Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for inviting me to speak to the draft order, which seeks to make improvements to electoral law ahead of next May’s Scottish Parliament election.

The changes that the draft order introduces build on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill, which the committee considered last year and which the Parliament passed, and which is now the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025. Many of the topics that the order deals with were highlighted as the bill progressed through the Parliament. Several of the changes are technical adjustments that are designed to ensure the smooth running of the election, and others have been requested by various stakeholders.

I particularly wish to highlight one change that first arose when we consulted on the age at which people can stand for election. In a round-table discussion with my predecessor, a young person with experience of the care system highlighted the challenges that she had faced in seeking to register to vote. The order specifically responds to her comments by allowing looked-after young people to register to vote by declaration of local connections. I hope that she can reflect today on that change that we are making to the law.

Another change that we are making—or a change that I hope to make; I am being very presumptuous—provides an example of how electoral law can develop across the United Kingdom, with changes in one nation influencing others. In 2020, the Scottish Parliament created an exemption for certain candidate expenditure in relation to security. The UK and Welsh Governments subsequently adopted that change, but they went a little further and applied it to security costs beyond those associated with public rallies or events. We are now seeking to adopt that expanded definition. It is clear—unfortunately, as we all know—that candidates often experience greater security challenges, and the measure is intended to offer assistance.

Other changes seek to complete the process that began with the bill last year by updating rules on campaigning, including those regarding undue influence and notional expenditure. Those rules will now be in line with those that apply to UK Parliament elections.

The draft order also builds on experience during the pandemic in relation to emergency rescheduling of elections. Moving the beginning of the dissolution period for the Scottish Parliament is intended to provide further resilience. The law currently says that dissolution is to occur 28 working days before the poll, and we are seeking to reduce that to 20 working days. For next year’s election, that means moving the date from 26 March to 9 April, but it is anticipated that Parliament will go into recess on the earlier date. The reason for that change is to allow the Parliament to meet in exceptional situations—for example, if a Prime Minister were to call a UK Parliament election for a date on or near to the date that was set for the Scottish Parliament election. We have worked with stakeholders to ensure that there will be no change to the electoral timetable as a result of the proposal.

We are seeking to make a number of changes to emergency proxies and assisting people with voting in the run-up to the election. That includes a change to allow those who are accompanying people to medical appointments shortly before the poll to obtain an emergency proxy.

The draft order introduces a broad requirement for returning officers to provide appropriate support to aid voters with accessibility challenges. It is hoped that, along with guidance from the Electoral Commission, that will greatly improve the support that is offered.

The development of the order has involved close engagement with key stakeholders, including the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the Electoral Commission. I thank them for their engagement and look forward to working closely with them in the coming months on the preparations for May 2026.

I hope that the committee will agree that the provisions will make positive changes that will benefit voters, candidates and administrators and that it will therefore support the instrument.

If you will indulge me, convener, I will make one final point. I wrote to the committee to highlight the issue of the online absent vote application. We have been working closely with the Welsh and UK Governments to ensure access to that service for voters in Scottish Parliament elections. I am sure that we would all welcome the prospect of voters being able to apply online for a postal or proxy vote.

In my most recent letter to you, convener, I highlighted that serious concerns had been raised about a go-live for the system occurring before May next year. I am happy to discuss that point further today, if you are inclined to do so, convener, and I made that point in my letter. However, I want to let the committee know that I have already set in motion a mitigation measure, which is set out in statutory instruments that will be laid on Monday, to delay until the end of 2026 any signature refresh for absent votes that are required before the election in May. That measure should reduce any scope for confusion between the online absent vote application system for UK Parliament elections and the separate process for Scottish Parliament elections.

Along with Iain Hockenhull, Lorraine Walkinshaw and Jordan McGrory, I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Discussions are at a fairly early stage, but Parliament is aware that we are taking forward the changes. It is akin to the situation that we had in the run-up to the 2021 election, when we also changed the dissolution period. I am not proposing that we do quite the same as we did then, when everyone remained a member of the Scottish Parliament right up to the point of the election. That was for very specific circumstances that related to the pandemic.

