Chamber and committees

First, I pay my respects and send my heartfelt condolences to David’s family, who are in the gallery. I thank Bob Doris for bringing the debate to the chamber. He is my local MSP, and I will happily work with him on anything that we can do.

Improper use of off-road vehicles has negatively impacted communities across Scotland, most notably through incidents of antisocial behaviour and the risk that that poses to public safety. According to Citizens Advice Scotland, antisocial behaviour can broadly be defined as behaviour

“that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress”

to other people in a different household. That behaviour can range from vandalism to intimidation, harassment and excessive noise. All those examples of antisocial behaviour often stem from the misuse of off-road vehicles in areas such as dedicated footpaths and public roads, and in our lovely parks.

Unfortunately, that has been an on-going problem in Glasgow, as Bob Doris and I know only too well. Where I live, I can look out of the window every night and see quad bikes and unlicensed motorbikes jumping about with no lights on them, with riders wearing no helmets just zooming about the place. They have no regard for public safety or for the safety of any other vehicle users.

Last June, I wrote to Police Scotland. I submitted a freedom of information request about the number of incidents in Glasgow involving uninsured quad bikes and motorbikes. More specifically, I asked whether there had been a spike, how it might have pertained to youth violence and what Police Scotland was doing to address the problem.

While I was attempting to get that information, I was informed about the lack of vehicle insurance offences, which in any case are not sub-categorised by type of vehicle. Given how widespread the issue is, I was delighted to see Anne McLaughlin take her bill through the UK Parliament. It is a shame that Anne is not there now to carry that work forward.

Yes. Thank you, minister.

Good morning, minister. The bill includes a provision for inclusive communication. What are your thoughts on that? Also, the Scottish Government said that it would introduce a public sector duty on inclusive communication. Can you provide an update on that?

The bill includes a provision to involve disabled people in the commissioner’s work. What is your view on that provision? What would the benefits of that be and what might be some of the challenges that it might bring?

I am pleased to be speaking in today’s debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. It has been really interesting for me, as a relatively new member of the SPPA Committee, to understand where the bill is going. As we have heard, the bill contains numerous proposals that aim to alter aspects of our electoral system.

The suggested changes focus on voting, election schedules, campaigns and finance, administration and governance, and candidates. On the issue of candidates, part 2 of the bill is dedicated to disqualification criteria and increasing the diversity of candidates.

Concerning disqualification criteria, the policy memorandum suggests that consideration will be given at stage 2 to barring individuals who are sex offenders or have been convicted of sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from becoming either councillors or members of this Parliament. Notably, that would be comparable to legislation on the issue passed by other legislatures.

On the diversity of candidates, particular attention has been given to increasing the role of women and minority candidates. Those groups often experience larger degrees of abuse when standing for public office. That is particularly present on online platforms—namely, social media. To safeguard and improve diversity, the Scottish Government has been asked by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to undertake an evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed changes pertaining to individuals who are looking to campaign or run for office. In response, the Scottish Government reiterated its commitment to increasing the diversity of candidates for public office, and it agrees that conducting an evaluation on the impact of the changes before 2031 would help to realise that aim.

Aside from individuals, the bill looks to widen democratic participation by making it possible to offer financial support for activities deemed to be related to Holyrood elections or local government matters through a new democratic engagement fund and electoral pilots. Monetary assistance from the fund would be allocated to increase the engagement of campaigners, candidates and voters. Despite no money yet being allocated and more clarification being needed, the committee largely supported that proposal, alongside those for election pilots.

With regard to election pilots, the bill would seek to amend the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002. That proposal is intended to provide greater accessibility to voters. For example, it was noted that election pilots could play a central role when considering automatic voter registration in future. Like the engagement fund, that provision would, at least in principle, help to make the Scottish voting system more equal and reachable to all voters in Scotland.

The bill and its proposed changes to our electoral system are still very much in their infancy, and the bill is not, at least at this stage, an exhaustive one. However, the general spirit and aim of the bill is to make our electoral system—the very mechanism that we employ to exercise our democratic rights—more open and equal by refining the criteria for individuals who wish to represent the Scottish people here at Holyrood or in local government. The changes are aimed at making Scotland’s electoral system more accessible and more structured around the will of the Scottish people; I look forward to future debates and to collaborating with colleagues to achieve those ends.

I am pleased to be speaking in today’s debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. It has been really interesting for me, as a relatively new member of the SPPA Committee, to understand where the bill is going. As we have heard, the bill contains numerous proposals that aim to alter aspects of our electoral system.

The suggested changes focus on voting, election schedules, campaigns and finance, administration and governance, and candidates. On the issue of candidates, part 2 of the bill is dedicated to disqualification criteria and increasing the diversity of candidates.

Concerning disqualification criteria, the policy memorandum suggests that consideration will be given at stage 2 to barring individuals who are sex offenders or have been convicted of sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from becoming either councillors or members of this Parliament. Notably, that would be comparable to legislation on the issue passed by other legislatures.

On the diversity of candidates, particular attention has been given to increasing the role of women and minority candidates. Those groups often experience larger degrees of abuse when standing for public office. That is particularly present on online platforms—namely, social media. To safeguard and improve diversity, the Scottish Government has been asked by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to undertake an evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed changes pertaining to individuals who are looking to campaign or run for office. In response, the Scottish Government reiterated its commitment to increasing the diversity of candidates for public office, and it agrees that conducting an evaluation on the impact of the changes before 2031 would help to realise that aim.

Aside from individuals, the bill looks to widen democratic participation by making it possible to offer financial support for activities deemed to be related to Holyrood elections or local government matters through a new democratic engagement fund and electoral pilots. Monetary assistance from the fund would be allocated to increase the engagement of campaigners, candidates and voters. Despite no money yet being allocated and more clarification being needed, the committee largely supported that proposal, alongside those for election pilots.

With regard to election pilots, the bill would seek to amend the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002. That proposal is intended to provide greater accessibility to voters. For example, it was noted that election pilots could play a central role when considering automatic voter registration in future. Like the engagement fund, that provision would, at least in principle, help to make the Scottish voting system more equal and reachable to all voters in Scotland.

The bill and its proposed changes to our electoral system are still very much in their infancy, and the bill is not, at least at this stage, an exhaustive one. However, the general spirit and aim of the bill is to make our electoral system—the very mechanism that we employ to exercise our democratic rights—more open and equal by refining the criteria for individuals who wish to represent the Scottish people here at Holyrood or in local government. The changes are aimed at making Scotland’s electoral system more accessible and more structured around the will of the Scottish people; I look forward to future debates and to collaborating with colleagues to achieve those ends.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Glasgow’s Citizens Theatre about the future of its redevelopment project. (S6O-03623)

The redevelopment of Glasgow’s Citizens Theatre is expected to act as a regeneration boost to the Gorbals area, and I welcome Glasgow City Council’s announcement of its commitment to provide additional funding, but that will not be enough to enable the project to be completed. In addition, it has been reported that the council will not release its share of the funding until the other money has been secured. If the project collapses, its benefits will be lost to the local community. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with Glasgow City Council about its continued support for the project?

Thank you, convener. Apologies for not being able to get online earlier. I am still working on it.

I have a question about inclusive communication. What are your thoughts on the provision for inclusive communication? Do you think that it overlaps with the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments? I ask Tomas Gerrard to answer first.

Thank you. Richard, do you have anything to add?