���˿���

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.

I suspect that this will be a shorter debate, convener, but I might be tempting fate.

The Government’s amendment 21 reflects the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report on the bill. The bill, as introduced, allows ministers to amend the categories of persons eligible to register with the Electoral Commission as third-party campaigners. The removal or varying of a category will require consultation with the commission, whereas the addition of a category will not.

Under amendment 21, which, as I have said, follows the committee’s stage 1 recommendation, ministers will be able to add a category of third-party campaigner only after a recommendation by the Electoral Commission. That reflects broad agreement that the Electoral Commission should be a key part of the decision-making process in this type of change to campaigning rules.

I agree that it is important to maintain confidence in the system and that it remains free of any perception of possible political influence. Requiring a recommendation from the Electoral Commission for any changes to be made to categories of third-party campaigners is a helpful safeguard in that respect, and provides for consistency of approach to all amendments to the categories of persons eligible to register as third-party campaigners. I therefore invite the committee to support the amendment in my name.

I move amendment 21.

Actually, that was not the point that I was going to come to, but I take the member’s point. However, I come back to the issue that I was trying to touch on, which is that such a move starts to open up the notion that there is a requirement on returning officers and those involved in the process of accepting and processing nominations to take a step beyond the checks that they would otherwise carry out. I think that I am right in recalling that the evidence provided to the committee thus far suggests that the system that we have by and large operates effectively and that there has not been any substantial concern in that respect.

The point that I was going to make is that, strictly speaking, Mr Greer’s amendment does not, in and of itself, set out to create a full screening process, including in the limited circumstances that he has outlined, but I fear that it starts to move us in that direction. It is also not clear why we would pick out just this one aspect of eligibility for the Electoral Management Board to collate data on, and I am concerned that amendment 61 would send a signal that we were moving towards, if not a full vetting system of nominations, then a wider one, which would have huge logistical consequences. I note that the convener of the Electoral Management Board wrote to the committee yesterday to say that the amendment represented

“significant changes in both policy and practice”,

and that his estimation was that it should be “subject to further consultation”.

On that basis, I urge the committee not to support amendment 61, but I look forward to the debate that we will have on this group of amendments.

I move amendment 8.