I have explained and set out the rationale. We are primarily thinking of circumstances—they might be felt to be rare, but they could happen—in which the UK Government decides to call a general election that falls either on the same day as or in close proximity to a Scottish Parliament election. The challenge is that the lead-in period for UK general elections is presently shorter than the period for Scottish Parliament elections. We are switching that around to enable the recall of the Parliament in order to consider such an issue. For example, would we want to delay the Scottish Parliament election? Powers are available, and we have legislated for the Presiding Officer to delay an election, but it might be felt that that would require and merit wider discussion by Parliament as a whole. The Presiding Officer would be able to recall Parliament if he or she were inclined to do so.

As for the practical experience, we are already engaged in dialogue about creating a short recess period to replicate the period of dissolution that we presently have under legislation. To all practical intents and purposes, people would not notice any difference. I am also aware that the Electoral Commission is actively engaging with the Scottish Parliament to think through how practical guidance would be laid out for those who are simultaneously members of the Scottish Parliament and candidates in the election.

Going back to the consideration by Parliament, I think that that is likely to happen, but it would be a matter for Parliament to determine the cessation of normal parliamentary activity or normal activity for parliamentarians, such as the lodging of written questions. Such activity would probably be suspended for the duration of any recess. Final details are still to be worked out, but there is engagement.

I can indeed, convener. It is fairly well established and understood, and it has been in place for a while. It is broadly consistent with the wider UK approach as well.

The broad criteria for disqualification are

“Offices for profit in the gift of the Crown or ministers”

—that would include

“salaried, pensionable and certain fee-paid posts”

but exclude

“posts attracting expenses alone.”

There is an exemption for

“offices where the remuneration is less than £10,000 per year”,

which are not normally disqualified.

There are

“Certain positions of control in companies in receipt of Government grants and funds, to which Ministers usually, though not necessarily, make appointments”

and

“offices imposing duties which with regard to time and place would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties”

—in effect, it is felt that they would have too much on their hands, as they already have a burden of responsibility that would not really allow them to be a member of the Scottish Parliament.

Of course, we are going through the consideration of dual mandates, and the issue fits in that territory. There are other offices whose holders are required to be—or certainly seem to be—politically impartial.

Those are the broad criteria that we apply. If there is a question as to whether they are comprehensive enough—or, indeed, whether they encompasses too many people—we are always willing to look at them again.

Broadly speaking, yes. To go back to the point that I made earlier, a very small number of bodies were inaccurately referred to, and those details did not emanate from within this Administration. However, that is not to pass the buck, as we should, of course, try to get those things right. I reflect that that is one of the virtues of parliamentary scrutiny—inevitably, the DPLRC might pick up on something and we can then act to ensure that the list is up to date.

I am more than willing to hear any suggestions about our processes. For example, one of the differences between our approach and that of Westminster is that Westminster has a more general, broader power, whereas we detail specific office-holders. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. I suggest that the advantage to the way in which we do it—compared to setting out the broader terms under which any office might be disqualified—is that it is very clear who is disqualified. The downside to our approach is that you might not capture everyone or might get caught out by the mere fact that office-holders or various organisations no longer exist. However, we are more than willing to consider any alterations that the Parliament cares to suggest.

I am happy to do so. I am pleased to be here to speak to the draft Scottish Parliament (Constituencies and Regions) Order 2025. The draft order gives effect to the recommendations that were submitted to me by Boundaries Scotland, and I have a legal duty to lay it before Parliament.

The draft order defines the name, status and area of 70 Scottish Parliament constituencies—three protected island constituencies were not part of the review—and the name and area of each of the eight Scottish Parliament regions. If they are subsequently approved by the Scottish Parliament, the new boundaries will be effective at the election that is scheduled for 7 May 2026 and for all subsequent parliamentary elections until the boundaries are next reviewed.

The first review of the Scottish Parliament’s constituencies and regions reported in 2010, and the resulting boundaries were used in the 2011, 2016 and 2021 Scottish Parliament elections. This is the first national review of the Scottish Parliament’s constituencies and regions that is to be considered by the Scottish Parliament itself since the powers were devolved.

As the committee heard in the evidence that was given by Boundaries Scotland, there has been significant change in the population across Scotland since the previous review, with some areas experiencing significant increases and the population in others remaining relatively unchanged or falling. I recognise and understand that there will be differing opinions on the final recommendations. However, I am pleased that a thorough process was undertaken, which involved several rounds of consultation and nine local inquiries. I am confident that Boundaries Scotland has discharged its duties competently, completely and professionally in line with the rules set out in the Scotland Act 2016.

