Seòmar agus comataidhean

Happily, I will not take too long with this group, either. I am happy with the amendments in the group, which should assist voter education and increase democratic engagement, and I urge members to support them.

I support Ross Greer’s amendment 70, as I recognise the challenges that often exist in ensuring registration of students. Ministers already have to take into account the impact of their decisions under the Equality Act 2010, but I am of the view that there is no disbenefit in supporting amendment 71.

I am pleased to have been able to discuss Bob Doris’s amendments 55, 56 and 75 to 77 with him previously. It is clearly a matter of great concern if anyone loses their vote in error, and, to Mr Doris’s credit, he has been pursuing the issue of spoilt ballot papers in local elections for some time. I am happy to support those amendments and very much hope that they help lead to a reduction in spoilt ballot paper rates.

It is, of course, important to recognise that it is not only the Electoral Commission that works on the issue. Returning officers, in particular, have a vital role to play in ensuring that appropriate descriptions of the voting process are available in polling places, and in relation to training staff to give voters the information that they need to complete the ballot paper so that their vote can be counted.

I have been pleased to work with Jeremy Balfour on amendment 54. The access to elected office fund is universally popular, and rightly so. As Mr Balfour has reminded us, it has been so effective that others are learning from our experience and are seeking to implement similar funds. As committee members will be aware, the fund pays for practical support to allow disabled people to fully participate in the political process, and I am pleased with the feedback that we have had from elected representatives who say that they would not have stood for election were it not for the support of the fund.

The Scottish Government set up the fund to be run at arm’s length by Inclusion Scotland, which has the knowledge and capacity to run it so that it is tailored to the needs of individuals. Jeremy Balfour’s amendment will place the fund on the secure footing that it deserves, and I am pleased to support it. I was also pleased to see that the Electoral Commission welcomed the change in its briefing paper on the bill last week.

As I said, I urge committee members to support all amendments in this group.

Amendments 46 and 47 respond to concerns raised by the Electoral Commission and Police Scotland on the wording of the bill’s provisions in relation to digital imprints on campaign material. Both organisations considered that there should not be a direct reference to the police having regard to commission guidance, to better reflect the police’s operational independence.

The wording in the bill on introduction was derived from provisions in the United Kingdom Elections Act 2022, but I am pleased to respond to the concerns expressed by removing the references in question, and I urge the committee to support the amendments. In practical terms, I reassure the committee that the commission will still produce guidance in this area, and it will be a question for the police as to how they interpret their duties.

I move amendment 46.

I have nothing else to add, convener.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendment 47 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 42 to 44 agreed to.

Section 45—Boundaries Scotland: changing date of next review of local government wards and number of councillors

I am aware that there is a substantial number of amendments in this group, but they are fairly straightforward, so I should not take too long.

I ask the committee to support the amendments in the group, which provide for the Electoral Management Board for Scotland to be constituted as a body corporate, including the required adjustment to the funding model.

The EMB has been successful in supporting the smooth running of elections in Scotland as a statutory committee, and these amendments will mean that it is accountable directly to the Scottish Parliament. That will consolidate its independence and build on its strengths.

The amendments reflect the points that were made to the committee by the convener of the EMB at stage 1, as well as the committee’s recommendations. They also provide for two depute conveners, and the rules for membership and staffing are fully set out in a new schedule to the Local Electoral Administration (Scotland) Act 2011. Provision is also made for the EMB to submit to Parliament a five-year plan on its activities and for ministers to be able to ask the EMB to consider specific issues. That could, for example, include matters around spoilt ballot papers and the script that is used at polling stations. The new framework has been developed with the support of the convener of the EMB and parliamentary officials.

I acknowledge the remarks that were made by the convener of the EMB in a letter that was sent to the committee last week. The convener of the board questioned the policy of allowing electoral professionals from elsewhere in the UK to be members of the EMB. I want to make clear that the amendments in no way require returning officers or electoral registration officers from other parts of the UK to be, by necessity, appointed as members of the EMB. The amendment merely expands the possible pool of candidates. Paragraph 2(5) of the new schedule that is added by amendment 51 is designed to ensure that the membership as a whole still has Scottish experience. It states:

“When appointing members, the convener is to have regard to the desirability of the membership taken as a whole having a broad range of experience in relation to—

(a) different local authority areas (including different kinds of areas) throughout Scotland, and

(b) the different constituencies and regions provided for Scottish parliamentary elections”.

Although the pool is made bigger, the convener will still have to appoint a board that, taken together, has relevant Scottish experience.

