Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clearly, that would make a difference to the estate and to Police Scotland more generally.

In a similar vein, there has been much public deliberation about the capital position of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The SFRS has told the committee that it has a backlog of around £818 million, and that it requires investment to increase by £80 million annually in the next 10 years, compared to the £43 million that it currently receives. What is the Government’s response to that deficit and to what the SFRS has said that it will require for its capital backlog to be met? What is the Government’s position on the need to fund and modernise the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, while ensuring that risk is mitigated and that suitable cover is available in both urban and rural Scotland?

I think that Mr Greer has touched on this already, but is there a need to consider the inconvenience and public cost of multiple by-elections following the main local authority elections, which are cyclical? The next one is scheduled for 2027.

I do not question the Government’s good faith. However, not just in this area but more widely, in all subject areas, there is a challenge, in that bills with scope to make changes come around only every so often. Passing bills is a significant process, so we should utilise each bill to make the changes that people wish to see.

It is right that the issues have been raised at stage 2, and the consultation will be an important one. I will leave it up to others to consider whether there is scope, practical ability or enthusiasm from the committee, the Parliament or the Government to have a longer period between stage 2 and stage 3.

Lastly, members will notice that the pronoun that is used in amendment 59 is “he”, which is because the pronoun that is used in the Scotland Act 1998 is “he”. It would be appropriate for the committee, the Parliament and the Government to consider ahead of stage 3 whether it is possible to change the pronoun across all the criteria, given that we are seeking to have a more equal and representative Parliament that is reflective of Scotland, with more female MSPs. It is archaic that that language is still used.

Will the member take an intervention?

First, I thank the minister and his officials for their engagement on amendment 59, and I thank the Electoral Commission for its briefing, which makes reference to my amendment, in advance of today’s meeting.

The lodging of amendment 59 for consideration today came as a result of a number of discussions over the summer regarding matters in the public discourse following the general election in July. In relation to the rules for candidates, I and others were prompted to think about the local connection to Scotland of people who stand for election to the Scottish Parliament. Having considered the wider issue, and given that the bill was at stage 2, I felt that it was right and pertinent for me to explore the possibility of an amendment in that space. Are our legal obligations and rules strict enough to ensure that people who stand for, and are then elected to, the Scottish Parliament have a suitable and appropriate connection to the people of Scotland and to the communities that they, as candidates, would be seeking to represent and serve?

There were a number of potential ways of lodging such an amendment. I chose to use the term “ordinarily resident”, but I could have used the term “habitually resident”, which would have been a higher test, and I could have proposed an obligation on candidates to be registered to vote in Scottish Parliament elections in one of the constituencies or regions. However, to be proportionate and balanced, I decided to use the term “ordinarily resident”.

The minister and the Electoral Commission have pointed out that this is a significant matter. We need to consider not only how such provisions would operate with the Scotland Act 1998 but people’s rights in relation to the requirements for standing in UK elections, the Commonwealth and immigration restrictions.

I am happy not to move amendment 59 at stage 2, but we should consider the issue. I am pleased that the minister has committed to a further consultation on the matter and others, but, in relation to not only my amendment but the amendments that have been lodged by colleagues, the fact that, under the current proposals, the results of the consultation would not be implemented until the next parliamentary session means that there would not be changes relating to these potentially quite important issues until before the 2031 election.

I fully appreciate that the parliamentary timetable for the rest of this session is packed, but given that we have a bill in front of us, the committee and the Government could consider whether there was scope for the consultation to take place between stages 2 and 3, with stage 3 being delayed, in order for the bill to be what it could be. I know that the Government has an obligation to pass and implement the bill ahead of the 2026 election and that there needs to be a suitable timeframe for that.

Good morning, and thank you for your evidence so far and for your submissions. The written submission from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service states that the organisation

“is committed to reducing resource needs as pandemic recovery progresses, and reflecting efficiencies in casework, reform, and system level transformation.”

Do both of your organisations see scope for future savings if there is investment in the coming budget and the coming years, and multiyear budget settlements, as has already been discussed? If so, when might those future savings be realised? Mr Logue, do you want to take that first?

Mr Graham, do you want to add anything?

Together with support staff.

So, by mid-2026?