I hope that my opening remarks are helpful. My officials, Kenny Pentland, Ailsa Kemp and Jordan McGrory, and I are very happy to answer any questions that members may have.

This has been a substantial process, which was initiated in September 2022, with the final report coming to me just at the end of April this year, and which has led to us discussing here the order that has been laid before Parliament, and, in undertaking any process of substance, it is always sensible to review it and consider any lessons that have been learned, some of which may take us into the realms of needing primary legislation.

This committee has already gathered a large amount of evidence and we have already initiated a process of review around the automaticity of approving boundaries. I do not want to get ahead of that process—you would not expect me to—which is completely independent of Government and Parliament. We will have to look at what is reported in due course, and I am sure that Parliament will take an interest. If any changes are suggested, that will probably take us into the realms of requiring primary legislation, and at that point it may also be sensible to consider what other changes we might want to make to our process.

I say that not as any form of criticism—you caveated your remarks as well, convener—as I think that Boundaries Scotland discharges its responsibilities very well in undertaking the process. However, of course, we should be willing to learn lessons, not least if Boundaries Scotland itself is flagging issues. Of course, we should be willing to listen to that.

Yes. My expectation, which I have discussed with Mr Kerr, is that the review should report in the autumn—in September or October—which should give us plenty of time to look at its report in the current session of Parliament. There will be no time to legislate, of course, on the back of any recommendations—let us be clear about that at the outset—so it will be for the Parliament, however it is composed, in the next session to consider the findings of that report.

As I have said, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. If you are asking my view, on balance, I think that the approach that we take is slightly better. Although it is a slightly more onerous process, which we must constantly revise because of the points that I just made, I think that there is an advantage in having the specific details of who is disqualified.

Yes, convener, and my thanks to you and the committee for the opportunity to discuss the order.

The order is an established item of business in advance of each Scottish Parliament election. Section 15 of the Scotland Act 1998 sets out the circumstances in which a person is disqualified automatically from membership of the Parliament—for example, by virtue of their being a judge, civil servant or member of the armed forces. In addition, section 15 provides an order-making power to disqualify specific office-holders from membership of the Parliament, thereby allowing for separation between the legislature and the holders of various public offices. That serves to reinforce their independence from one another.

In preparing the draft order that disqualifies specific office-holders, we consulted widely with policy officials and sponsor teams in the Scottish Government and with Parliament officials on the entries for offices supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. With the help of officials in the Scotland Office, we gathered responses from the United Kingdom Government and the other devolved nations through devolution leads in each UK department.

The draft order that is before the committee updates the list of disqualified offices to reflect relevant appointments that have been abolished, renamed or created since the making of the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 2020. A total of 30 new disqualifications were added, 21 were removed and 28 amendments were made to existing disqualified offices. I highlight the fact that 12 of the amendments simply reflected changes in the names of bodies from “Her Majesty’s” to “His Majesty’s”. For example, HMRC has now changed from being Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

To give you an example of an addition, we have added the new Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, following the Parliament’s decision to establish the role earlier in this parliamentary session. Given that the commissioner is supported by the SPCB and is expected to be politically impartial, it is important to ensure that an individual is not able to hold that role while being an MSP.

This list is extensive, given the breadth of the public body landscape across the UK, but members should not see the order as a constraint on the wide talent that is available to the Parliament, as people in a disqualified office can, of course, opt to step down from such a position and seek to bring their experience to the Parliament if they wish.

As the committee will be aware, the order was originally withdrawn and relaid. That followed the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee highlighting some bodies in the list that had changed name and so were no longer correctly captured. Those amounted to less than 1 per cent of the overall list, and it is important to recognise that the errors highlighted did not relate to Scottish bodies or office-holders, so the chance of such individuals seeking to become an MSP were slim. Regardless, I am grateful to the DPLRC for highlighting those errors so that we could make the necessary corrections in advance of coming to this committee.

Ailsa Kemp, Kenny Pentland, Jordan McGrory and I are happy to take any questions that you might have.

It is updated in advance of each and every Scottish Parliament election. The last update was done in 2020.