Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, October 28, 2021

Official Report 561KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Representation of the People (Postal Voting for Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [Draft]

---

Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2021 [Draft]

---

Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates’ Local Government Election Expenses) (Scotland) Order 2021 (SSI 2021/310)

---

Representation of the People (Absent Voting at Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/317)

Item 2 is subordinate legislation. We will take evidence on two affirmative and two negative Scottish statutory instruments. I welcome George Adam, the Minister for Parliamentary Business, and his officials Iain Hockenhull and Craig McGuffie. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement, after which the committee will ask questions.

As always, it is a pleasure to be here. I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes to the procedures for running local government elections in Scotland.

The measures that are laid out in the instruments that are before the committee were carefully developed to assist with the delivery of next May’s local government elections. They will apply some of the changes that were made ahead of this year’s Scottish Parliament elections, and they reflect recent primary legislation by the Parliament on the franchise and wider electoral reform.

Although our focus has been on clarifying and strengthening existing approaches, we have also taken the opportunity to update electoral rules to strengthen our system and improve the experience for candidates and voters. For example, we are bringing in new exemptions on candidates’ spending in relation to costs for security, adaptations for disabilities and translation. That aligns with the approach that was taken for this year’s Scottish Parliament election, and it reflects the importance of accessibility, inclusion and safety.

Development of the instruments has benefited from close engagement with key stakeholders including the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Parliament political parties panel. Those partners and the wider electoral community continue to play a vital role in shaping policy and in ensuring that voters have the best experience on polling day. I thank them for their support and their reflections, and I look forward to working closely with them in the coming months on the preparations for May 2022.

I hope that the committee will agree that the provisions are positive changes that will benefit voters, candidates and administrators and that it will therefore give its support to the instruments. I am willing to take any questions, and I thank you for listening to me.

Thank you for that, minister. My intention is to work through each of the four SSIs in order. That will make the next agenda item more straightforward.

The first SSI is the Representation of the People (Postal Voting for Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a serving councillor on East Lothian Council. I am glad that you read out the title of the regulations, convener, as that has saved me from having to do it.

I want to talk about the changing of the deadline for requesting a replacement for a lost or spoilt postal vote ballot paper from 5 pm to 10 pm on polling days. Why was the deadline previously 5 pm, and what impact will the change have on electoral administrators?

I will answer your first question first, by saying that the 10 pm deadline was created first so that local government elections would be on a par with Scottish Parliament elections.

The reason that the deadline was initially 5 pm might have been lost in the annals of time, but Iain Hockenhull might be able to help me out on that.

“Lost in the annals of time” was pretty much what I was going to say. We could investigate that, if it would be of interest to the committee. Personally, I do not know the answer.

Was there any indication from previous elections that anyone was disenfranchised because the deadline was 5 pm rather than 10 pm?

I do not think so. Iain Hockenhull might be able to give you some more detail on that, but, on the whole, I do not think that there have been issues. There has always been flexibility for people, whatever time they have had to turn up. There will always be times when things will be difficult and a replacement will not be issued, and we have to make sure that we deal with that situation. We have tried to create flexibility so that no one is disenfranchised. Iain Hockenhull can give some more detail.

We do not have any particular data on people saying that they have been disadvantaged. The experience from the Scottish Parliament elections suggests that offering five extra hours would help in the odd case in which someone might be disadvantaged in that way. We have asked electoral administrators to monitor how it goes and to see whether there are any complaints. The Electoral Commission was very much in favour of the change.

It is fair to say that, in the previous election, events in East Lothian led to an emergency proxy being issued at about 9 o’clock, and I can see similar events occurring in council elections.

As no other committee members have any questions on the Representation of the People (Postal Voting for Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021, we will move to the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2021.

I will use the convener’s privilege and start the questioning, because a couple of matters concern me, the first of which is the equality impact assessment. I note from the information that was provided that there was an assurance that the assessment would be published before the instrument was laid before the chamber. It has, indeed, been published alongside the instrument. I do not know whether the minister has had sight of the equality impact assessment, but some questions were raised when it was being compiled. The assessment says:

“Follow-up after the elections on how this expenditure exclusion is used may be helpful in understanding the impact of the policy.”

In addition, it refers to a lack of data to feed into decision making.

First, will the minister give an assurance that there will be a follow-up? Secondly, on a slightly higher level, do you have any concerns about the equality impact assessment, given the lack of data about the people to whom it applies?