I am grateful for the input of the EMB in pulling together these amendments, which will give rise to a new chapter for the EMB and ensure that it is even better equipped with regard to the running of elections in Scotland—elections in whose results the voter can have full confidence.

I move amendment 49.

Amendment 49 agreed to.

Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 47, as amended, agreed to.

After section 47

Amendments 52 and 53 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Sections 48 to 50 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Certainly, convener.

I am very pleased to have been able to discuss these amendments with Ross Greer. I am supportive of the principle behind them; I see the benefits in putting in place the proposed 18-month period before elections to give constituents, candidates, administrators and, indeed, political parties certainty about boundaries.

Ross Greer said that he will not be pressing any of his amendments, but I can tell him that we are more than willing to support amendment 72. However, the wording of amendments 73 and 74 would see the 18-month rule applied to the next set of scheduled local government elections in 2027, which would clearly not be practical in terms of Boundaries Scotland’s work after the current Scottish Parliament review is completed. I am clear that the proposed change in approach, although sensible, can apply only to the local government elections scheduled for 2032. Mr Greer has indicated that he will not be moving the amendments today, and I am happy to work with him to ensure that similar amendments can be lodged again at stage 3, on the basis that I have laid out, when I will be happy to support them.

Now that this area has been opened up, I should say that I believe that, if such a change is to happen for council elections, it would be sensible to apply it to future Scottish Parliament reviews, too. I suggest that we will end up revisiting this issue at stage 3.

We can support amendment 72—it is up to Mr Greer whether he presses it—but, although we support the principle behind his other amendments, I suggest that we return to them at stage 3.

I will not seek to extend your patience, convener.

I urge the committee to support my amendments in this group, which relates to the postponement of elections.

The bill’s provisions on the emergency rescheduling of elections are deliberately designed to restrict the postponement of an election by an office-holder, such as the convener of the Electoral Management Board. I think that such decisions should be made by Parliament, if that is at all possible.

The principal purpose of the nationwide postponement provision was to provide time to allow Parliament to pass a bill to set a new date for a local election. I am clear that it was never the intention to suggest that a nationwide local government election could be straightforwardly rearranged within two, or even four, weeks. Local government elections are complex and challenging to deliver, because of the e-counting system that is required to calculate results under the STV system. Rather than give the convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland the power to postpone an election by, say, six months, the bill provides for a limited postponement, during which Parliament can decide whether it wishes to pass emergency legislation.

Having heard the evidence at stage 1, I accept that the maximum period could be helpfully increased to four weeks—an aim that is achieved with amendments 25 and 29. I think that the approach is most likely to be of assistance at a local level, where an individual returning officer can decide to postpone the election in an authority area based on local circumstances. In individual areas, that could mean a postponement of up to eight weeks, as the EMB convener’s power to postpone could be followed by a local postponement by a returning officer.

The other amendments reflect the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report on ensuring a wider understanding of and confidence in decisions that are taken to reschedule or cancel an election.

The bill as introduced contains provisions to make arrangements to postpone elections and, in the case of certain by-elections, to cancel them. These amendments change part 4 of the bill to require that, when in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Presiding Officer, and, when in relation to local government, the convener of the Electoral Management Board or relevant returning officer, exercise their power to postpone or cancel an election, they must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for doing so.

As I said in my letter of 16 May to the committee, the bill’s provisions on emergency rescheduling seek to cover situations where postponement is considered essential, but they are deliberately not prescriptive. It is right that those who are entrusted with making those important decisions are not unduly constrained in doing so and are able to draw on their experience and judgment to take account of as wide a range of emergency situations as possible, both local and national.

That said, I also agree with the committee’s assessment that such decisions that impact on the democratic functioning of our country be easily understood and command as much confidence as possible among the public. Requiring the person who makes the decision to postpone or cancel an election to publish a statement setting out the reasons for the decision will help in both regards, and will add an important extra layer of transparency and accountability to the process.

I invite the committee to support the amendments in this group.

I move amendment 22.

Members will recall that we were already looking at this matter. We received a positive response to the consultation that we held on making the proposed changes through secondary legislation.

The Electoral Commission has said in writing to the committee that it supports the amendments in the group. I am supportive of the policy intent behind the amendments. As Mr Greer alluded to, we would have sought to make the changes through secondary legislation, but the amendments enable us to do so now. I am happy to support the amendments in the group.

Members will recall that we have written to the committee about plans for other changes through future secondary legislation. I commit to continuing to keep the committee up to speed with those changes, but of course that is for down the line. Today, I urge the committee to support Mr Greer’s amendments.

Will the member give way on that point?

I will take Mr Greer’s intervention, but I think that I am about to go on to address his point.