are. That being the case, why wait? Let us introduce it and get it done. In addition, we have identified that the aims of the bill are in line with the Government’s wider ambitions, hopes and aspirations for the economy, so it neatly ties in with that. As with all such matters, there is a backlog that we need to work through, and if some bills are more ready to go than others, we will bring those forward.

I will be as brief as I can. I start by thanking the convener and committee colleagues for inviting me to give further evidence to the committee on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. As this is my first appearance before the committee, convener, I take the opportunity to thank you for the work that was undertaken to scrutinise the bill at stage 1 and I look forward to working with the committee as we move into stage 2.

Over the summer, we have been working on a number of changes to the bill that are planned for stage 2, including my meeting a number of other members of the Parliament who have expressed an interest in lodging amendments. I hope that my letter to the committee last week on our considerations was helpful in that regard, although I am aware there was a slight typo. For absolute clarity, on the first page of the letter, the adjustment to the period of postponement for local government elections is for a maximum of four weeks and not a minimum of four weeks, as it said. I understand that my officials have been in touch with the committee clerks to clarify the matter.

As my letter explained, we have been preparing amendments in response to the points that have been raised in evidence and in the committee’s stage 1 report. I repeat my thanks not just to the committee, but to all those who have provided evidence to the committee in its considerations.

The amendments that are being prepared include provisions on emergency rescheduling of elections. That requires decision makers to publish a statement of reasons when they take a decision on rescheduling. The provisions will also adjust the maximum postponement period for local government elections from two weeks to four weeks.

Amendments on electoral innovation pilots are also being prepared to add the Electoral Commission as a statutory consultee and to ensure that pilots can encompass electoral registration changes.

The annexes to the letter set out proposed changes to the constitution of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and proposals to disqualify those who are subject to sex offender notification requirements from elected office. We are in continual discussions on its constitution with the Electoral Management Board and others and I am keen to ensure that there is as much consensus on that matter as possible. There is a question about the extent to which there should be formal provision for Scottish ministers and/or the Scottish Parliament to request, while respecting its operational independence, that the board undertake certain activities. It might be an option for the Scottish Parliament to set out its priorities for elections in a statement.

We continue to give active consideration to the subject of disqualification of elected members, including whether or not there should be any difference in approach between that for councillors and that for MSPs. Although it seems to be instinctive that we would apply the same rules across the board, which is the position that I lean toward, there are some important differences to consider. In particular, we do not have a process for councillors who have been accused of certain conduct to be suspended. We do not, as yet, have any recall mechanism for MSPs but, as a Parliament, we have by resolution agreed in principle that there should be one. We may well have the opportunity to consider that further if Graham Simpson takes forward his members’ bill.?

Although I have set out some of the Government’s thinking on changes to be made to the bill, I still consider it to be very much Parliament’s bill. As such, I am keen to continue to hear views from across the Scottish Parliament, including from the committee, as to how we might refine and improve the bill so that we can put in place the best possible legislation.

I look forward to discussing those matters with the committee. I and my officials—Iain Hockenhull, Chris Nicholson and Lorraine Walkinshaw—will be happy to answer any questions that the committee has for us.

A balance has to be struck. By and large, yes, of course, on an operational basis, the Electoral Management Board must be able to operate independently of political direction and interference. That is a given; we would all agree with that. I have made the point about the activity that the Electoral Commission might undertake, funded by the Scottish Government. We cannot compel the Electoral Commission to undertake work, so that would be done through a process of dialogue and agreement.

Of course, Parliament is a pluralistic entity, and if any individual member of the Scottish Parliament has concerns, they will raise them. In the same way, if organisations out there have concerns, I am sure that they will raise their voices, too. By and large, we have a transparent, open and democratic system that enables people to raise their concerns and allows us to deliberate on them.

No, but I will be happy to write to the committee on that.

I can understand that, on the face of it, it might seem to be concerning that we are no longer prescribing that the tactile device that has been deployed should still be deployed. I am using those words because what has been prescribed is the utilisation of one type of device and, frankly, it has probably been overtaken by new developments that might be a little better. If one takes the issue at face value, one might well ask, “Why are you removing what has already been prescribed, given that it is there to assist people?”, but we want to ensure that there is a wide range of more appropriate support, and I am happy to talk through what is being done just now.

For example, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland’s accessibility sub-group, which includes representatives of councils, the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Government, is looking at a range of issues. One involves enhancing the existing polling place finder app, which is provided by a charity called Democracy Club. The app is available for anyone to use to find where their polling place is, but we think that it is particularly helpful for those with sight loss, and we are looking to see whether we can enhance the app, with trials of that expected to start shortly.

A tactile ballot paper overlay is also being developed—that is probably the most relevant development in relation to the existing tactile voting device. In a nutshell, the difference is that the overlay that is being designed works with specific ballot papers. It is designed around the size of the actual ballot papers that people will use, whereas the current tactile voting device is not quite the same. It has to be affixed by a person in the polling station and it does not necessarily match the exact size of each ballot paper. You can see why that change might lend itself to being an improvement.

Work is also being done to look at greater audio support through automated telephone lines. Those were piloted successfully during the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2022 and were rolled out for local elections in Northern Ireland last year. A voter can phone a helpline to get information on how to cast a vote and details on who is standing. Anecdotal evidence shows that that service was not taken up in huge numbers but that those who used it found it very helpful. That was not an expensive innovation—the cost of setting it up was about £10,000. The Electoral Management Board sub-group is in the process of setting up a similar trial in Scotland.

We are also looking at digital polling cards, which we think could be helpful and could benefit certain groups of people by enabling them to get their polling card in a digital format.

I hope that that gives reassurance that we are not seeking to reduce the quality of support that is available to people and that, actually, we are looking to enhance it.