I will bring in Iain Hockenhull to answer those questions in more detail.

The intention is certainly to monitor progress, and that will inform any future elections orders. The data to which the convener referred does not really relate to this order; it is more about future development. We consulted a number of groups and stakeholders, and we wrote to a number of community groups. I think that we got a response only from Age Scotland. Overall, no particular concerns were raised.

In relation to excluding certain items from the expenditure, the equality impact assessment specifically says:

“Follow-up after the elections on how this expenditure exclusion is used may be helpful in understanding the impact of the policy.”

I understand that the changes will obviously apply to future elections, because you do not have the data on this one. There has been a very strong request, and it seems to me that, unless there is confirmation that there will be that follow-up, the impact of the policy will be unknown.

Various types of spending, such as that on making events accessible to people with disabilities and making publications, will not count towards a candidate’s spending limit. The idea is to see how that goes, what sort of activities are covered and what people put in their spending returns, in which they say what they have done. We want to see what the pattern is and whether we can draw any conclusions from that, such as whether additions or subtractions should be made.

Those who drafted the equality impact assessment certainly seemed to face a challenge in saying what the impact would be, given the lack of data. I think that there is agreement on that. I will push further: will the follow-up take place on the basis of the expenditure returns that come after the council elections in May next year?

Yes. I think that the Electoral Commission looks at such matters and at returns. Returning officers also monitor those.

I am sorry, but I am talking about the impact of the policy on the excluded expenditure returns, because that falls under the Government’s responsibility.

We will work with the Electoral Commission’s findings, because it normally does the questioning in the first instance. We will look at the information that it provides.

Right.

I can summarise this. We will take the data that we receive from the next election and use it to take things forward in the future. We are trying to do something. I can give a personal example of the expenditure for a disabled candidate. My sister Jennifer is a councillor in Renfrewshire and Paisley. As a disabled candidate, she had extra support needs, and Inclusion Scotland helped with those for various candidates.

It will be interesting for us to receive that data and see what we can do to make things more accessible so that everyone can engage and can be a candidate. We all accept that certain candidates will need more expenditure.

That is helpful. Discussions that I have had show that people with disabilities felt very much supported by the additional expenditure. I was homing in on a request that had been made for assurance that that will be looked at after March.

It would be helpful for us all to check that information so that we can tweak it and be sure. We do not claim to have all the answers all the time. We must ensure that we get things right in the future.

That assurance is very helpful.

I would like clarification of a few more points. Can you explain the thinking behind additional costs for security? I have asked a number of sitting and prospective councillors, but they did not really understand what was being referred to.

That is a reference to potential increases in security. In the current climate, there might be a need for security at a venue or at an event where a candidate is speaking and for that not to be counted as part of that candidate’s spending when they compile their returns.

We are living in a period following an absolute tragedy, and the security of individual elected members, and of the venues where they gather, is paramount. The SSI and that discussion about security predate recent events. It is my understanding that additional security is now needed because of that event. There is advice from Police Scotland and other bodies about that.

What was being considered at the time, given that the responsibility for funding security will rest with the individual and their political party and that the purpose of the SSI is merely that the cost will appear in the return but not be set against the totals that need to be expended? Was anything more specific being considered?

I do not think so. The gist of this is that spending that is not to a candidate’s advantage, such as spending that takes account of a person’s disability or that is for taking care of security concerns, does not help them to get elected. It therefore seems reasonable not to have it count towards those totals.

The purpose of the SSI is to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged in any way if they have an expense that another candidate would not have. It creates parity.

I understand your question about security. We live in difficult times. There had already been a number of tragedies before the SSI was created, and that would have been taken into account. We must ensure that all candidates, whether for councils, Westminster or Holyrood, feel safe and have the opportunity to be safe.

At the same time, elected officials must be accessible to the public. I heard a security briefing recently at which someone suggested to me, “Perhaps you should not advertise your surgeries and not tell people what time you will turn up.” I said, “Well, that’s not really helpful, because that’s what we do.” I think that we need to be very careful that we do not end up in that place.

09:30  

The wording in the SSI is broad. It talks about the additional costs that any disabled person would face. It is only when we look at the policy note that we see that there appear to be emphases and restrictions. I absolutely accept and whole-heartedly agree that this should be about removing the additional expenses that some individuals face in running for election, as compared with others.

