 I'm glad to welcome everyone to the fifth meeting of the Standards, Procedure and Public Appointments Committee in 2021. For members and witnesses who are on BlueJeans, please remember to put an R in the chat function as your request to speak. The first agenda item today is to consider whether or not the committee will hear a complaint from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life in Scotland i'w hynny yn gweithio i'r gweithio sydd wedi'i fawr. Felly, gallwn cymdeithasol yn gweithio i gyrraedd. Mae'n gweithio i gyrraedd. Mae'r drwyfyn yn cyflwyno cymdeithasol. Mae'n gweithio i gwrsiau gyda'i ddweud o'r sgwrsiau cerddwyngol ac oedd yn gweithio i gyrsiau cerddwyngol. Ac rwy'n gweithio i gydag George Adam, Llyfrgellol Llyfrgell, Ian Hoganhull ac Craig McGuffie. I would now like to invite the minister, if you would like to make a short opening statement about these, and then the committee will have questions. Thank you, convener, and as always, it's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes to the procedures for running local government elections in Scotland. The measures laid out in the measures before you today were carefully developed to assist the delivery of next May's local government elections apply some of the changes made ahead of this year's Scottish Parliament elections and reflect recent primary legislation by Parliament on the franchise and wider electoral reform. While our focus has been on clarifying and strengthening existing approaches, we have also taken the opportunity to update electoral rules to strengthen our system and improve the experience for candidates and voters. For example, we are bringing in new exemptions to candidates' suspending in relation to costs for security, adaptions for disabilities and translation. That aligns with the approach that is taken for the Scottish Parliament election this year and reflects the importance of accessibility, inclusion and safety. Development of these instruments have benefited from close engagement with key stakeholders, including the Electoral Management Board, the Electoral Commission and the Scottish Parliament political parties panel. Those partners and the wider electoral community continue to play a vital role in shaping policy and ensuring that voters have the best experience on polling day. I want to take this chance to thank them for their support and their reflections and look forward to working closely with them on the preparations for May 2022 in the coming months. I hope that you will agree that those provisions are positive changes, which will benefit voters, candidates and administrators and you will therefore give your support to those orders. I am willing to take any questions and I thank you for listening to me. Thank you for that minister. My intention is to work through each of the four SSIs that are in front of us in order so that it will make the next agenda item more straightforward. If we can look at the first one, the representation of the people postal voting for local government elections Scotland amendment regulations 2021, and I am going to hand over to Paul, I think, who has some questions. Thank you, King of Inor. I defer everyone to my register of interest, I am a councillor serving at the moment on East Llyrden Council, and I am glad that you read out the act rather than to save myself that. Minister, welcome. We really just started talking in about the deadline changing from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. on polling days. The question is really why was the deadline previously 5 p.m. and what impact would that have on electoral administrators? I can answer your first question by saying that the fact that the 10 p.m. deadline was created so that we would be on a parity with the Scottish elections, so that was first and foremost. With regard to why it was 5 p.m. initially, that may have been lost in the annals of time, but I will possibly ask one of my officials, Ian, if you could possibly help me out in this one. I am lost in the annals of time, which is pretty much what I was going to say. We could investigate if it would be of interest to the committee. I personally don't know. Thanks for that, minister. Again, was there any indication, I suppose, from previous elections about anybody being disenfranchised when it was 5 p.m. rather than 10 p.m.? Whole, I don't think there was. I will probably ask Ian to give you some more detail on that. On the whole, I don't think there was issues. There's always been a flexibility regarding people when they've had to turn up. Yes, there'll always be times when it'll be difficult and people won't do it, and we have to make sure that we deal with that situation as well. However, what we've tried to do is create a flexibility so that there is that opportunity for everyone to get not be disenfranchised and any shape or form, but with regard to the detail, I'll ask Ian to give you some answers on that. We don't have any particular data or people saying one way or the other that they've been disadvantaged, but the experience of the Scottish Parliament election suggested that just offering those five extra hours would help the odd case of someone who was disadvantaged, potentially disadvantaged in this way. We've asked stakeholders or electorate administrators to monitor how this goes and see if there are any complaints, but the Electoral Commission were very much in favour of this change as well. Thank you, Paul. I think that it's certainly fair to say in the previous election that there were events in East Lothian that led to an emergency proxy being issued at about nine o'clock, and I could see the same event occurring with the council election, so thank you for that. Does any other committee member have a question on that SSI before we move to the next one? I'll take silence as we've got through that one. The next one we're going to look at is the Scottish Local Government Elections Amendment Order 2021. Indeed, I'm going to take convener's privilege on this one and jump off because there are a couple of matters that do concern me. The first is in relation to the equality impact assessment. I note from the information that was provided that there was an assurance that this would be published before it was laid before the chamber, and indeed it has been laid to come with it, but I don't know whether the minister you have sight of it, but there were some questions that were raised in the compilation of the equality impact assessment, which requested that follow-up after the election on how expenditure exclusion is used may be helpful in understanding the impact of the policy. In addition, the equality impact assessment makes reference to a lack of data to really feed into the decision making. First, the practicalities of whether it will be followed up and we can have that assurance. Secondly, on a slightly higher level, whether you had any concerns regarding the equality impact assessment given the lack of data about the people it applies to. At this stage, I will probably bring you in to answer that in more detail. Certainly the intention is to monitor the progress and see how it goes to inform any future elections orders. The data reference is not really for this particular order, it is more for future developments. We consulted with a number of groups and stakeholders, we wrote out a number of community groups. Unfortunately, we only actually had a response from Age Scotland, but overall no particular concerns were raised. If I go back to what the equality impact