���˿���

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.

Just briefly, convener. I apologise for my delay in attending the committee.

In her line of questioning, Pauline McNeill has interrogated an important aspect of this issue—the pathway into residential rehab. There are two things here: what is or is not clinically appropriate, which the cabinet secretary referred to, and I go back to the point that Annie Wells made about availability and access.

What data does the Government, or the services, hold on the numbers of individuals presenting and requesting rehab, and on where rehab has been determined not to be clinically appropriate? I know that some individuals will dispute whether such a decision is accurate—that is just the world that we live in—but we do need to look at the lack of access to services.

After all, there are two reasons why someone will not get a rehab bed—although I know that Maggie Page does not like to use the word “bed”. One is that it is deemed not to be clinically appropriate, and the other is that the resource is not there. Is that mapped out? Do we have statistics in relation to that?

I know that other members want to come in, and that a supplementary question from me will tie up the committees’ time, but I just want to say that I am conscious that the Government has promised to look at, for example, rejected referrals to child and adolescent mental health services and to audit those decisions to see how robust they were. I will just leave that hanging there. The fact that the data on this is difficult to establish is no reason for not trying to establish robust data.

Maggie Page made an interesting point about individuals needing residential rehab more than once. Living with addiction is a lifelong challenge—or a lifelong success, for many people—and people might need rehab more than once. Of course, when an individual leaves rehab, they are not leaving that journey and its challenges. Is there any monitoring or auditing of the support services that exist for people when they leave rehab? After all, rehab itself is only part of the picture.

Pre-2017, we implemented decisions made at a European level. We did not make our own decisions.

There is an EU principle, and we build our framework for compliance around that.

Okay. The policy intent, then, is by and large to stay compliant with those regulations but to take the power to amend them as appropriate to changing circumstances. Have I got that right, Deputy First Minister?

And my understanding is that there would be no lowering of the bar in relation to those consultation requirements, because we are sticking with the 2017 requirements, as previously outlined.

My only other question is about the concurrent operation of powers. It is quite reasonable for the Scottish Government to wait and see how environmental outcomes reports and regulations work in practice, and then decide whether to endure with environmental impact assessments for the longer term or to see whether there is better practice elsewhere and adopt that. However, the key point would be that the Scottish ministers would be in control of that decision. Would that be correct, Deputy First Minister?

I will just make the point that this can be quite simplistic when the legalese is taken out of it, so I appreciate the answers.

Is it possible that the UK Government could pivot to environmental outcomes reports, which then became requirements on the Scottish consenting regime, as would environmental impact assessments? Is it possible that the Scottish regime could have two sets of standards that developers would have to comply with? That would concern some developers.

I apologise, Deputy First Minister, as I think that we are scrutinising the hinterland of this order rather than its core, but it is important that the committee understands how it fits in.

My understanding is that the order deals with environmental considerations in the consenting of electricity generation and infrastructure and the requirements around that. You said that the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 allowed the Scottish Government to adapt and change that as appropriate. What happened before that?

I do, convener.

Good morning, everyone. I promise that there are questions for the other witnesses, too, but I will stick with Robert Black for the moment. I should say that I am conscious that we are not running an interview process here, Mr Black. This is an opportunity for you to put some stuff on the public record in the Parliament, as part of our role in this area.

What do you consider to be the key objectives and priorities for the post that you are possibly about to take on, and what will the key challenges be? I know that that sounds very much like an interview question.