���˿���

I have underlined at the top of my notes that it is Venice and not Vienna, convener—that is a mistake that I make frequently.

I will start with Ms Webber’s point, lest I forget. She is right, in that amendment 20 creates transitional provision. She cited the convention, and that is the very purpose of the provision. We need to strike a balance, by creating a set of provisions that I believe will fundamentally improve public safety and trust in our democratic system, but in a way that is proportionate and meets the requirements of the Venice commission—I nearly said “Vienna” again—around the disqualification of parliamentarians. The fundamental point is that there should be a high threshold for disbarring someone who is already in elected office. We need to approach that carefully.

I am happy to give way if Ms Webber seeks more information.

I will press amendment 8, convener.

I am just being reminded that I may not have been clear enough. I was referring to those who are already subject to a notification requirement. If, after commencement of the provisions, someone is found to have acted in such a way that they are then covered by an order, they will be disqualified. The provision applies only to those who are subject to such an order just now. I suggest that, if there are any such people, the number will be pretty small. I have no evidence to suggest that there are any.

I refer back to the point that I made about proportionality. I am trying to make sure that we are compliant with our wider obligations. Once we have commenced the provisions, anyone who commits an offence or becomes subject to an order—even if they are elected now—would be caught by such a disqualification. I hope that that provides the reassurance that Sue Webber was looking for. However, if she wants to discuss the matter further, I am happy to do so.

I turn to some—I will not cover all—comments that colleagues have made. On Annie Wells’s points, I go back to the point that I made in speaking to the amendments. I completely understand her concerns. It is just a matter of trying to get the balance right. I observe that, before her colleague Sue Webber joined the committee, Oliver Mundell expressed almost the opposite point of view, asking whether we were satisfied that what we seek to do is compliant with the ECHR and almost suggesting that we have to be cautious. I said yes at the time, and I say it now—I am confident—but I take that step further because we are at risk of not being compliant. Of course, I am happy to discuss those matters with her.

Graham Simpson talked about the value of stage 2. Ross Greer and Ben Macpherson have also spoken about that. I completely accept that point. Mr Simpson was right to say that the issue of dual mandates was raised at committee. He raised it in debate. All I will say, convener, is that, although paragraph 358 of the committee’s report reflects some comments by witnesses on dual mandates, there was no recommendation for me to act on. That is the point that I was making.

Incidentally, I was happy to hear Graham Simpson’s list of all those who had been elected with a dual mandate. It was a reminder of many colleagues from the past. I was happy to be reminded of most of them, and happy not to have been one of them.

I appreciate that Mr Simpson does not plan to move his amendments. Clearly, he has given the matter some consideration. He said that he was of the clear view that what he sought to bring forward deals with the policy matter in the right way; however, he seems to have accepted the need for consultation. I make it clear to him that consultation is not an attempt to kick matters into the long grass. I observe that the bill that we are debating was subject to a thorough and rigorous consultation. The matter of sex offenders was subject to a consultation last year, which shows that we can move quickly on such matters. Consultation is a genuine attempt to give proper consideration to them.

That relates to the points that Ross Greer made. He said that a move to consultation suggests that the bill has been a missed opportunity. Rather, it reflects the fact that the bill was never going to be the last word or the last time that we would seek to legislate on disqualification from the eligibility to be a candidate or remain as a parliamentarian or councillor. Indeed, I observe that this will not be the only such bill of the session; Graham Simpson seeks to introduce a bill that touches on some of those issues.

I understand Ross Greer’s point about aggravators, and I think that we all share significant concerns about what are, as he rightly describes, attacks or assaults on an individual but could be felt collectively to be an attack on our democratic process. I am sympathetic to what Mr Greer is trying to achieve, but we need to think through what the wider ramifications might be, for example, on sentencing policy. I understand his point that it is only a factor that the courts may take into account, but that would still have a consequential impact, and we need to understand better what that might be.