The certainty of that answer brings me to my last question on this SSI, which is about the bodies that were consulted. I found the bodies that were reached out to a little limited—let me put it that way—given that various bodies in Scotland have substantial evidential experience that could have been contributed. I hear what you say about the responses that you received, but were positive steps taken to reach out and ask disability organisations and disabled elected representatives to feed into this?

I think that it was just the organisations that are listed. I take the point that we could go further. We can make a note of that for future exercises.

I am happy to take that point on board for future consultations. I am a great believer in such consultation. As you will be aware, my wife has multiple sclerosis, so accessibility to everything for disabled people is important to me. I will take the point on board and look at various other organisations that we can work with. On the positive side, with the ones that we have worked with, we have got good conclusions and also outcomes.

Can we do things better? That is always the case. Every day is a school day, and we will be able to do things better in the future. We will take your points on board, and, if there are any groups that you or members of the committee want to suggest, we will be quite happy to look at them.

I think that that would be helpful as part of the review process following the elections, if only to capture the experience of how it has worked the first time round.

Yes. This might make me sound like a political geek, but personally I always find that bit quite exciting, because it means that we can work out how we can make things better. When something goes wrong, I see it as an opportunity to try to make it better. That might sound a bit cheesy, but it is always the way.

Absolutely. My last question on this SSI—I know that I said that my previous question was my last—is about how the provision on deductions will be applied across Scotland. What are you going to do to monitor the position so that we do not have a situation in which certain expenses are allowed to be deducted in one submission while others do not benefit in the same way?

On the whole, it should be the same throughout Scotland. It is probably our job to ensure that returning officers in every area are aware of that and that everyone gets the same training. I know where you are coming from, convener. As someone who has been part of the electoral process, I know that things can differ from area to area depending on the staffing.

The difficulty that we have is that, if we look at the Scottish elections and think about some of the things that did not work out and the issues that we have been discussing today, we can see how different they were compared with others. I cannot guarantee what will happen with Covid between now and May next year, so I cannot say that those elections will not happen under the same pressures. However, it is down to us to ensure that all returning officers are aware that these are the key priorities and that they need to make sure that all their staff and everyone who works on the elections are aware that this is what we want to do.

That is helpful.

I am concerned about one area, which relates to the order placing an obligation on the returning officer to send an official poll card or notification to a detained prisoner, or a prisoner held on remand, at the place where they are being detained rather than the address at which they are registered to vote. Can you give us some background on why you felt that there was a need to make that change, bearing in mind that it affects such a small number of people?

I agree—a lot of the time, people say that we make things difficult for ourselves. It is a small group of individuals, but we are working to the principle that voting needs to be accessible to everyone. No matter how you look at it, it is difficult for us to make it easier for prisoners to vote, because there are all kinds of complex issues. Prisoners could be released early or they could be incarcerated for longer. All kinds of variables make the issue quite difficult and complex for us.

I will ask Iain Hockenhull to give you the detail, but I have given you the mood music. It is a complex situation and we are trying to make sure that it is as simple as possible, but it can be quite challenging.

The specific problem with poll cards was highlighted by electoral registration officers, who pointed out that, in effect, the prisoner would be relying on someone at their home address to pass on the poll card to them in prison. The change allows the poll card to go directly to the prisoner.

So you are making the change because of a suggestion that has come from somebody else, rather than a complaint that you have received or data. Bearing in mind the Conservatives’ position on prisoner voting, I would ask what is to prevent us from leaving the situation as it is now, because the change is an area of concern, and then reviewing it at some future stage.

Do you mean issuing poll cards to the home address?

Yes. I am suggesting leaving the situation as it is currently, whereby you send the poll card to the home address. Some people would prefer to have it sent to their home address, because they get everything sent there. You would be making an exception with this change. Have you sought people’s input?

The suggestion came mainly from electoral registration officers. It is not a change that we would expect to make a big difference either way.

It is a change and there is a concern. If there have been no complaints and nobody has found any difficulties, why make the tweak?

It was suggested that it would make things a little easier for most people in that the polling card would not have to be forwarded on.

So it is not that important to you. It is just a tweak.

Yes.

I am just saying that it is an area of concern. I recommend that we leave things as they are now rather than change anything. Will you consider doing that, minister?

