Chamber and committees

Yes, I suspect that that was a slip of the tongue.

We would all recognise and appreciate that point, as it would be an understandable human instinct. However, I wonder whether Ms Wells has reflected on the fact that we have had to very carefully consider the balance between the concerns that people reasonably have—indeed, they are why we have brought forward the provisions—and ensuring that we are on the right side of the requirements that have been laid out by the Vienna commission. I am genuinely concerned about that.

To put it in context, we had to give very close and careful consideration to the provisions, as we would with anything that we propose in law. At one stage, we considered whether we could even go as far with regard to parliamentarians, because of the requirements of the Vienna commission. I think that we have landed with the appropriate balance. Of course, the Government would have to robustly defend any bill, subsequent to it being passed and becoming an act of Parliament, so I want to ensure that we have legislation that is as robust as it can be.

Although I take Ms Wells’s concerns on board, which is the reason that those provisions have been lodged, I wonder whether she has reflected on whether the position that she has asked the committee to take strikes the right balance, and whether it might be a step too far.

The point that I was trying to make is that it is a strength of our process of deliberation that there is a stage 1 process in which the issues are considered in detail by the committee. It is clearly for the committee to consider what it wants to determine at that stage, but if the issue had been aired at that stage and if recommendations on it had been made, as I have demonstrated across the range of amendments that I am moving today, we would have listened to what the committee said and weighed the balance of the evidence that it had gathered, and we would have responded with appropriate amendments.

Indeed.

The amendments in this group are either technical adjustments or seek to make changes that tidy up drafting and correct minor typos in the bill as introduced. They make no policy changes.

Amendment 23 adjusts section 23 of the bill for technical reasons. That section currently seeks to amend 46 of the Scotland Act 1998 by adding two new subsections to take account of any delay in Parliament meeting after a rescheduled election. However, because the Scottish Parliament can modify only certain listed provisions in the 1998 act, that structure would mean that there could, arguably, be doubt about whether our Parliament would be able to amend the section further in the future. The amendment restructures the proposed amendments to leave no doubt that the text can be changed in the future by this Parliament, if that is desired.

Amendments 26, 27 and 30 add the secretary of state to the list of consultees when the convener of the Electoral Management Board or a returning officer is considering rescheduling a local government election. That is to ensure that any rescheduled local election does not fall on the same day as a UK parliamentary election. Although such a situation is considered to be unlikely to arise, were it to happen it would result in a combined election, which would add considerable complexity for administrators and risk voter confusion.

I turn to amendment 44. Existing secondary legislation powers for Scottish Parliament elections allow ministers to make provision for sub-delegating certain responsibilities to other persons. The specific sub-delegation that we have been considering is to place a requirement on the Electoral Commission to provide guidance on ways in which returning officers can assist voters with accessibility needs. The Government plans to legislate on such guidance in 2025 for Scottish Parliament elections, and before 2027 for local elections.

We have established that, as the legislation stands, Scottish ministers have the necessary legislative powers to require the Electoral Commission to provide guidance for Scottish Parliament elections, but do not have the power to do so for council elections. Amendment 44 therefore seeks to change those powers in relation to local government elections so that they match the existing powers on sub-delegation in relation to parliamentary elections. It will allow secondary legislation and council elections to refer to documents such as guidance or forms that are prepared by the Electoral Commission and others, and will provide that those documents form part of the rules in relation to local elections.

Amendment 45 simply corrects a typo. Similarly, amendment 48 corrects an inconsistency in language where the word “code” appears when it should say “plan”.

I invite the committee to support the straightforward amendments in this group in my name.

I move amendment 23.

I am happy to deal with it at the end, if you would like.

I have underlined at the top of my notes that it is Venice and not Vienna, convener—that is a mistake that I make frequently.

I will start with Ms Webber’s point, lest I forget. She is right, in that amendment 20 creates transitional provision. She cited the convention, and that is the very purpose of the provision. We need to strike a balance, by creating a set of provisions that I believe will fundamentally improve public safety and trust in our democratic system, but in a way that is proportionate and meets the requirements of the Venice commission—I nearly said “Vienna” again—around the disqualification of parliamentarians. The fundamental point is that there should be a high threshold for disbarring someone who is already in elected office. We need to approach that carefully.

I am happy to give way if Ms Webber seeks more information.

I will press amendment 8, convener.

I am just being reminded that I may not have been clear enough. I was referring to those who are already subject to a notification requirement. If, after commencement of the provisions, someone is found to have acted in a such way that they are then covered by an order, they will be disqualified. The provision applies only to those who are subject to such an order just now. I suggest that, if there are any such people, the number will be pretty small. I have no evidence to suggest that there are any.

I refer back to the point that I made about proportionality. I am trying to make sure that we are compliant with our wider obligations. Once we have commenced the provisions, anyone who commits an offence or becomes subject to an order—even if they are elected now—would be caught by such a disqualification. I hope that that provides the reassurance that Sue Webber was looking for. However, if she wants to discuss the matter further, I am happy to do so.