assessment said, we are talking about excluding certain items from the expenditure. It does specifically say follow-up after the elections on how the expenditure exclusion is used may be helpful in understanding the impact of the policy. I understand it and, obviously, it needs to apply to future elections, because it does not have the data on that one. However, it seems to me to be a very strong request that, without confirmation on that follow-up, the actual effect and impact of that is going to be unknown. I suppose that we are taking various types of spending in relation to making events that are accessible to people with disabilities or making publications and saying that those do not count towards the candidate's spend and limit. The idea is to see how that goes in terms of what sort of activity does it cover, what do people put in their spending returns, where they say that this is what we did, and just to see what the pattern of the picture is and see if there are any conclusions from that, whether additions or subtractions should be made. It certainly seems to be a challenge for those who drafted the equality impact assessment to say what the impact would be because of the lack of data. I think that that is agreed. Can I push further and ask whether that follow-up takes place on the basis of the expenditure returns that come after the council elections in May next year? Yes. I think that the Electoral Commission is looking at these matters with their returns and returning officers are monitoring it as well. I am sorry, but I meant in relation to the impact of this policy on the excluded expenditure returns, because that would fall within the Government's responsibility to do that. We would work with them with their findings, because they would normally do the questioning in the first instance, and then we would look at what they did in the first instance. I summarise some of that, convener. We will take the data that we receive from the next election in order to take things forward in the future. I think that we are trying to do something here. I am aware personally, if I use an example of the expenditure that can be for just for the talking sake of a disabled candidate, because my sister, Jennifer, is a councillor in Remfrewshire and Paisley, and she, as a disabled candidate, had to have extra support needs, including Scotland, for various candidates at the time. When we get that data back, it will be interesting for us to see that data so that we can see what we can do to make things more accessible for those who want to make sure that everyone can engage and be either a candidate within the process. Granted, I think that we all can accept that there will be more expenditure for certain candidates. That is very helpful. Certainly, at evidence and discussions that I have had, people with disabilities have felt very much supported in the additional expenditure. It is just really to hone in on a request that was made there and to have that assurance that it will be looked at after March again. To be honest, I think that it will be helpful for us all to be able to check that information so that we can tweak it and make sure that we do not claim to have all the answers all the time. It is a case of making sure that we get things right at one point in the future. That assurance is very helpful. If I can just turn to a couple more aspects for points of clarification. In relation to the additional costs of security, can you explain what was being thought about in that? I have asked a number of sitting councillors and prospective councillors, and they did not really understand what was being referenced by that. I think that it is just a reference to potential increased security with the current climate and the moves might be needed to have security at a venue or a way out of a particular—or maybe not a way out, it is not the right term—security at an event that the candidate is speaking at and to not count that as part of the standing for that candidate in compiling the returns. Thank you for that. Obviously, we are living in a period following an absolute tragedy where individual elected members' security and venues where they gather is paramount, but the SSI in essence, that discussion about security predates the current events. My understanding is that such additional security is needed in relation to that. There is advice from Police Scotland and, indeed, other bodies that do that. I was just really wondering what was being considered at the time, given that the responsibility for funding that security will rest with the individual or their political party that they represent. The purpose of the SSI is merely to allow it to appear in the return but not to play against the totals that need to be expended. If I could push you whether there was anything more specific that was considered by that. I do not think so. I suppose that the general gist of that is that spending, which is not to a candidate's advantage such as taking account of a person's disability or security concerns—that expenditure is not helping them to get elected. It seems reasonable to not have it count for those totals. I can be honest to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged in any shape or form, because, if they have to have an expense, that would be more than an expense that another candidate would not have. It is to create the parity so that they can be there. I understand where you are trying to come from with regard to security in particular, because we live in difficult times. When the SSI was created, there had already been a number of tragedies before that. That would have been taken into account as we have moved forward. I believe that we have to ensure that all our candidates, whether it be council, parliamentary, Westminster or Holyrood, feel safe and have that opportunity to be safe. However, at the same time, ourselves as elected officials need to be accessible to the public. I heard a security briefing recently where someone explained to me that perhaps she should not advertise her surgeries and should not tell them what time she is turning up. That is not really helpful, because that is what we do. We need to be very careful that we do not end up in that place. I have to say, minister, that from the wording in the statutory instrument itself, which talks about the additional costs that any disabled person would face, is very broad. Only when you start looking into the policy note there appears to be emphasis and restrictions put on it. I absolutely accept and wholeheartedly agree that this should be about removing the additional expenses that some individuals face in running for election, as compared to others. Indeed, with the certainty of that answer, it brings to my last question in relation to this, which was to the bodies that were consulted. I have to say, I found it a little limiting—let me put it that way—as to the bodies that were reached out to, given that there is substantial evidential experience from various bodies in Scotland that I think would have been able to contribute to this. I hear what you say about the actual responses that you had, but were there any positive steps made to reach out to any disability organisations and, indeed, existing elected disabled representatives to feed into that? It was just the organisations that were listed. I can take the point that we can go further. I am happy to take that on board for the future consultations and how we go forward. I am a great believer, as you will be aware. My wife has multiple