���˿���

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.

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

Mr Greer rightly says that there has been a long-standing debate on these issues. I can well imagine that Mr Greer would take far more interest in watching a draw of the order of names on a ballot paper than he would in watching the Scottish cup draw, but I will leave that to one side.

It is clear that there are strong views among many members and councillors that the alphabetical ordering of names on ballot papers has disadvantages. As other members have touched on, the consideration of the issue has a complex past. For a number of reasons, we could not suddenly move to randomising the order of names on ballot papers, particularly without prior consultation and engagement, not least with councils and councillors.

First and foremost, as Annie Wells mentioned, we must consider the concerns that have been raised about the potential negative effects that that would have on some voters with accessibility needs, particularly those with sight loss. The electoral reform consultation that the Government ran in 2017 looked at the possibility of randomisation and other options. Equality groups responded to both that consultation and a study that was undertaken by the Electoral Commission in 2019 to set out their concerns that the randomisation of names would disadvantage people with disabilities, and the Electoral Commission wrote to the committee to make that point.

In responding to the 2017 consultation, the Scottish Council on Visual Impairment said:

“SCOVI’s very strong preference is to retain alphabetic listing of candidates and would urge against moving away from this method. SCOVI acknowledges the concerns about ‘list ordering’ but considers the ability of people with vision impairments to undertake their democratic right to vote independently and in secret to be a principle that must not be jeopardised.”

In its response, Inclusion Scotland stated:

“While we would not disagree that counteracting the list-order effect is a worthwhile goal, we would urge that any system used for doing so be balanced with the potential complication it adds for the electorate.”

I recently wrote to the committee to update it on work to improve the ability of voters with sight loss to complete their ballot independently and in secret. The on-going development of a tactile ballot, paper overlays and the accompanying audio support could potentially be undermined by the randomisation of names on ballot papers. That might be a step backwards for voters with sight loss. It is clear from what we have been told that many voters rely on memorising the order of names on the ballot paper in advance of voting or on using the large posters of the ballot paper in polling stations as an aid. I think that we would all concede that randomisation would complicate that. Although there might be work that could be done to ensure that we would not disadvantage anyone in society, the issue needs to be considered before any changes are made.

I heard what Mr Greer said about consultation and the experience of other places—he mentioned Denmark specifically. I have already mentioned the study that the Electoral Commission undertook in 2019. With regard to the order of names on the ballot paper, it said that it could find “no impact” on the ability of voters to cast their vote.

I note that the amendments also apply to parliamentary elections. The list order affecting local government elections has been debated often and is, I think, understood to a degree by us all. However, I am not aware of any issues that are caused by the order of names on ballot papers in Scottish Parliament elections. I should say that I have no skin in the game in that regard—my surname begins with an H and Mr Greer’s begins with a G, so I am not saying all this out of self-interest. The list order effect is generally considered to be a feature in STV elections, in which one party has multiple candidates standing in the same ward.

The Government last set out its position on the matter in a letter to the committee in October 2022, in which we concluded that we had no plans to undertake further research unless and until there was a specific proposition that was practical and accessible and which had attracted cross-party support. No such proposal has been brought to our attention since then, otherwise we might have been able to test it out.

I am keen to engage with Mr Greer between now and stage 3 on whether we can determine some way of creating, perhaps, an enabling mechanism in the bill that will provide us with the time and space to consult on how we might best address concerns about the order of names on council ballot papers while accommodating the concerns that some organisations have flagged up. As a result, I ask Mr Greer not to press his amendment. Should he choose to do so, I urge committee members not to support the amendments in this group.

I will give the age-old answer that the consultation would be launched as soon as possible. The point is that the commitment would be to hold and conclude the consultation in this parliamentary session. Given that the issues have been raised earnestly, it is important that I make that commitment, and we would honour that. I am genuinely committed to consulting so that we can gather views. As I said, we will ensure that the consultation takes place during this parliamentary session.

Therefore, I urge the committee to vote against the various amendments that I have spoken to—other than my own—and to allow full and proper consultation to take place before Parliament as a whole can take a position on dual mandates.