We will maybe look at what you have discussed today, but with regard to the Scottish statutory instrument that we are considering now, we need to ensure that we can have the elections next year. I suggest that you bear with us at this stage. I have given an assurance that we will look at what you have suggested, but, at the end of the day, we have a process that some of our electoral registration officers have said is the way forward and would be better for the electorate.

If we can find other information and data, we will pursue that at a later date. However, in the here and now, to ensure that we move forward, we have to stick to what we have in front of us today.

That was a really interesting line of questioning, but there is a general policy agreement across the Parliament. I know that some members did not support prisoner voting, but there is a clear majority for it. The policy intent is to ensure that the maximum number of prisoners who are entitled to vote can exercise that democratic right as part of their journey. The issue is about citizenship rights and responsibilities, and there is a broad agreement in the Parliament that that is what we should do. I wonder, minister, whether, after the next elections, you would review what difference sending polling cards to prisons rather than home addresses makes.

The underlying issue is that very few prisoners register to vote in the first place and, I suspect, very few eventually cast their vote. I suspect that the change is about encouraging more people in custody to exercise their democratic right. We want to make sure that the measure has had a positive effect. I am minded to support the statutory instrument, but, after the next election, I would be keen to see a review and analysis of the impact that the measure has had.

As always, you make an articulate case. I agree that that would be interesting information for us to look at after the election.

You are correct in saying that the measure is all about the rehabilitation of those who are incarcerated and about bringing them back into society. We are trying to make that as simple and easy as possible.

I think that we should look at the detail, and I have already made a commitment to Ms White that we will look at the data when it comes in after next year’s election.

That concludes the evidence on the affirmative SSIs.

We have two more SSIs to deal with. The next SSI is the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates’ Local Government Election Expenses) (Scotland) Order 2021. I invite Edward Mountain, who is with us remotely, to put his questions to the minister.

Perhaps you could help me out, minister. I want to find out a bit more about the spending limits. The expenses limit of £740 is being increased. When was that limit put in place, and when was that sum last reviewed?

I am sorry, Mr Mountain, but your sound is quite faint—I did not quite hear you.

Okay. I will move closer to the microphone. Can you hear me now?

Now you are the voice of God.

As I had hoped. [Laughter.] Maybe that is something to do with the broadcasting team.

I was asking about the £740 expenses limit, which has been reviewed. When was that amount set, and when was it last reviewed?

I ask Iain Hockenhull to answer that.

I am reasonably confident that that was done in the previous main local government elections order before the 2017 elections, but I would not swear to that. I can double check. The figures get reviewed ahead of every major election cycle, and they are updated largely to take account of inflation.

We will get back to the committee and confirm that detail to you, Mr Mountain.

Thank you, minister. How did you come up with the £66 figure? The figure is bizarre—it is an 8.918 per cent increase. How did you work it out?

Once again, I rely on Iain’s expertise.

I think that that is an inflation calculation. I am told that it is not an exact calculation but a reasonable approximation. As I said, I think that it is based on inflation.

I believe that, prior to every election, we look at inflation to see where we are at with the limits, to make sure that we do not always stay at the same level and that all the candidates get the right spending amount.

If the increase is based purely on inflation, I am not sure how, even in calculating a cumulative inflation figure for the period, we would arrive at that figure.

The next election will be very different to previous elections because of Covid. I still believe that a lot more will have to be done remotely. I have argued the point before that, when it comes to parliamentary elections, there has been a huge shift from hand deliveries to postal deliveries. Do you think that the £66 increase is sufficient, given that it has probably already been accepted that the increase in the expenses limits for parliamentary elections will need to be bigger than the amount that would be delivered through a formulaic increase that is based on inflation?

In looking at the matter as a candidate and a former councillor, I would always say that you could spend more money on a campaign. However, you have to draw a line on what is fair for everyone, to make sure that there is a level playing field. The instrument gives us that opportunity.

When you look at the end of the previous Scottish parliamentary election, when we were finally allowed to go out, get involved and get back to some form of normal campaigning, we managed to get things moving and deliver leaflets. Personally I do not know of many local candidates in our area who used mailing to that extent. I did not do so myself but simply moved forward with the campaign as it was.

09:45  

We had the campaign laid out right from the start. We made sure that we were accounting for the fact that we were living in difficult times and that things would be a certain way. Was it a nervous time for me, as a candidate? It probably was. Indeed, halfway through the campaign, I was sitting in the house, starting to worry. However, we need to give the parties the opportunity to continue with these limits, and I think that they should be okay. If, after the next election, we get data further down the line that says otherwise, we will review the situation.