sclerosis, so disability and accessibility to everything is quite important to me. I will take that on board and look at various other organisations that we work with. On the positive side, the ones that we have worked with, we have got good conclusions and we have had outcomes from them as well. It is about whether we can do things better all the time—every day is a school day—so we will be able to do things better in the future, and we will take on board your points. If there are any groups that you have possibly suggested or the members of this committee want to suggest, I am quite happy to have a look at that. I certainly think that that would be helpful following the election with the review process that has been undertaken, if at the very least captured the experience of how it has worked the first time around. That would be helpful. Personally, that is always a bit—I know that it sounds almost like a political geek, but I find that quite exciting because you can actually work down how you can make things better. Every time something goes wrong, I see it as an opportunity to try and make it better. That sounds as if I am being a bit cheesy, but it is always the way. Absolutely. My last question in relation to the SSI Assembly was my last, but this is my last. In relation to how the SSI is going to be applied across Scotland, with regard to the deductions, what you will do to monitor that across the whole of Scotland so that we do not have a situation in which, in one submission, certain expenses are allowed to be deducted and, on another, that has not benefited the same way? Personally, on the whole, it should be throughout Scotland. It is probably our job to ensure that returning officers in every area are aware of that and are aware that everyone gets equal level of training. I admit where you are coming from, convener, where, as someone who has been part of the electoral process, it can differ from area to area, depending on staffing. I think that the difficulty that we have at the moment was, if you look at Scottish elections, that some of the things that did not work out and the issues that we have been discussing today was the fact of how differently we are compared to anything else. I cannot guarantee what is going to happen between now and May next year with regard to Covid as we move forward. I cannot say that it will not be under those pressures as well, but it is down to us to ensure that all the returning officers are aware that those are the key priorities and that they need to make sure that all their staff are aware or that everyone who is working on the election is aware that that is what we want to do. That is very helpful. Tess, I understand that you have a question and then I will come to the rest of the committee. I do, thank you, convener. Minister, there is one area that does concern me, and it relates to the order placing and obligation on the returning officer to send an official poll card or notification to a detained prisoner or prisoner held on remand and at the place that they are being detained rather than the address at which they are registered to vote. Could you give us some background on why you felt that there was a need to change the order and particularly bearing mind that it affects such a small number of people? I agree. A lot of the time people will say that we make things difficult for ourselves because it is such a small group of individuals, but again we are on the principle of everyone needs to have the accessibility to be able to vote and make their vote. One of the things that we have looked at can be very difficult no matter how you look at prisoner voting and in shape or form. It is a difficult position for us to find how we can make it easier for them to do that because there are all kinds of complex issues that can happen in between. They could be released early or they could end up staying longer, and they could be incarcerated longer as well. There are all kinds of variables that make it quite difficult for us to do that, and it makes it really complex for us. Just to give you the actual detail, I will ask Ian to give you the reasons why, but just to give you the kind of mood music for this, Ms White, is the fact that it is a complex situation that we are trying to make sure that it is as simple as possible, but it can be quite challenging. I think that the specific one on the poll card was highlighted by electoral registration officers who have just pointed out that effectively the prisoner would be relying on someone at the home address then passing on the poll card to them in the prison, so that allows them to go direct to the prisoner. It is somebody else's rather than a complaint that you have received or data that you are making. I would say what is to stop us from leaving this as it is right now. Bearing in mind also our position on prisoner voting, but leaving it where it is, because it is an area of concern, and then reviewing it at some future stage. You mean the ushering of the poll card to their home address? Yes, just leaving it to the current situation where you are sending it to their home address, because some people would prefer to have it sent to their home addresses, and that is their main preference, because they get everything sent to their home addresses. So you are making an exception for this. Have you sought people's input? It was mainly electoral registration officers who suggested it. I do not think that this would be counted as a change that we would expect to be a big difference either way. It is a change and it is a concern, so if there is no complaints and nobody has found any difficult, then why make this tweak? It was suggested that it would make it a little easier for most people and that it would not have to be forwarded on. So it is not that important to you, it is just a tweak. I am just saying that it is an area of concern, and I would recommend that we leave it where it is right now, rather than change anything on it. If you could consider that, minister. We will maybe look on what you have discussed today, Ms White, but for the SSI that we are going through now, we need to ensure that we have the elections for next year, and I would suggest that if you could bear with us at this stage. I have given the assurance that we will listen and look at what you have suggested, but at the end of the day, we have a process that we were explained by some of our returning officers that this was the way forward, and it was suited better for the electorate themselves. If we can find other information or data, we will pursue that later date, but for the hearing now to ensure that we move forward, I think that we have to stick with what we have here in front of us today. A really interesting line of questioning, of course. There was a general policy agreement across the Parliament. I set aside that I know that some members of the Parliament did not support prisoner voting, but there is a clear majority in the Parliament, and the policy intent is to maximise the amount of prisoners who have an entitlement to vote that the exercise of that democratic right is part of that journey through their citizenship rights and responsibilities, and there is a broad agreement in the Parliament that that is what we should do. I wonder, minister, if after the next election you would review what difference that makes sending the polling card to prisons rather than to home addresses, because the underlying issue is that very, very few prisoners registered to vote in the first place, and I