I am grateful to Ben Macpherson for taking the time to speak to me about his amendment 59. Although there might be a case for an MSP to be required to be ordinarily resident in Scotland, that is another amendment that has not been subject to any prior debate or discussion—it was not raised at stage 1. It might be another area that is worthy of future consultation, but there are important issues to consider, not least whether there would or should be transitional provision to prevent potentially disqualifying currently serving ���˿��� if, for example, someone happened to reside just over the border. In the first instance, I urge Mr Macpherson not to move amendment 59. However, if he does so, I urge committee members not to support it.

Ross Greer’s remaining amendments in the group cover disqualification orders under the bill and the Elections Act 2022. These are the orders that we are looking to put in place to debar people from office when they are convicted of a crime that involves hostility towards elected representatives, campaigners and electoral workers. Mr Greer’s suggestion that any offence that involves abuse in an electoral context should be subject to a sentencing aggravating factor is interesting. We already provide additional protection for certain groups, such as emergency workers, by setting out sentencing aggravating factors.

It is true that concerns about abuse towards elected representatives and election workers have increased in recent years, and that is the reason for the disqualification orders in the bill. However, I am concerned about adding a sentencing aggravating factor at this stage, as that has not been fully considered. There has not been any consultation on such a step, which could, for example, consider how a new aggravating factor would sit with other statutory aggravating factors.

On amendment 61, Mr Greer has touched on a question that we have discussed before with the committee—that is, the checking of candidate eligibility. That is not a feature of our system; returning officers, in particular, do not check whether candidates are disqualified, and the committee heard evidence at stage 1 about the resource implications if such a system were to be introduced. I would just point out that 2,548 candidates were nominated in the most recent local government elections, while in 2017, 2,572 candidates were nominated. Moreover, in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, 357 candidates were nominated for constituencies, while in 2016 the equivalent number was 313. I would be very reluctant to set up a screening process without evidence that there was a problem of disqualified people standing for office.

I refer to the answer that I have just given about the general process. That some errors have been identified speaks to the fact that we will not always get it right. Where errors are identified, we seek to try to put in place any remedial action that is necessary to deal with specific instruments. The convener can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the two instruments that you are referring to are the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2024 and the Valuation (Proposals Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2024. I will speak to them specifically.

In relation to the former instrument, we plan to rectify the defective drafting by including an amendment provision in the next Scottish immunities and privileges order. Of course, the timing of that depends on the progress of two United Kingdom orders, which is not entirely in our hands. It would also require equivalent Scottish orders, which are in our hands, but are still reliant on the UK process. We will keep the committee updated on that.

On the latter instrument, although the issues that have been identified have no bearing on the validity of the instrument that we intend to bring forward, we would seek to amend regulations at the next suitable opportunity, taking into consideration any other amendments that might be required. We would seek to do that in advance of the intended cut-off date for making a proposal in reliance on the relevant section of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. In effect, that date is at the end of the parliamentary year—I beg your pardon, it would be at the end of the parliamentary session, which will be the end of March 2026.

I hope that that is an indication that we are aware of the concerns about the respective orders that you have identified and that we are cognisant of the need to rectify them. In relation to the general process, I go back to my initial answer. Of course, we are always open to hearing about other things that we could do. If the committee’s experience is such that you feel that there are additional steps or measures that we could take to quality assure our process, we would be more than happy to hear your suggestions on that.

I recognise that there has been a very public debate around the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill in particular. Substantial parts of it have to be determined by secondary legislation. Whether I would consider it to be a framework bill without any standardised, recognised and agreed definition of a framework bill is another thing.

I am sure that I must have answered with more panache and élan than the previous incumbent of my office.

I certainly hope it will be complete by then.

I do not know when in 2025 the committee will invite me, but depending on when it is, I hope that I will be able to say that we are further down the line.

We have a clear commitment to introduce one SLC bill a year. That is the process that we have agreed just now. It would be disingenuous of me to say that I can give a timescale with regard to that specific piece of legislation. I return to the answer that I gave Mr Johnson about the state of a bill’s readiness to be introduced, as well as ensuring that the Parliament has the capacity to consider it.

What I can say is that, in line with the agreement, there will be another SLC bill in the next parliamentary year. I cannot say in earnest that it will definitely be a bill on the issue that Mr Johnson has identified. However, I recognise that all SLC reports are important, and we should ensure that we work our way through them as quickly as possible. The Government is committed to doing that. If there are other ways of expediting the process further, I am all ears and open to considering what they might be.