I suspect that it has been some time since you were a councillor, minister, but how many councillors were asked whether they thought that the spending limits were correct, and did that happen in every geographical area? It is much easier to deliver leaflets in your area than it is in, say, the north of Scotland, where there are huge geographical areas to cover. How many councillors were asked and what were their opinions?

I take your point on board. It was not yesterday that I was a councillor, Mr Mountain, but you should not let the white hair fool you. It was only 11 or 12 years ago.

I also take on board your comments about geographical differences. I am aware of that issue, but I ask Iain Hockenhull to talk about consultation with local authorities and councillors.

In this instance, the consultation was primarily with the Scottish Parliament political parties panel, representatives of each of the parties and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am not aware of individual councillors being involved.

As the main body for local authorities, COSLA will have an opinion, and leaders and deputy leaders throughout the country, as well as those involved in the process and COSLA members who lead groups, will have fed into that. The consultation has been reasonably broad, but it would be difficult for us to break things down to the individual councillor level, because, as Mr Mountain will know, there are quite a few councillors. As always, if there are better ways of engaging with people and opportunities for us to do so, we will look at them.

I am slightly disappointed that you have not been to the coalface, as it were, to ask councillors whether the limits are sufficient. I understand that COSLA is a representative body, but there are a lot of councillors who do not feel that it represents their particular views. Had I been in your position, I would have set up a poll for councillors, which is easy to do through SurveyMonkey and various other means. It would have been nice to know that we had spoken to councillors, so I am disappointed by that answer.

Just to push things slightly further, I take from what you have said that you believe that there should be spending limits. I agree with you, but I wonder whether the Scottish Government will be thinking of such limits when it comes to Covid and the effects of the huge amounts of travelling around. When I stood in Caithness, for example, I did 14,000 miles trying to get round the constituency during the election campaign. That was a massive amount. Indeed, we do not want to do things like that, which might mean that we have to rely more on pushing out leaflets and information. Will you be considering spending limits on such matters, and will you be speaking not only to councillors but to MSPs and, indeed, MPs to find out whether they think that the limits are correct instead of your making the decision yourself?

I am quite happy to have a dialogue with anyone on how they see the way forward. As for your earlier remark about some councillors not feeling as though they are represented by COSLA, as the representative body, I have to say, as a former councillor, that I find that difficult to believe. Even though I was a back-bench councillor for much of my time on the council, I attended a number of COSLA meetings and was able to input what I wanted to say through my group. It is down to individual groups and parties to do that, too.

With regard to your perspective on the cost of campaigns in relation to geographical areas, I say again that that issue has always been one for individual campaigns and parties to deal with. The issue of how we fund elections is probably not one for discussion today but something that we can discuss and debate in the future.

The only comment that I would make before I hand back to the convener is that a lot can change in 12 years—not just views on COSLA—

I still talk to councillors.

—but views on election expenses. I am sure that the minister accepts that.

I am sure that Mr Mountain and the minister do not look very different from how they looked 12 years ago—they looked old then, too. [Laughter.]

On the substantive question, Mr Mountain has made a reasonable point on consultation, as you have also done, minister. You mentioned that COSLA is consulted, as is the political parties panel. The next time that the Government consults both COSLA and the political parties panel, can they be reminded that they should be as extensive in their own consultation with councillors and party activists across the country? There is a joint responsibility—the job of consultation is not just for Government but is also for political parties and COSLA, and we need to hold to account appropriately each organisation that has that job of consultation, not just the Government. After the election, it would be good, when you have that discussion, if the Government reminded COSLA and political parties to have that consultation internally.

That is helpful, Mr Doris. COSLA and the political parties panel could use a lot of the technologies that Mr Mountain mentioned in order to engage with their membership. It is important to remember that the Government is there to govern and that, although we consult, we need to make sure that those organisations consult their own membership as well. That is helpful, and it is something that we could suggest to and discuss with partner organisations.

Is it correct that the increase in the spending limits in this instrument takes no account of any additional expenditure on Covid measures and that it has been calculated just as an uplift? I ask merely for the record.

I have been led to believe so, but we will hear from Iain Hockenhull if he has to tell me otherwise.

That is my understanding, too.

Thank you. I just wanted that on the record for the purpose of clarification.