suspect that very, very few eventually cast their vote. I suspect that this change is about encouraging more people who are in custody to exercise their democratic rights. What we want to do is make sure that has this had a positive effect, or otherwise. I am clear and minded to support this statute of instrument, but it became to see a degree of review and analysis of the impact that this has had after the next election. Mr Doris, as always, you make an articulate case for it and agreed. I think that it would be interesting information for us to look at post the election as well. You are correct. It is all about rehabilitation and move forward in bringing those who are incarcerated back into society as a whole and to make sure that we make that as simple and as easy as possible. I do believe that we should maybe look at that detail and I did make that commitment to Ms White earlier on that we will look at that data when it comes in post next year's election. That concludes the evidence in relation to the positive SSIs. We have two more SSIs to deal with and the next is the representation of the people variation of limits of candidates local government election expenses Scotland order 2021. For this, I am going to invite Edward, who is with us remotely, to put the questions. Thank you, convener, and good morning minister. Perhaps you could just help me. I want to try and find out a bit more about the spending limits. Some of £740 is the one that has been increased. Could you tell me when that was put in place and when it was last reviewed? Sorry, you are quite faint, Mr Mountain. I never quite heard you there. Okay, I will move closer to the microphone. Can you hear me now? Now you are the voice of God. As I hoped. Okay, so maybe that is something to do with broadcasting. Minister, my question was that the £740 limit that was set, which is the one that has been reviewed. When was that set and when was it last reviewed? I will ask Ian to answer that one for us, Mr Mountain. I am reasonably confident that we will be in the previous main local government elections order before the 2017 elections. I would not swear to that, but I can double check. Essentially, those figures get reviewed ahead of every major election cycle and updated largely to take account of inflation. However, we will confirm that detail to you, Mr Mountain. We will get back to you, the committee, on that and confirm that to you, Mr Mountain. Thank you, minister. My question therefore, how did you come up with the £66, which is the most bizarre figure? It is at 8.918 per cent of gingries. How has the £66 figure worked out? Once again, I will rely on Ian's expertise on this one. I think that it is essentially an inflation calculation. I am told that it is not the most exact calculation. It is a reasonable approximation, but it is essentially based on inflation. Mr Mountain, I believe that every election that we have, we tend to look towards inflation to see where we are at in order to make sure that we do not stay at the same amounts all the time. It is to ensure that all the candidates are getting the value that they need for what they can spend. My question then comes down to whether it is based purely on inflation. I am not sure how, even with doing a cumulative inflation figure for the period that figure comes up. The next election will be very different to previous elections because of Covid. I still believe that a lot more will have to be done remotely. I have argued the point before that, when it comes to parliamentary elections, there has been a huge shift from hand delivery to postal delivery. Do we think that that £66 increase is sufficient when it has probably been accepted already that the increase for parliamentary elections needs to be bigger than just a formulaic inflation-proof increase? I think that when you look at it as a candidate myself and a former councillor, you always say that you could probably spend more money in a campaign, but I think that you have to draw a line at one point in what is fair for everyone to make sure that everyone has a level playing field. I think that that gives us that opportunity, Mr Mountain. I think that when you look towards the end of the last Scottish election, when we were finally allowed to get involved and go out and get to some form of normal campaigning, we managed to still be able to go out, deliver the leaflets and get things forward. Personally, I do not know of many candidates locally in our area who started using mailing to that extent. I did not personally myself and just went forward with the campaign as it is. We had a campaign light at the start and we made sure that we accounted for the fact that we were living in difficult times and that it would be a certain way. Was it a nervous time for me as a candidate? It probably was, because halfway through the campaign, sitting in the house, I was starting to worry. However, as we move forward, we just need to give the parties the opportunity for them to continue with this limit. I still think that they should be okay. If we get data further down the line after the election, that says otherwise, then, as always, we will review it. Minister, how many councillors were asked—I suspect that it is some time since you have been a councillor, but how many councillors were asked whether they thought that the spending limits were correct and was that across every geographical area? Minister, it is much easier in your area to deliver leaflets than it is in an area, say, in the north of Scotland, where there are huge geographical areas to cover. How many councillors were asked and what were their opinions? I take that on board. Yes, it was not yesterday when I was a councillor, but I do not let the white hair fool you, Mr Mountain. It was only at least 11 or 12 years ago. I take that on board with regard to the geographic differences and I am aware of that. I will ask again about the consultation with the local authorities and councillors. The consultation is primarily with the Scottish political parties panel, representatives of the parties, and also with COSLA. I am not aware of individual councillors being involved. On the whole, COSLA as the main body for local authorities would have an opinion and, obviously, it would be fed into from leaders and deputy leaders throughout the country and those involved in the process, and those who are members of the group. It has been reasonably broad. It would be difficult for us to break it down into individual councillors, because, as you know, Mr Mountain, there are quite a few of them, and it would be difficult for us to break it down into that. However, as always, if there are better ways of engaging with people and there are opportunities for us to do that, we will look at that. That is slightly disappointing that you have not actually been the coalface, as it were, and asked councillors whether it is sufficient. I understand that COSLA is a representative body, but there are a lot of councillors who do not feel that COSLA represents their particular views. If I was going to be doing this in your position, I would have asked a poll for councillors. It is so easy to do. We have survey monkey and various other ways of carrying out polls. It would have been nice to know that we would have spoken to councillors, so I am disappointed by that. I am just pushing on slightly further. I take from what you have said that you believe that there should be spending limits, and I agree with you. However, I wonder if the Scottish Government is going to