Chamber and committees

Indeed.

In as much as we have made the change, yes, I am satisfied. That is the first thing—we have made the change to enable this.

As for the point about the practical experience of people who engage with the process of casting their vote, we often have to rely on the feedback of those who administer elections in the first instance. However, what that leads us back to is that, if an issue is raised as an area of concern, we must engage with that wider cohort of people—in this instance, again, young people—to try to understand the problem, how we can resolve it and how we can do better. Inevitably—this will be true of any election—if you encounter any problems, you will have to rely on those who administer elections in the first instance to flag up what those problems might be.

Of course. Reflecting back on the legislation itself, we put in a specific requirement for the Electoral Commission to engage in an awareness-raising campaign on how people cast their vote in local government elections, because we know that there can often be confusion in that respect and that that manifests itself in some communities more than in others. Indeed, it was Bob Doris who flagged that up. That is another example of our being informed by someone who has raised an issue that they have identified in their community.

I take the point: when it comes to those who do not cast their vote, how can we understand better what the impediment has been? Sometimes, we can identify it readily; incidentally, that is one of the reasons for the Government not supporting the use of some form of identification for people to cast their votes. That was one of the very issues that we flagged. If there are other issues, we will have to do our best to try to understand what they might be, and that will happen only if there is constant engagement. Again, in the case of young people, that will mean relying on and engaging with organisations that represent and have the most direct contact with them; they will be able to facilitate a conversation with young people, some of whom might not have cast their vote, and who will tell us the reason why.

It is certainly the case that no recommendation has been communicated to me.

—that is a requirement or something that people can be compelled to do. We need to bear that in mind, too.

I can indeed, convener. It is fairly well established and understood, and it has been in place for a while. It is broadly consistent with the wider UK approach as well.

The broad criteria for disqualification are

“Offices for profit in the gift of the Crown or ministers”

—that would include

“salaried, pensionable and certain fee-paid posts”

but exclude

“posts attracting expenses alone.”

There is an exemption for

“offices where the remuneration is less than £10,000 per year”,

which are not normally disqualified.

There are

“Certain positions of control in companies in receipt of Government grants and funds, to which Ministers usually, though not necessarily, make appointments”

and

“offices imposing duties which with regard to time and place would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties”

—in effect, it is felt that they would have too much on their hands, as they already have a burden of responsibility that would not really allow them to be a member of the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, we are going through the consideration of dual mandates, and the issue fits in that territory. There are other offices whose holders are required to be—or certainly seem to be—politically impartial.

Those are the broad criteria that we apply. If there is a question as to whether they are comprehensive enough—or, indeed, whether they encompasses too many people—we are always willing to look at them again.

Broadly speaking, yes. To go back to the point that I made earlier, a very small number of bodies were inaccurately referred to, and those details did not emanate from within this Administration. However, that is not to pass the buck, as we should, of course, try to get those things right. I reflect that that is one of the virtues of parliamentary scrutiny—inevitably, the DPLRC might pick up on something and we can then act to ensure that the list is up to date.

I am more than willing to hear any suggestions about our processes. For example, one of the differences between our approach and that of Westminster is that Westminster has a more general, broader power, whereas we detail specific office-holders. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. I suggest that the advantage to the way in which we do it—compared to setting out the broader terms under which any office might be disqualified—is that it is very clear who is disqualified. The downside to our approach is that you might not capture everyone or might get caught out by the mere fact that office-holders or various organisations no longer exist. However, we are more than willing to consider any alterations that the Parliament cares to suggest.

I am happy to do so. I am pleased to be here to speak to the draft Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2025. The draft order gives effect to the recommendations that were submitted to me by Boundaries Scotland, and I have a legal duty to lay it before Parliament.

The draft order defines the name, status and area of 70 Scottish Parliament constituencies—three protected island constituencies were not part of the review—and the name and area of each of the eight Scottish Parliament regions. If they are subsequently approved by the Scottish Parliament, the new boundaries will be effective at the election that is scheduled for 7 May 2026 and for all subsequent parliamentary elections until the boundaries are next reviewed.

The first review of the Scottish Parliament’s constituencies and regions reported in 2010, and the resulting boundaries were used in the 2011, 2016 and 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. This is the first national review of the Scottish Parliament’s constituencies and regions that is to be considered by the Scottish Parliament itself since the powers were devolved.

As the committee heard in the evidence that was given by Boundaries Scotland, there has been significant change in the population across Scotland since the previous review, with some areas experiencing significant increases and the population in others remaining relatively unchanged or falling. I recognise and understand that there will be differing opinions on the final recommendations. However, I am pleased that a thorough process was undertaken, which involved several rounds of consultation and nine local inquiries. I am confident that Boundaries Scotland has discharged its duties competently, completely and professionally in line with the rules set out in the Scotland Act 2016.

I hope that my opening remarks are helpful. My officials, Kenny Pentland, Ailsa Kemp and Jordan McGrory, and I are very happy to answer any questions that members may have.

This has been a substantial process, which was initiated in September 2022, with the final report coming to me just at the end of April this year, and which has led to us discussing here the order that has been laid before Parliament, and, in undertaking any process of substance, it is always sensible to review it and consider any lessons that have been learned, some of which may take us into the realms of needing primary legislation.

This committee has already gathered a large amount of evidence and we have already initiated a process of review around the automaticity of approving boundaries. I do not want to get ahead of that process—you would not expect me to—which is completely independent of Government and Parliament. We will have to look at what is reported in due course, and I am sure that Parliament will take an interest. If any changes are suggested, that will probably take us into the realms of requiring primary legislation, and at that point it may also be sensible to consider what other changes we might want to make to our process.

I say that not as any form of criticism—you caveated your remarks as well, convener—as I think that Boundaries Scotland discharges its responsibilities very well in undertaking the process. However, of course, we should be willing to learn lessons, not least if Boundaries Scotland itself is flagging issues. Of course, we should be willing to listen to that.

Yes. My expectation, which I have discussed with Mr Kerr, is that the review should report in the autumn—in September or October—which should give us plenty of time to look at its report in the current session of Parliament. There will be no time to legislate, of course, on the back of any recommendations—let us be clear about that at the outset—so it will be for the Parliament, however it is composed, in the next session to consider the findings of that report.