I turn to some—I will not cover all—comments that colleagues have made. On Annie Wells’s points, I go back to the point that I made in speaking to the amendments. I completely understand her concerns. It is just a matter of trying to get the balance right. I observe that, before her colleague Sue Webber joined the committee, Oliver Mundell expressed almost the opposite point of view, asking whether we were satisfied that what we seek to do is compliant with the ECHR and almost suggesting that we have to be cautious. I said yes at the time, and I say it now—I am confident—but I take that step further because we are at risk of not being compliant. Of course, I am happy to discuss those matters with her.

Graham Simpson talked about the value of stage 2. Ross Greer and Ben Macpherson have also spoken about that. I completely accept that point. Mr Simpson was right to say that the issue of dual mandates was raised at committee. He raised it in debate. All I will say, convener, is that, although paragraph 358 of the committee’s report reflects some comments by witnesses on dual mandates, there was no recommendation for me to act on. That is the point that I was making.

Incidentally, I was happy to hear Graham Simpson’s list of all those who had been elected with a dual mandate. It was a reminder of many colleagues from the past. I was happy to be reminded of most of them, and happy not to have been one of them.

I appreciate that Mr Simpson does not plan to move his amendments. Clearly, he has given the matter some consideration. He said that he was of the clear view that what he sought to bring forward deals with the policy matter in the right way; however, he seems to have accepted the need for consultation. I make it clear to him that consultation is not an attempt to kick matters into the long grass. I observe that the bill that we are debating was subject to a thorough and rigorous consultation. The matter of sex offenders was subject to a consultation last year, which shows that we can move quickly on such matters. Consultation is a genuine attempt to give proper consideration to them.

That relates to the points that Ross Greer made. He said that a move to consultation suggests that the bill has been a missed opportunity. Rather, it reflects the fact that the bill was never going to be the last word or the last time that we would seek to legislate on disqualification from the eligibility to be a candidate or remain as a parliamentarian or councillor. Indeed, I observe that this will not be the only such bill of the session; Graham Simpson seeks to introduce a bill that touches on some of those issues.

I understand Ross Greer’s point about aggravators, and I think that we all share significant concerns about what are, as he rightly describes, attacks or assaults on an individual but could be felt collectively to be an attack on our democratic process. I am sympathetic to what Mr Greer is trying to achieve, but we need to think through what the wider ramifications might be, for example, on sentencing policy. I understand his point that it is only a factor that the courts may take into account, but that would still have a consequential impact, and we need to understand better what that might be.

On his point about the list that he suggested that the Electoral Management Board should have to maintain, I recognise and concede that the amendment and proposition are simple and straightforward. As Annie Wells said, maintenance of the list would come with a cost, but I do not know how considerable that would be. We would need to consider how to resource it. If the Parliament is minded to support the provision, we would need to do that.

Although I accept that it is not necessarily what Mr Greer is seeking to do, my wider point is that the proposition takes us in a direction of travel towards a more substantial process by which those who accept and receive nominations would have to start almost vetting them. That would be quite a big change to our system and I am not convinced that it is required. Again, I go back to the letter that the convener of the Electoral Management Board sent to the committee, in which he set out some concerns, saying that that would be a fairly substantial change to the process.

With regard to Mr Macpherson’s points, particularly in reference to his amendment 59, I recognise that he has given thought to the issue. He has given a considered position, as all members have in relation to the amendments that they have lodged. I have some sympathy with the points that he made, but the proposal needs wider consideration. If we legislate in haste on such a requirement, what things will we not have thought through?

I appreciate that what I am asking the committee to agree to would mean that, realistically, any changes that we make in those areas would not take effect until the scheduled election in 2031. That is just a reality, and I am not going to shy away from that. Indeed, I was pretty clear about that in my letter, because I wanted to be up front about it.

In relation to Mr Macpherson’s suggestion that we delay the period between stage 2 and stage 3, I am not minded to do that, for a multitude of reasons. With my Minister for Parliamentary Business hat on—well, that is also my hat in this case. However, outwith the confines of this particular bill, we have a wider programme of legislation to get through in this parliamentary session and I need to bear that in mind.

More fundamentally, with regard to the legislation, I also have to be mindful of the Nolan principles around ensuring that those who are involved in—I mean the Gould principles; I am getting a lot of things mixed up today, but I am sure that you would have pointed that out, convener. The Gould principles are that those who are involved in the administration of elections, such as returning officers and the Electoral Commission, must have the appropriate lead-in time of at least six months, and any delay to the process of our legislating and then going through commencement puts that in jeopardy. I understand the request, but I have to balance it with that consideration.

Lastly—as you will be glad to hear, convener—I agree with Mr Macpherson’s point about pronouns. He raised it with me directly, so I have already asked officials to look at that area. What seems like a simple and straightforward process is not necessarily so, but we will look at it and see what can be done.

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.