be thinking of spending limits in relation to Covid, in relation to the whole issue of travelling round and the effects of huge amounts of travel. I remember when I stood in Caithness, I did 14,000 miles trying to get round the constituency during the election. It was massive, and we did not want to do that, so we might need to rely more on pushing out leaflets and information. Are you going to be considering spending limits and speaking to not only councillors but MSPs to see whether they think that it is the right level? MPs as well, do you think that the limits are the correct level rather than just making a decision yourself? I am quite happy to have that dialogue with anyone with regard to how they see the way forward, Mr Mountain, with regard to what you said earlier about COSLA being a represented board and those councils not feeling represented on it. As a former councillor, I find that difficult to believe, because even though I was a backbench councillor for much of my time as a councillor, I attended COSLA on a number of occasions and was able to input what I wanted to be said through my group. I think that that is down to individual groups and parties to be able to do that as well. From your perspective with regard to the costs that are involved with campaigns, again, I would say that, regarding geographic area, it has always been down to individual campaigns and parties to do that as well. Is that a discussion that we have for the future as to how we fund elections? That is probably not for today, but it is something that we could discuss and debate in the future. My comment in return before I hand back to the convener is that a lot changes in 12 years are not only views on COSLA, but on election expenses. I am sure that you will accept that as well. I am sure that Mr Mountain and the minister do not look very differently than they did 12 years ago. I am sure that they look old then also. I suppose that Mr Mountain makes a reasonable point in relation to consultation. You mentioned that COSLA is consulted with, as are the political parties panel. The next time that the Government consults with COSLA and the political parties panel, if we remind them, they should be as extensive in their consultation with councillors right across the country and with party activists right across the country as well. I suspect that there is a joint responsibility not just for the Government but for political parties and for COSLA. It is to make sure that we hold to account appropriately each organisation that has that job to do consultation, not just Government. After the election, the good thing is that you have that discussion if the Government reminds COSLA and political parties to do that consultation internally. That is probably helpful, Mr Doris, because a lot of the technologies that Mr Mountain mentioned COSLA and the political parties panel could probably use themselves in order to engage with their membership. I think that it is important that we remember that Government is here to govern. Although we are consulting, we need to make sure that those organisations do consult with their own membership as well. That is helpful, and it is something that we could suggest and discuss with partner organisations in the future. As a point of clarification, the SI and the increase in the spending took no account of Covid and the additional expenditure on Covid. It has just been calculated as an uplift. Is that correct? It is really for the evidence. I would like to believe, but I will shouldn't hear from Ian if he tells me otherwise. Yes, that is my understanding. Thank you. I just wanted that for purposes of clarification. If there are no further questions on that SI, we come to our last one, which is the representation of the People, Absent Voting and Local Government Elections to Scotland, amendment regulations 2021. In essence, this SI changes the time in relation to applying for emergency proxy applications that are made after 5pm and changes to that. There are a number of questions that arise from this, but I suppose that the crucial one is what was the reason for the 5pm deadline for an emergency proxy for someone who is disabled, but the removal of that 5pm deadline for someone who is detained? If you wish, I will pass on to Ian at this stage. The principal divergence is really in relation to prisoners who have been detained for some time. For example, a prisoner detained on 1 January and the election is at the start of May. It is possible that they might, we would hope that they would be in place arrangements for a postal vote or a proxy vote at that point, but it is possible that they might expect to be released before polling day, and then something happens that means that they end up serving all of their term past polling day. If that happens shortly in the run-up to the election, then that offers them the facility to get that emergency proxy, even though they have actually been there for some time. It seems slightly counterintuitive, but we thought that it was such a small number of people that an alternative option would be so complicated to construct that it would confuse everyone horribly. We put that in place. It raises the question of what happens when someone is detained very shortly before the normal proxy deadline. If someone is detained six days or seven days before the election, they are probably not going to think that they have two days to get in a normal proxy, and they might only think of it a few days before polling day, in which case if we applied it rigidly, they would be too late for an emergency proxy in the classic sense. They could make an application, but we thought that it was probably fair to make that a little simpler. For a disabled person, the changes here should help them as well. If someone suffers a disability before the normal proxy deadline and, understandably, is unable to get their normal proxy through, then, yes, that change will help those people, and they will be able to get an emergency proxy much more easily. But only until 5 pm? Until 5 pm on the day of the election. No, no, everyone is 5 pm on the day of the election. That is the end point for everyone getting an emergency proxy. So, the 5 pm deadline for a person who is detained has not been removed, but it is still there? Yes. It is just a slight difference for the deadline to apply for an emergency proxy, which is six days before the election. Quite helpfully is the complexities of trying to legislate for the prison of voting. Again, as I say, it is a small number of people, and it is quite difficult for us in challenging the process. You have perfectly highlighted that, convener. Thank you for that. I am conscious of time, but I was also going to raise again the question of who had been approached with regard to seeking advice on the consultation, because, again, it appears quite limited, unfortunately. Again, it is something that I know that the minister has undertaken to review on a number of matters going forward, which is extremely helpful. To reiterate that on this issue, rather than us going through the same process again, I am quite happy to say that we will look at that post the next election as well. We will take the data that we have and take it from there. That is very helpful. Does anyone on the committee have any further questions before I close this evidence section? Excellent. I would like to thank both the minister and those who advised the minister for their evidence, which has been very helpful. We are now going to move to agenda