Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

So, for the rest of this parliamentary session, the focus could and perhaps should be on supporting the reform, so that we start to see the benefit in the next session.

Quite rightly, you have emphasised the reality of the backlog of the pandemic implications. Thanks for emphasising that. Before Mr Graham comes in, I invite you both to respond to one further point.

Yesterday, the Public and Commercial Services Union published a report that highlighted the effect on productivity of a number of issues, including information technology infrastructure and the challenges of physical infrastructure such as IT and digital systems. Will you comment on the importance of capital investment in and improvement of that infrastructure for efficiency, the progress of justice and morale, and the knock-on effect on your revenue budget and some of the demands that you mentioned?

Good morning. I want to go back to capital matters for a moment, and I also have a question on revenue.

With regard to capital, I note the statements in paragraph 12 of Police Scotland’s submission about

“securing multi-year funding commitments from Scottish Government, the exercise of statutory borrowing powers and the establishment of a facility to enable the carry forward of financial reserves.”

Could you say a bit more about how the dialogue with the Government has gone? The Scottish Government faces challenges, given its constricted ability to borrow and to provide multiyear funding, because of the nature of the fiscal framework. Coupled with that, clarity on most aspects of the Scottish Government’s budget is provided only annually, because of the way in which the UK Government budget process works. What would be a welcome update from the chancellor in today’s UK Government budget, given the wider considerations on planning the capital investment that is clearly essential for the delivery of policing?

I do not underestimate the logistical challenge of timetabling, scheduling and organising trials and ensuring that it is a thorough and appropriate process, but it seems that a lot of time could be saved if we utilised technology more.

I presume that that includes the Crown Office.