³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I get that. Are there any other reflections? Sarah-Jane Laing, if Glasgow botanic gardens fitted into the required threshold 100 times, would that be reasonable? Is there a case for bringing the threshold below 3,000 hectares, given the comparison that I am drawing?

That is interesting. I need to move on, so I apologise to Gemma Cooper for not bringing her in on that point. It is interesting to hear about the idea of having a backstop of 3,000 hectares, but perhaps with a lower threshold based on other criteria. That is really interesting for members as we scrutinise the bill.

On compliance, we heard that land management plans could be positive for landowners and communities—Sarah-Jane Laing made some positive comments about that. Land management statements might be happening already in some cases, and there are real opportunities there. However, there is a debate around having a high-level strategic document versus specific localised elements and requirements. There seems to be a slight tension in relation to some of that.

Whatever we end up with, if the penalty for not producing a land management plan is a maximum of £5,000 but it costs up to £20,000 every five years to produce one, would it be easier for people to just not produce one? Do we have to look again at the fines and compliance? Fining is a last resort, but is £5,000 just too low in that context?

Would it be correct to say that that is your view, unless the landowner has not acted in good faith or made reasonable efforts to implement the terms that are in the land management plan?

I appreciate that. Witnesses have been making a big deal of the fact that the cost could be £15,000 to £20,000 but, when I mention the maximum fine, suddenly, we find that it might not cost that much to produce a land management plan. That leaves ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ a little bit confused, but thank you for that.

Gemma Cooper, do you have any thoughts on the £5,000 maximum fine?

I have no further questions, convener.

Thank you for those comments. It might sound as if I am pushing one specific compliance fine, but I refer back to Sarah-Jane Laing’s initial positive comments on the power of a land management plan, and I associate myself with the comments of Mr Bean.

The deputy convener talked about whether compliance should relate to the terms of the land management plan or just to the production of the plan. Sarah-Jane Laing talked about the fact that it would not be a statutory obligation to adhere to every aspect of a land management plan. If it can be proven—of course, it is about how you prove it—that the landowner has not acted in good faith to attempt to implement the provisions of a plan to the best of their ability, should that be a compliance issue?

That is quite helpful. I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying. Rather than there being a statutory duty on the landowner to deliver everything in the land management plan, you seem to be saying that, if reasonable, good-faith efforts have not been made to deliver the contents of such a plan, that should be a compliance issue. Have I interpreted that correctly?

I have a final question and will go to Gemma Cooper first. If you have any reflections on my previous question, please feel free to share them, Gemma.

Who reports compliance issues or breaches of the land management plan? The bill as it stands is relatively restrictive, in that only certain groups are able to do that. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between the obvious bodies that could report on a potential breach or lack of compliance versus what could be malicious reporting.

I will not come back in after this, convener.

Irrespective of who can or cannot report on compliance or on breaches, should the commissioner be able to undertake proactive work on a small scale in order to see what is happening with land management plans, so that we are not reliant on issues being reported?

There may be and there may not—we have looked at cross-compliance previously, but it is still not clear whether there will be cross-compliance. At face value, if it costs up to £20,000 to produce a plan and the fine for not producing one is £5,000, there seems to be an incentive either to not produce a plan or to produce one that is pretty threadbare. Do you not see any case for increasing the maximum fine from £5,000?

I want to set amendments 75 to 77, 55 and 56 in context. The Electoral Commission’s report on the May 2022 Scottish council elections drew attention to concerns about the level of rejection in some council wards. The highest rejection rate was in the Canal ward in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn, where it was 5.64 per cent, which was more than three times the average rejection rate. To put that in context, one in 18 votes that were cast in that ward were discarded or did not count. Across the country, the rejection level was one in 56.

The most common reason for a ballot paper being rejected was that it expressed a first preference vote for more than one candidate—that happened with 64 per cent of rejections. In other words, those ballot papers had been unintentionally spoilt. That was not the case only in the Canal ward. The rejection rate in Kilpatrick was 2.5 times the national average, and the rates in Clydebank Central, Coatbridge South and Dundee Coldside were all more than 4 per cent, which was more than double the national average.

There are long-term, enduring issues with votes being cast by members of the electorate who are seemingly unaware that their ballot papers will be rejected because they have been unintentionally spoilt in such circumstances. My amendments represent an effort to embed a comprehensive approach to tackling such issues at the heart of the Electoral Commission’s work and to make votes count.

Along with Canal ward councillors Councillor Gow and Councillor McLaren, who is Glasgow’s Lord Provost, I have had extensive dialogue with the Electoral Commission. I have also met the previous parliamentary business manager, George Adam, and the current parliamentary business manager, Jamie Hepburn, on several occasions.

I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendments 75 and 76 seek to modify the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Amendment 75 seeks to insert in section 13, which is on voter education, a specific reference to the marking of ballot papers in elections. Amendment 76 seeks to insert a new section on the Electoral Commission’s annual report, whereby its annual report to Parliament on devolved functions must contain information about what steps it has taken to reduce the number of spoilt ballot papers in devolved Scottish elections.

Amendment 77 seeks to make it a new requirement that each five-year plan that the Electoral Commission is required to submit to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the commission’s activities in relation to Scottish Parliament and local elections must include how the commission will aim to reduce the number of spoilt ballot papers in devolved Scottish elections.

Amendments 75 to 77 together ensure that the work to reduce the likelihood of unintentionally spoilt papers can take place within and outwith election cycles.

Amendment 56 places a duty on the Electoral Commission to prepare and publish a strategy for reducing the number of spoilt ballot papers at each ordinary local election.

Amendment 55 makes changes to the report that the Electoral Commission must prepare after the holding of nationwide Scottish Parliament and local government elections. It requires the commission to report on the steps that were taken by itself and returning officers to promote public awareness of the election and how to vote in it, including, in particular, how to fill in a ballot paper. The report can also describe steps taken by others, as the commission considers appropriate. That is important, as the Electoral Commission works with relevant national and local partners on an on-going basis—the commission has a strategic overview, but it is not always the delivery partner.

Together, the five amendments in my name in this group offer a comprehensive approach, in legislative terms, to doing all that we can to ensure that, when votes are cast in devolved Scottish elections, they count and are not inadvertently spoilt. They also ensure that the Electoral Commission can take forward those legislative provisions in a flexible way.

I firmly believe that that approach can help to assist not only the communities that I represent, such as in Canal ward, but other communities with similar issues across Scotland. It will ensure that their votes are not only cast but count, and that their voices are heard.

I urge members to support the amendments in my name.