Seòmar agus comataidhean

The point that I was making is that the national health service will be a fundamentally important part of the effective implementation of the legislation. There will be a point at which women and girls present with what could be an area of concern, and the national health service will of course be involved there. I am happy to bring in Nel Whiting to speak to that in further detail.

I will need to invite Nel Whiting to respond to that. I am not directly involved in that work.

I think that we have already answered the question around the timescale as best we can. It would be wrong of me to sit here and try to give a definitive timescale at this point. That would not be fair to the many women to whom you have just referred. You mentioned that 64,000 cases have been reported to Police Scotland, and I would not want to let those women down by giving a specific date, here and now, when I am not well informed enough to do so.

Jeff Gibbons spoke about the urgency with which we are trying to take forward the work now—early next year—to work out how we can implement the act as quickly as possible. That is an earnest and sincere commitment.

The first part of your first question was about what I would say to women who have been expecting the legislation to be implemented soon. I would say that I am sorry that it has not been implemented yet. Ideally, it should have been, but we are where we are now. The task for us is to try to ensure that it is put into statutory effect as quickly as possible, and that is our commitment.

Jeff can respond to that.

The Law Society has flagged that as a concern of the Law Commission. As you would expect, and as would be my expectation and the expectation of any minister who had a direct responsibility for the area, we will pick that up directly. If there are things that we need to do as a consequence, we will get on with it and do them.

One thing to flag from that is that such consultations can lead to recommendations from the Law Commission for specific legislation. There is an arrangement with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that at least one bill proposal that arises out of a Scottish Law Commission consultation will be referred to the committee per parliamentary year. Although we cannot say definitively that that will happen in this instance, there is that possibility.

First, I know that you clarified your remark, but I do not think that we rush consultations. We have quite a deliberative and considered process for legislating in the Scottish Parliament. It starts with a fairly extensive and detailed consultation process, whether it is the Government or a member that is taking forward a bill. Indeed, you have a bill proposal, so you will have undertaken a consultation. That proposal develops into a specific legislative proposition and goes before a committee to consider in detail. I certainly do not think that the process is rushed. It does not take a long time; rather, it takes the appropriate amount of time to ensure that it is thorough and that all relevant stakeholders and interested parties can participate and get involved.

On the question of how valuable individuals might feel the process is, I can speak only for the Government and say that we find it very valuable. The three acts that we have discussed are still on the statute book and we still plan to take them forward. The consultation process that was undertaken in advance of those bills being laid before the Parliament and as they went through the parliamentary process was invaluable. No effort was wasted on the part of those who took part in the consultation process.

I am grateful for the opportunity to be with you this morning.

The Scottish Government takes seriously the implementation of legislation that is passed by this Parliament. The work that is involved in implementation varies enormously and can be particularly complex. Some provisions have little or no cost, whereas others give rise to significant costs. In addition, the implementation of legislation can rely on other organisations and agencies that we need to work with. The three acts that we are discussing today involve some significant operational issues for a number of agencies—in particular, justice agencies. In addition, in some areas, rules of court may be needed.

Many of the substantive provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 are already in force. Work is on-going on the regulation of child contact centres. We aim to lay Scottish statutory instruments next year to put the Care Inspectorate in place as the regulator. We also plan to lay commencement regulations for further provisions of the act next year, and have reconvened a working group on child welfare reporters.

We also remain committed to implementing the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. Part 1, when implemented, will provide the police and the courts with new civil powers to issue domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders. The scheme of protection notices and orders is intended to protect people from the abusive behaviour of their partner or ex-partner. We continue to engage with justice partners and other stakeholders, including Scottish Women’s Aid, which officials met recently, to talk through the operational challenges that have emerged as a consequence of the legislation’s provisions for the protection orders scheme. Some of the challenges that have been identified include clarity on the estimated number of cases and, in turn, the costs of implementing the scheme and the short timescales required to process and implement a DAPN and a DAPO, which have been identified by justice partners as extremely challenging.