As there are no further questions on that instrument, we come to our last SSI, which is the Representation of the People (Absent Voting at Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021. In essence, the instrument makes changes for emergency proxy applications that are made after 5 pm. A number of questions arise from it, but the crucial one is, what was the reason for the 5 pm deadline for an emergency proxy application for someone who is disabled but the removal of that deadline for someone who is detained?

I pass that question to Iain Hockenhull.

The principal divergence relates to prisoners who have been detained for some time. For example, if a prisoner is detained on 1 January and the election is at the start of May, it is to be hoped that they would put in place arrangements for a postal vote or a proxy vote at that point. However, it is possible that they might expect to be released before polling day but then something happens that means that they end up serving their term past polling day. If that happens during the run-up to the election, the provisions offer them the facility to get that emergency proxy vote even though they have been detained for some time. That seems slightly counterintuitive, but, given that so few people are involved, we thought that an alternative option would be so complicated to construct that it would just confuse everyone horribly. We therefore put those provisions in place.

The question is also raised of what happens when someone has been detained very shortly before the normal proxy deadline. If someone is detained, say, seven days before the election, they are probably not going to think, “I’ve got two days to get a normal proxy.” They might think of it only a few days before polling day, in which case, if we had applied the deadline rigidly, they would be too late for an emergency proxy in the classic sense—they could make an application, but we thought that it was probably fairer to make that a little simpler.

The changes should help disabled people as well. If someone suffers a disability before the normal proxy deadline and, understandably, is unable to get their normal proxy through, the change will help them and they will be able to get an emergency proxy much more easily.

But only until 5 pm.

Until 5 pm on the day of the election, yes.

It will be later for—

No, it is 5 pm on the day of the election for everyone—that is the end point for anyone getting an emergency proxy.

Are you saying that the 5 pm deadline for a person who is detained has not been removed and is still there?

Yes. However, there is a slight difference in the deadline for applying for an emergency proxy, which is six days before the election.

Convener, you highlight helpfully the complexities of trying to legislate for prisoner voting. As I have said, it is about a small number of people, and it is quite difficult and challenging for us to do. You have highlighted that perfectly, convener.

Thank you for that. I am conscious of the time, but I want to raise again the question of who was approached for advice in the consultation. It appears to have been quite limited, unfortunately. I know that the minister has undertaken to review that on a number of matters, which is extremely helpful.

I will just reiterate that with regard to this issue, so that we do not have to go through the whole process again. I am quite happy to say that we will look at that after the next election, too. We will consider the data that we have and take it from there.

That is very helpful. As no committee members have further questions before I close the evidence session, I thank the minister and those who advised him for their evidence, which has been very helpful.

We move to agenda items 3 and 4, for which the minister will stay in order to formally move the motions. If necessary, we will have a debate on the matter. I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S6M-01320.

For the sake of brevity, for the committee and its agenda, I will move the motion formally.

Motion moved,

That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Representation of the People (Postal Voting for Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 [draft] be approved.—[George Adam]

Motion agreed to.

Is the committee satisfied that I will sign off the report to the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I invite the minister to speak to and move motion S6M-01321.

Motion moved,

That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2021 [draft] be approved.—[George Adam]

Motion agreed to.

Is the committee happy that I will sign off the report to the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance today.

Once again, it has been a pleasure.

Agenda item 5 is consideration of two negative SSIs. Are there any comments before I move to the formal element?

I have a point about election expenses. I am unclear whether sufficient consideration has been given to what they should be in the Covid-influenced environment in which we live. I would urge that, when the committee talks to the Scottish Government, we ask it to reconsider that and to consult more widely on whether they are appropriate. When it comes to local government officials, independent councillors might well have not been included in previous consideration by COSLA and such organisations.

10:00  

It is fair to say that, as we heard in evidence, the SSI does not include any Covid-influenced increases. It would be right for the committee to point that out, because we do not know what the situation will be next year. We hope that we know what it will be, but experience tells us to be careful about making assumptions.

To be fair to the answer that Bob Doris received, there is an understanding that there is a need for better and wider consultation with individual councillors through COSLA and the political parties, specifically in relation to the election expenses order. I am assured by the evidence that we heard that there will be a wider consultation, particularly in relation to groups that are influenced by the two SSIs. Does that make sense?

I am happy with that. I just want to put it on the record.

Does the committee agree to make no recommendation in relation to the SSIs except that which appears in the evidence?

Members indicated agreement.