On his point about the list that he suggested that the Electoral Management Board should have to maintain, I recognise and concede that the amendment and proposition are simple and straightforward. As Annie Wells said, maintenance of the list would come with a cost, but I do not know how considerable that would be. We would need to consider how to resource it. If the Parliament is minded to support the provision, we would need to do that.

Although I accept that it is not necessarily what Mr Greer is seeking to do, my wider point is that the proposition takes us in a direction of travel towards a more substantial process by which those who accept and receive nominations would have to start almost vetting them. That would be quite a big change to our system and I am not convinced that it is required. Again, I go back to the letter that the convener of the Electoral Management Board sent to the committee, in which he set out some concerns, saying that that would be a fairly substantial change to the process.

With regard to Mr Macpherson’s points, particularly in reference to his amendment 59, I recognise that he has given thought to the issue. He has given a considered position, as all members have in relation to the amendments that they have lodged. I have some sympathy with the points that he made, but the proposal needs wider consideration. If we legislate in haste on such a requirement, what things will we not have thought through?

I appreciate that what I am asking the committee to agree to would mean that, realistically, any changes that we make in those areas would not take effect until the scheduled election in 2031. That is just a reality, and I am not going to shy away from that. Indeed, I was pretty clear about that in my letter, because I wanted to be up front about it.

In relation to Mr Macpherson’s suggestion that we delay the period between stage 2 and stage 3, I am not minded to do that, for a multitude of reasons. With my Minister for Parliamentary Business hat on—well, that is also my hat in this case. However, outwith the confines of this particular bill, we have a wider programme of legislation to get through in this parliamentary session and I need to bear that in mind.

More fundamentally, with regard to the legislation, I also have to be mindful of the Nolan principles around ensuring that those who are involved in—I mean the Gould principles; I am getting a lot of things mixed up today, but I am sure that you would have pointed that out, convener. The Gould principles are that those who are involved in the administration of elections, such as returning officers and the Electoral Commission, must have the appropriate lead-in time of at least six months, and any delay to the process of our legislating and then going through commencement puts that in jeopardy. I understand the request, but I have to balance it with that consideration.

Lastly—as you will be glad to hear, convener—I agree with Mr Macpherson’s point about pronouns. He raised it with me directly, so I have already asked officials to look at that area. What seems like a simple and straightforward process is not necessarily so, but we will look at it and see what can be done.

This is the largest group that we will discuss today, and it is an important one. We will be discussing disqualification from elected office. Forgive me, convener, as I will take some time to discuss the amendments in this group.

I will start with the amendments in my name that seek to bar persons subject to sex offender notification requirements, a sexual risk order, or a sexual harm prevention order from holding office or standing for election to be councillors or members of the Scottish Parliament. As the committee is aware, persons serving a sentence of more than 12 months are already barred from being an MSP for the duration of their time in custody, and persons sentenced to three months or more are prohibited from being councillors for five years.

I hope that the committee will agree that we have had a good deal of constructive debate on the issue. My predecessor wrote to the committee on 2 February to highlight last year’s Scottish Government consultation on barring sex offenders from being councillors. He explained that it seemed logical to apply any prohibition to members of the Scottish Parliament but that, before bringing forward provisions, the Government wished to

“take the views of the committee”

and others.

We have since discussed several important aspects, including comparisons within the United Kingdom and comparisons to elsewhere. I thank you, convener, for highlighting the work of the Council of Europe’s Venice commission on the exclusion of offenders from Parliament. We have discussed the rationale for a change in the law. There are two aspects here: the first is the protection of the public in face-to-face encounters with an elected representative; the second is an overall case that allowing an acknowledged sex offender to serve in office risks undermining public confidence in our democracy.

Those factors and the matters that the Venice commission considered have informed the approach that we have taken in these amendments. We have looked at a range of notification requirements and orders related to sexual offending, and we seek to apply disqualification when there would be concern about a person subject to such measures holding office, including in cases where a requirement is imposed in the context of conviction and in cases where an order is imposed by a court on a civil basis.