items 3 and 4, for which the minister will stay present to formally move the motions, and we will have, if necessary, a debate on this matter. I would now like to invite the minister to move and speak to motion S6M-01320, that the Standards and Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the representation of the people postal voting for local government elections Scotland amendment regulations 2021 be approved. I would type for brevity for yourselves in your agenda, moved formally, convener. Would any committee member like to speak to this motion? Minister, would you like to make any closing remarks? I am quite happy to continue. Excellent. The question is that motion S6M-01320 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Then we are agreed, and can confirm that the committee agrees the motion. Can I confirm that the committee is satisfied for me to sign off the report to go to the chamber? I would now like to invite the minister to move and speak to motion S6M-01320, that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Scottish Local Government Elections amendment order 2021 be approved. I am grateful. Would any members like to speak to this motion? No. Excellent. I presume that there are no closing remarks, Minister. No closing remarks. Excellent. The question is that motion S6M-01321 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Is the committee happy for me to sign off the report to the chamber? Agreed. Excellent. I can now thank you, Minister, and your officials for attending as we move to the... Because we don't need to move the motion for the... No. So thank you for your attendance today. Once again, it's been a pleasure. Excellent. Thank you very much. Agender item 5 is the subordinate legislation where we're being asked to consider two negative SSIs. Does anyone have any comments before I move to the formal element, Edward? Convener, it's just the point on election expenses. I'm unclear that sufficient consideration has been given to election expenses in the Covid environment that we live in, and I would like to just urge when we're talking to the Scottish Government as a committee that we ask them to reconsider this and consult more widely on whether they're appropriate, including when it comes to local government officials, independent councillors, who may well have been not included in previous consideration by COSLA in such organisations. I think it's fair to say, Edward, that the evidence that we heard is right, that this SSI did not include any Covid-influenced extensions, and I think it would be right for the committee to point that out, because we don't know what the situation will be next year. We all hope we know what the situation will be, but experience tells us to be careful about making assumptions. To be fair to the answer that Bob got, there is an understanding that a better and wider consultation specifically in relation to this negative SSI with regard to individual councillors through COSLA and their bodies needs to be made, and I think it is fair that the evidence that we've heard, and I'm assured by that, that there will be a wider consultation in relation to particularly groups that are influenced by these SSIs. Does that make sense to you? I'm happy with that. I just want to put its own record. Absolutely, thank you. So, as a committee, do we agree that we wish to make no recommendations in relation to those, except that which appears on the evidence? I agree. I'm grateful. We now move to agenda item six. Our next item is for the committee to consider an update to the guidance on bills. A number of standing order rule changes were agreed by the Parliament during session five, and as a consequence of these changes, the necessary revisions to the guidance on public bills have been made. Do any members have any comments on the guidance which has been provided to us? Excellent. Are members content to agree and approve for publication the revised guidance? Agreed. We now move to agenda item seven, the cross-party groups. Agender item seven is for the committee to consider the application for recognition from five cross-party groups. The first group we will consider today is the proposed CPG on Island, and I hopefully would like to welcome James Dawner, who is the convener of the proposed group and is joining us remotely. Good morning, James. You have made it through to us. I thank you for your attendance, and we are being asked to consider and approve the application for recognition at agenda item eight, and in due course, the clerks will inform you of the committee's decision. Would you like to make any opening comments with regard to the proposed CPG? Over to you, James. Just to say that Island is one of our closest neighbours, this cross-party group would be about creating links for both culture and business, fostering further links between culture and business, but also to give the Irish voice in Scotland a place to be heard. The Irish community is one of the biggest migrant communities in Scotland, and I think that it is important that the Scottish Parliament has a distinct place for the Irish community to be able to come and tell their stories, tell the successes that they have living in Scotland and also for us to be able to strengthen the link between the two islands. Thank you very much, James. I now hope that you are open to questions if the committee has any questions. Just for the record, James, you have been pointed as the convener. Can you tell us who your vice or deputy convener is, please? Yes, of course. My name is Finlay Carson. We have, to date, seven MSPs from four parties who have said that they will join. We have countless organisations and individuals who have also been keen to join if it is something running. Are there any other questions? No. As I said at the start, James, the clerks will be in touch when we make our decision on this on the next agenda item, but can I thank you for joining us today? We will no doubt speak soon. The next group that we will consider is a proposed CPG on long Covid, and I would like to welcome and invite Jackie Baillie MSP, who is the co-convener of the proposed group, to this meeting again. The next agenda item will be when we decide on the CPG, and the clerks will notify you of that in due course. I invite you to make an opening statement about your proposed CPG. Thank you very much, convener, and I thank you and the members of the committee for your time this morning. The pandemic touched everybody in Scotland, but unfortunately the impact of the pandemic on some still lingers and has quite serious consequences. We were asked, a number of us as MSPs, by long Covid Scotland representing ordinary people across Scotland still suffering from the after-effects of Covid to set up a cross-party group. They asked us to do so to bring a real focus to the issue, to highlight and recognise the problems that they are experiencing, but also to ensure that service provision is there and it is appropriate to try and influence the policy emerging from the Scottish Government and to bring to the Parliament the experiences and the lived experience of people suffering from long Covid. I have had discussions with colleagues, we set up the cross-party group and we are here today hoping that you will support us. I am very grateful for that. Does anyone have any questions? Just very briefly, welcome to the committee. Jackie Baillie, I am pleased that she could come along here this morning. I think that in your opening statement you probably commented on the