Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for the opportunity to be with you this morning.

The Scottish Government takes seriously the implementation of legislation that is passed by this Parliament. The work that is involved in implementation varies enormously and can be particularly complex. Some provisions have little or no cost, whereas others give rise to significant costs. In addition, the implementation of legislation can rely on other organisations and agencies that we need to work with. The three acts that we are discussing today involve some significant operational issues for a number of agencies—in particular, justice agencies. In addition, in some areas, rules of court may be needed.

Many of the substantive provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 are already in force. Work is on-going on the regulation of child contact centres. We aim to lay Scottish statutory instruments next year to put the Care Inspectorate in place as the regulator. We also plan to lay commencement regulations for further provisions of the act next year, and have reconvened a working group on child welfare reporters.

We also remain committed to implementing the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. Part 1, when implemented, will provide the police and the courts with new civil powers to issue domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders. The scheme of protection notices and orders is intended to protect people from the abusive behaviour of their partner or ex-partner. We continue to engage with justice partners and other stakeholders, including Scottish Women’s Aid, which officials met recently, to talk through the operational challenges that have emerged as a consequence of the legislation’s provisions for the protection orders scheme. Some of the challenges that have been identified include clarity on the estimated number of cases and, in turn, the costs of implementing the scheme and the short timescales required to process and implement a DAPN and a DAPO, which have been identified by justice partners as extremely challenging.

There are also wider challenges as to how the views of children will be gathered. That area has been discussed with justice partners and outlined in discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid. We are endeavouring to find a workable and sustainable way forward. At this stage, it is not possible to provide an informed estimate of when that will be completed, although, of course, it remains a priority for us.

Colleagues in the United Kingdom Government and other devolved Administrations, whom officials meet regularly, have faced similar concerns. The UK Government has just launched a pilot, having chosen not to resolve some of the issues that we are wrestling with—for example, how best and how quickly to take the evidence of a child.

We aim to bring into force next year part 2 of the act along with sections 2 and 3 of part 1, to provide additional protection to those who are at risk of domestic abuse. Part 2 will help to protect victims by giving social landlords the ability to apply to the court for an order that, if granted, will have the effect of allowing the landlord to transfer a tenancy to a victim survivor. However, court rules will need to be updated, which might affect the timetable. We are taking forward the wide range of tasks that are necessary to commencing the social housing tenancy provisions in part 2 of the act, including secondary legislation, changes to court procedures and work with stakeholders to develop statutory guidance. The process has taken longer than we anticipated, which is why there has been a delay in implementation. We also need to ensure that the provisions operate as intended.

We have committed to implementing the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Act 2020 within the equally safe delivery plan. Once implemented, the protection orders will provide a fast and responsive mechanism to reduce the risk to potential victims of female genital mutilation, and the creation of statutory guidance will help to address knowledge gaps and offer clarity and certainty for practitioners and organisations working with victims of female genital mutilation.

To ensure the effective implementation of the act, we are working closely with external stakeholders including local authorities, Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and our addressing violence against minority ethnic women and girls network.???

In conclusion, we are committed to commencing legislation passed by the Parliament. Those are complex pieces of legislation to implement but work is on-going.

I am happy to answer questions from the committee. Given that the acts all relate to quite specific areas of policy, I will also seek to bring in Jeff Gibbons, Simon Stockwell and Nel Whiting as appropriate.

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 think that I have said my piece.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24—Rescheduling of by-elections

Amendment 24 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25—Power of convener of Electoral Management Board to postpone ordinary local election

Amendments 25 to 28 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 25, as amended, agreed to.

Section 26—Power of returning officers to postpone election for their area

Amendments 29 to 31 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Section 27—Power of returning officer to postpone or cancel by-election

Amendments 32 to 34 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

After section 27

Again, I will not irk you, convener.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Choice of new First Minister after changed election date

I make that mistake frequently. I apologise. There have been so many important commissions and conventions in Vienna throughout history.

I am conscious that this is a debate.