The amendments will ensure that the package of reforms is both robust and fair. No serving representative who is subject to a relevant restriction when the requirement takes effect will be removed from office at the time that the provision takes effect, although they will be barred from standing for election again for as long as the restriction applies. This “future cases only” provision is the normal safeguard adopted in making changes of this nature. I know that, in a few moments, we will turn to Annie Wells’s amendments, which touch on that area.

We have also made provision to ensure that people with pending appeals get the opportunity for their cases to be heard. They will be suspended prior to the determination of an appeal, and there will be a maximum period of three months after which, if the appeal remains pending, disqualification will apply. I think that that is a sensible and proportionate approach.

The other amendments in my name seek to amend the bill’s provisions on disqualification orders and in relation to intimidation. While those provisions in the existing bill take appeals into account in the same way as is planned for sex offenders, the bill suspends only ���˿���—not councillors—during the appeal period. The last time I came to the committee, on 5 September, I said that an important part of our approach should be broad equivalence, where we can achieve it, between the approaches that we take for ���˿��� and councillors. That is what I seek here. Amendment 17 rectifies the bill so that councillors with pending appeals will be suspended in the same manner as those appealing against other convictions that would cause disqualification.

I now turn to amendments 8A and 9A, in the name of Annie Wells, which seek to disqualify all people who have ever been subject to a relevant restriction or order. I am grateful to her for taking the time to discuss the amendments with me, but I believe that the amendments would raise significant concerns around compliance with the European convention on human rights. I also consider that it would be extremely difficult to enforce them and that obtaining information on historical restrictions and orders, particularly those from outwith Scotland, would be extremely challenging.

I also highlight that her consequential amendments 20A and 20B would be unnecessary unless amendments 9A and 9B were agreed to. If there is support for amendments 9A and 9B, we might want to consider carefully what references to historical restrictions are needed in any transitional provisions.

Given those serious concerns, I urge the committee not to support Annie Wells’s amendments.

I now turn to the other non-Government amendments in the group. There is merit in addressing the issue of dual mandates in relation to the Scottish Parliament. However, much as I said about the amendments in the previous group, dual mandates should be addressed with discussion and consultation, not through this bill at stage 2 without a detailed process of consultation having taken place. I have already written to the committee to make that point.

There are policy issues with Graham Simpson’s amendments, which I have discussed with him. I am grateful to him for taking the time to do that, particularly in relation to individuals who are elected when they have only around a year left in their councillor roles before the next local government elections are held. It would have implications for the public purse if a significant number of local by-elections were to occur after each Scottish Parliament election.

Given that the ordinary local elections would take place the following year, those elected at the local by-elections would have the roles only for a few months. There would also be a period of up to three months in which a councillor’s seat would be vacant before a by-election could be held.

In Wales, because of the experience there, a period has been built in accommodating any imminent council election. There is a timeframe within which a councillor who is elected as a member of the Senedd must make a decision about which office to retain. There would be benefit in further consultation on that type of issue. Therefore, I urge Mr Simpson not to move his amendments. However, if he does, I ask committee members to vote against them.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss with Mr Greer his amendment 58. The amendment goes further than Mr Simpson has done in relation to peers, in that it would not allow them to take a leave of absence as an alternative but would require them to resign from the Lords once and for all in order to take their place as an MSP.

That is another issue that has not been subject to any debate or consultation before today. My personal perspective is that the easiest way to achieve that would be to abolish the House of Lords. However, that is outwith our ability. To be consistent, I should say that my point in relation to my concerns about the need for consultation lands with regard to this amendment, too. Therefore, I urge Mr Greer not to move his amendment. If he does, I ask committee members to vote against it.

All of that suggests to me that a proper consultation process is required to allow a full range of policy options to be considered before we legislate to prohibit dual mandates, as members will see from my recent letter to the committee.

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.