question that I wanted to ask, which was in relation to the purpose of the cross-party group and who can disagree with the purpose, but I did not say anything in the purpose about how those with lived experience of long Covid can help to shape, improve and enhance services and service provision in a positive and constructive way. I know that Long Covid Scotland wants to do that, and I did not quite see it reflected in the purpose of the group, but I think that what you have put on the record this morning gives me—not that reassurance, because it is up to the cross-party group to shape its own work programme, but it gives me a confidence that that will be a key part of the objectives of the cross-party groups. Do you want to put that on the record? Do you want to add anything to that, Jackie? Absolutely, and I agree with what you are saying, because it is such a core part of the group that it is not a single objective. The group is indeed serviced by Long Covid Scotland, which brings those voices right into the Parliament. The cross-party group and myself are trying to, even as we speak, negotiate with the Cabinet Secretary for Health to ensure that that lived experience feeds through into government policy. We see this very much as a supporting vehicle to help to do that, but they are central to the cross-party group, central to every agenda that we will have, and we will certainly promote that work. I am happy to reassure Bob Doris that that is the case. Thank you, Bob. I would like to pass over to Edward. Thank you, convener. Jackie answered my question in her answer to the last question. It was about how to reach out and include everyone who is suffering from Long Covid. It was just really a question of how you are going to do that and how you are going to make the people who are suffering aware of all that you are trying to do, because I think that it is very laudable aim and you will be breaking new ground. You partly answered the question, but you could give me a bit more information. I appreciate it. Sure. Long Covid Scotland represents hundreds upon hundreds of long Covid sufferers in Scotland. We do not just have them as members. There are long Covid kids. There is a variety of different organisations who are very active in this space that will bring that knowledge directly to the Parliament and to the cross-party group, but who are also willing to share that with Government. If you have listened to any of them and described their experiences, it is hugely powerful and I think that it is very welcome for policymakers across Scotland about how we ensure that people with long Covid, with their myriad complex systems, are catered for in our public services and how they are assisted in their journey to recovery. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jackie. My question comes to us as co-convener. It is right to say that Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP and Sandish Gulhane MSP are the other co-con. Is that correct? That is right. We like to be very inclusive and cross-party and therefore we share the responsibility because it reflects well on the Parliament that we can operate in that way. That is excellent. Thank you very much for your evidence today, Jackie. As I say, we will be in touch with the next matter. I am just going to call a short suspension while we change over witnesses. Thank you, convener. Excellent. Welcome back. The committee is continuing to consider CPGs. I would like to welcome Liz Smith MSP to consider a proposed CPG on outdoor education. We will make the decision on the next agenda item, and the clerks will be in touch with you. Would you like to make any opening comments about the proposed CPG? Yes, I would. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you to the committee for giving up their time to listen to what I have got to say. I think that most people around the table are very aware that, of the 15 years that I have been in this Parliament, outdoor education has been a very strong personal interest, but as time has gone on, I am very struck by just how much it means to so many members across the whole political spectrum. You will know from recent debates that we have had, members' debates, and discussions that we have had around the whole subject that it is something that I think is capturing the imagination. Obviously, with the Covid situation, outdoor education and all the assets that it brings are absolutely vital to young people's wellbeing, and it is very clear from what members have said in debates that we feel that with the pressures on education just now, and most especially on the pressures that we have for outdoor education centres, there is a real issue here. I have chaired the cross-party group on sport for quite some time, and while there is a distinction between sport and outdoor education, I think that one of the things that I felt convening it is that one of the gaps in the Parliament is that we do not have a sufficiently discreet group on outdoor education. I spoke to various colleagues across the political spectrum while thinking about setting this up, and they were very keen about doing that. That is where we are. I did a sort of informal consultation about it. I spoke to a lot of people with whom I have very considerable contacts in the outdoor education centre world, and we agreed that it would be something not just to help the Parliament to engage with the sector, which I think is increasingly important, but also to help local authorities and schools, and people who have really strong interests in perhaps the unmeasurable aspect of education, which I would defend as being the most important. It is something that, as I say, I think that we all feel quite passionate about. That is where we are. That is the basic reasons for it, convener, and I set out in my paper about what the purpose was. Excellent. Does anyone on the committee have any questions? I would like to say that you have a very broad set of organisations from out with supporting that, and that is very good to see. Just for the evidence, the deputy convener is Daniel Johnson. Is that right? Excellent. Thank you. We wish you all well, should we give evidence in our next agenda item, but can I thank you for your attendance today? Thank you very much, convener. I appreciate that. We have a short suspension. Welcome back, and the committee would like to welcome Rona Mackay MSP, who is joining us with a proposal for a CPG on women, families and justice. I would first like to say welcome, and I invite Rona to make any opening comments that she would like about the proposed CPG. I was convener of women and justice cross-party group, which started in 2018. It became increasingly clear that what we were discussing involved children and families, and that there was a cross-party group called Families Affected by Imprisonment. They regularly attended our cross-party group and contributed, and it seemed logical and sensible that the two groups should merge because we were sharing the agenda on many occasions. Basically speaking about the same thing, women going through the justice system, the problems that they face affects their families and their wider families, so it seemed a sensible solution just to merge for this session. Thank you very much. Do any committee members have any questions that they would like to ask? Thank you, convener. Good morning, Rona. Just very briefly, I suppose that there is a constituency interest. I am just taking my opportunity by pushing her here to ask this question. I know