Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Mr Simpson for the intervention, which I hope is intended to be a helpful one that seeks clarity on what is in the bill rather than one that seeks to go against its policy aims.

When I say “regions”, I suppose that I mean geographical areas. I am not certain that more clarity is needed, but Mr Simpson makes the point that perhaps it might be, and that is something that I could reflect on.

We had a similar debate on communities before. Do we mean communities as in smaller geographical areas, or do we mean communities of interest? I am not convinced that there is a need for more clarity, Mr Simpson, but I can see how an argument could be made that perhaps more clarity might be desirable.

That takes us—

I can offer significant reassurances on that with an example from the Glasgow climate dialogues that were held during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. At that, the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council deliberately platformed the global south when looking at the challenges that we had in relation to climate, as a way of embedding our work with our key partners in the global south into our everyday actions in relation to net zero and the climate challenge.

Not specifying the detail in the bill would give the Scottish Government significant flexibility to ensure that it could embed the consultation in a way that was not overly burdensome or time consuming.

I do not have much more to say about the amendment, convener.

I am hoping that at this point we can stay away from turbo-boosting and fast lanes, and even titans, as Mr Simpson said earlier. There is a policy intent in amendment 187 and I absolutely acknowledge, having used the specific words that SCIAF was keen to see in the bill in this probing amendment, that there is a need for much more clarity.

However, I think that Mr Simpson is long in the tooth enough in this place to know what the underlying policy intent is. The nations and regions in the global south—however we define it, Mr Simpson—are the true experts on much of this stuff, because they are experiencing the direct impacts of many of the climate challenges that we have today and the bill has to take that into account in order for there to be a truly circular economy strategy.

Will Mr Simpson confirm that, despite the need for clarity and a bit more carefulness in relation to definitions, the underlying policy intent is positive? I am not clear whether Mr Simpson’s issue is with the clarity or the policy intent. Perhaps it is both.

I am consistent if nothing else, minister. When I was on the committee previously, I was keen to see randomised ballot papers at council elections because of the clear alphabet bias, from A to Z, in voting and preferential voting.

Previously, the minister’s view was that it was too complex, that the risks outweighed the benefits and that it was not that clear. I understand that the committee has started to hear evidence that some of those barriers might be less of an issue now, and that the concerns of some groups are being assuaged somewhat. What is the minister’s current thinking on that?

Would it require primary legislation to run a pilot? There is a section in the bill on electoral pilots, so would the bill give the Government the power to carry out a pilot on randomised ballots at a later date?

Come and visit, minister.

I have one more question if there is time, convener. I am not sighted on the questions that committee members are going to ask, so if another member is asking this question, I will just leave it. It is in relation to randomised ballot papers at elections.

That is kind of you, convener. You can tell that I was previously a member of the committee, as you have asked me to be short.

Minister, as you know, I have raised in Parliament—and I have met you to talk about—concerns over voter education and the parts of the country in which there is a prevalence of spoiled papers. I mention specifically the Canal ward in my constituency. I have been working with councillors Allan Gow and Jacqueline McLaren because, at the most recent council elections, that ward had the highest number of spoiled papers in Scotland, at three times the national average. The votes were accidentally spoiled by multiple voting for two or three candidates from the same party.

I am keen for the Electoral Commission to step forward not just when there is an election but all year round. I put it to you that the bill could be a vehicle for putting some form of statutory duty on the Electoral Commission to do some of that voter education, targeted locally. Might the bill remain a vehicle for achieving some of those ambitions?

That is encouraging, minister.

Convener, I would like to clarify something. In the bill, I noticed part 5 on increased democratic engagement and part 8 on the Electoral Commission. At this stage, has the Government thought about where an amendment might best sit? Clearly, away from this committee, we will work diligently to agree a suitable amendment, but do you have any initial thoughts?

Because of time constraints, I will not ask other witnesses whether that happens more often, but if it does, the committee would be quite keen to hear about it. If employers wait until they have vacancies before they ask you, “How can a disabled person fit this role?”, they might have already created a job that is not suitable for someone who faces additional barriers to—sorry for the clumsy expression—mainstream employment.

I will pursue my final question with Elizabeth Baird. Employers might be close to having a business case to employ maybe another 1 or 1.5 employees, irrespective of whether those people have disabilities. It is a fine line and there is a tipping point if you go into recruitment and are not expanding your number of employees. I think that Ms Baird talked about wage subsidies earlier. Could you give a little bit of clarity about where those wage subsidies come from and what role the DWP has in that?

A lot of people seeking employment will be on employment and support allowance. I know that they can keep some of the ESA if they are in employment for under 16 hours a week, but there must surely be a business model in which we can get people into long-term well-paid jobs and off ESA. That way, the taxpayer will be a winner, the DWP will be a winner and, more importantly, the person with the disability will be a winner. Community jobs Scotland, for example, was very good at doing that kind of thing. Can you say anything about where wage subsidies play a part? Are there opportunities for them to do more?