Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Simpson, I want to have consensus here. I genuinely do not think that you are meaning to be obtuse—perhaps you are. There is an underlying policy intent about ensuring that the global south, however we define it—I have accepted the lack of clarity in that regard—should be consulted.

Yes, I lacked brevity when asking my previous question, which was: does Mr Simpson agree with the policy intent? I am still not clear on that.

That is a reasonable point, and I anticipated that it would be made not only by Graham Simpson but by the minister. I did not want to deviate from the wording that I agreed with SCIAF, but I appreciate that there may be a need to tighten it up.

As soon as we define the global south, we could perhaps exclude some places, so we need to give the Scottish Government a degree of latitude and flexibility. That is also why this may turn out to be a probing amendment. Perhaps the wording will be tightened up, and it will be brought back at stage 3.

The important thing is that, in the co-design process with other groups, which was mentioned earlier, we need to make sure that the global south—however we define it, Mr Simpson—is part of the discussions, not just on our terms but in a way that means that we hear directly from those partners about the real-life impact on their part of the world.

I will leave it at that and draw my remarks to an end, convener.

I have been working on amendment 187 with the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which I thank for its efforts. It is keen—and I agree—that

“relevant policy makers, human right defenders and environmental experts from the Global South”

should be consulted in the development of our circular economy strategy.

SCIAF has suggested that participants from Scotland’s partner countries—such as Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda and Pakistan—could be included. I have not named any countries in my amendment. I am keen for the amendment to be as flexible as possible, to maximise its opportunity to be useful to the Government and to make a meaningful contribution to ensuring that the global south is properly consulted. Those who are closest to the harm that is caused by our consumption and who understand global needs should be included in the development and implementation of our circular economy strategy.

The circular economy strategy does not sit in isolation. A truly circular economy needs to take account of the impact on the global south. We must look at it through both ends of the telescope. I am sure that the Scottish Government will want to look at the impact on the global south, anyway—

I absolutely will.

That is kind of you, convener. You can tell that I was previously a member of the committee, as you have asked me to be short.

Minister, as you know, I have raised in Parliament—and I have met you to talk about—concerns over voter education and the parts of the country in which there is a prevalence of spoiled papers. I mention specifically the Canal ward in my constituency. I have been working with councillors Allan Gow and Jacqueline McLaren because, at the most recent council elections, that ward had the highest number of spoiled papers in Scotland, at three times the national average. The votes were accidentally spoiled by multiple voting for two or three candidates from the same party.

I am keen for the Electoral Commission to step forward not just when there is an election but all year round. I put it to you that the bill could be a vehicle for putting some form of statutory duty on the Electoral Commission to do some of that voter education, targeted locally. Might the bill remain a vehicle for achieving some of those ambitions?

That is encouraging, minister.

Convener, I would like to clarify something. In the bill, I noticed part 5 on increased democratic engagement and part 8 on the Electoral Commission. At this stage, has the Government thought about where an amendment might best sit? Clearly, away from this committee, we will work diligently to agree a suitable amendment, but do you have any initial thoughts?

I am consistent if nothing else, minister. When I was on the committee previously, I was keen to see randomised ballot papers at council elections because of the clear alphabet bias, from A to Z, in voting and preferential voting.

Previously, the minister’s view was that it was too complex, that the risks outweighed the benefits and that it was not that clear. I understand that the committee has started to hear evidence that some of those barriers might be less of an issue now, and that the concerns of some groups are being assuaged somewhat. What is the minister’s current thinking on that?

Would it require primary legislation to run a pilot? There is a section in the bill on electoral pilots, so would the bill give the Government the power to carry out a pilot on randomised ballots at a later date?

Come and visit, minister.

I have one more question if there is time, convener. I am not sighted on the questions that committee members are going to ask, so if another member is asking this question, I will just leave it. It is in relation to randomised ballot papers at elections.