There are also wider challenges as to how the views of children will be gathered. That area has been discussed with justice partners and outlined in discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid. We are endeavouring to find a workable and sustainable way forward. At this stage, it is not possible to provide an informed estimate of when that will be completed, although, of course, it remains a priority for us.

Colleagues in the United Kingdom Government and other devolved Administrations, whom officials meet regularly, have faced similar concerns. The UK Government has just launched a pilot, having chosen not to resolve some of the issues that we are wrestling with—for example, how best and how quickly to take the evidence of a child.

We aim to bring into force next year part 2 of the act along with sections 2 and 3 of part 1, to provide additional protection to those who are at risk of domestic abuse. Part 2 will help to protect victims by giving social landlords the ability to apply to the court for an order that, if granted, will have the effect of allowing the landlord to transfer a tenancy to a victim survivor. However, court rules will need to be updated, which might affect the timetable. We are taking forward the wide range of tasks that are necessary to commencing the social housing tenancy provisions in part 2 of the act, including secondary legislation, changes to court procedures and work with stakeholders to develop statutory guidance. The process has taken longer than we anticipated, which is why there has been a delay in implementation. We also need to ensure that the provisions operate as intended.

We have committed to implementing the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Act 2020 within the equally safe delivery plan. Once implemented, the protection orders will provide a fast and responsive mechanism to reduce the risk to potential victims of female genital mutilation, and the creation of statutory guidance will help to address knowledge gaps and offer clarity and certainty for practitioners and organisations working with victims of female genital mutilation.

To ensure the effective implementation of the act, we are working closely with external stakeholders including local authorities, Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and our addressing violence against minority ethnic women and girls network.???

In conclusion, we are committed to commencing legislation passed by the Parliament. Those are complex pieces of legislation to implement but work is on-going.

I am happy to answer questions from the committee. Given that the acts all relate to quite specific areas of policy, I will also seek to bring in Jeff Gibbons, Simon Stockwell and Nel Whiting as appropriate.

Happily, I will not take too long with this group, either. I am happy with the amendments in the group, which should assist voter education and increase democratic engagement, and I urge members to support them.

I support Ross Greer’s amendment 70, as I recognise the challenges that often exist in ensuring registration of students. Ministers already have to take into account the impact of their decisions under the Equality Act 2010, but I am of the view that there is no disbenefit in supporting amendment 71.

I am pleased to have been able to discuss Bob Doris’s amendments 55, 56 and 75 to 77 with him previously. It is clearly a matter of great concern if anyone loses their vote in error, and, to Mr Doris’s credit, he has been pursuing the issue of spoilt ballot papers in local elections for some time. I am happy to support those amendments and very much hope that they help lead to a reduction in spoilt ballot paper rates.

It is, of course, important to recognise that it is not only the Electoral Commission that works on the issue. Returning officers, in particular, have a vital role to play in ensuring that appropriate descriptions of the voting process are available in polling places, and in relation to training staff to give voters the information that they need to complete the ballot paper so that their vote can be counted.

I have been pleased to work with Jeremy Balfour on amendment 54. The access to elected office fund is universally popular, and rightly so. As Mr Balfour has reminded us, it has been so effective that others are learning from our experience and are seeking to implement similar funds. As committee members will be aware, the fund pays for practical support to allow disabled people to fully participate in the political process, and I am pleased with the feedback that we have had from elected representatives who say that they would not have stood for election were it not for the support of the fund.

The Scottish Government set up the fund to be run at arm’s length by Inclusion Scotland, which has the knowledge and capacity to run it so that it is tailored to the needs of individuals. Jeremy Balfour’s amendment will place the fund on the secure footing that it deserves, and I am pleased to support it. I was also pleased to see that the Electoral Commission welcomed the change in its briefing paper on the bill last week.

As I said, I urge committee members to support all amendments in this group.

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.