that alternative custody for women will be part of the work of the group, given that we are failing too many women by locking them up quite frankly. My constituency is one of the new smaller custodial units for women being developed in Maryhill. I think that we are all very keen to see what a difference those establishments can make to better make sure that women, if they are unavoidable, have to be held in a custodial unit so that they still have access to their families and wider support mechanisms and that they are not cut off from that wider family group. I am just wondering if, as those new establishments come online, as they all do through the course of this Parliament, that will be part of the work of the cross-party group to see how effective or otherwise those establishments have been? It has been part of our work knowing that they are nearing completion now. We are very keen to press that contact is made between mothers and children. We are asking for mothers and baby units to be part of those units so that mothers can bond with their babies and they are not separated. It has been part of our work and is very much part of our on-going work. We have taken evidence from the prison service on many occasions about it, so it is definitely on-going and very necessary. I think that it is an important CPG. I have just got two questions, if I may. What are your personal and convenient measures of success for this CPG? Highlighting the huge issues that are faced by women who are on remand—far too many women on remand and far too many women still in custody. Ten years on from the Angelini report, which said that we have to stop locking up women for low-level offences, it is still happening. There are so many causes of that—addiction problems, mental health problems, chaotic lifestyles—prison is not the place for women at that level. I think that her objective is to keep pressing for that, looking at pretty radical new ways of keeping women out of prison, because it does not just affect them, it does not help them. It makes the situation that they find themselves in much worse for their mental health, etc. It also affects the wider family and their children. Only 5 per cent of children whose mother is in prison remain in the family home, so that gives you an indication of how disruptive it is. I think that what we are doing is focusing on all aspects of how that could be improved and a much more holistic method could come in. You will not be focusing on the safety of women in prison at all? Basically, it is all aspects of women in the justice system. Far too many women in prison have mental health problems, far too many women have been victims of domestic abuse and are brain injured. There are huge issues that we need to look at. Last session, we made a start with the women in justice group. I hope that this session we can dig deep into those issues and try to affect a lot of change. I would like to fully support the CPG. We will get to that point at the next agenda bit, but your intention is noted. Just for the record, can you tell us who the coca or vice convener is for? Collette Stevenson. I must say that, from the application that you have put in, it is wonderful to see so many organisations supporting this. Also, just to put on the record, the very positive nature of managing to bring together two CPGs where there is so much overlap and that, going forward, hopefully be a stronger voice. I thank you very much for coming towards the committee this morning. We will make the decision on the next agenda item and the clerks will let you know. I will call a short suspension. I welcome people back to the final group that we are going to consider today, which is a proposed CPG on culture and communities. I would like to welcome Sarah Boyack, MSP, who joins us as the convener of the proposed group. Sarah, would you like to make some opening comments? Thanks very much, convener. I really want to set up this group after quite a lot of reflection from the members of the group and also learning from experiences, particularly in the last parliamentary term. The term culture covers a huge number of areas. There is a very strong suggestion that it is actually too broad for a cross-party group. For example, if you take the Scottish Government, they have separate culture and creative industries departments with a full department for each, and they have different aims, objectives and strategies. We thought in terms of exploring accountability issues, but that would make a lot of sense. There was also a real grassroots sense that, if you look at the two areas, communities and the industrial sector, the publicly funded sector, libraries, museums, national performing companies, we have lots and lots of community arts groups and culture groups that want to have a voice and want to speak to us in the context of a CPG, not through our committee. Then you have the industrial sector, publishing companies, record companies, entrepreneurs and the whole media sector. It is actually a huge area at the cover. We have spoken to a culture count to represent the sector. We were thinking that if we have two cross-party groups, it lets both MSPs and the sector be able to have a proper focus on both areas. The other thing that we wanted to reassure you is that we are not planning necessarily on having eight CPG meetings a year, as opposed to four. We were actually thinking of experimenting with the first year and having two meetings for each of the CPGs with the opportunity of having more, depending on the members of our groups. I think that it is going to work really well. There is a lot of enthusiasm for it, and I hope that you will be okay with it, because we think that it is a good idea. Thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you for that. Did you say that you are only going to have two meetings a year for each cross-party group? There is going to be the cross-party group on the culture that will relate to communities and then one that will be much more related to the industry in terms of culture. We wanted to mirror the two Scottish Government departments, so we have one for each. Partly as we come out of Covid, to be honest, we are thinking of giving ourselves the aim of doing two each. We have had one first meeting of everybody, so we reckon that in the next few months we will do another two meetings for our cross-party group in this first year. We might do more in the future. Just one more question, convener, if I may. Your measures of success, how will you know that the CPG is working as you would want it to work? For the community's perspective, we now have so many grass-roots organisations that are involved in culture across the country that we want it to be really inclusive. The engagement opportunities and being able to follow up what the Scottish Government strategy is. It is something that the committee is looking at, but it would enable us to do a much more grass-roots approach and involve people on the ground. I think that that is something that has been missing because the existing culture cross-party group is trying to cover far too much. People in the sector are being happy and feeling included and having access to MSPs would be our number one objective this year, as our first aim, as the culture and communities group. Engagement is the way that you will be measuring it. Do you have any engagement indicator or is it a general view that you will take at the end of the year? I will definitely review it at the end of the year. It is a grass-roots sense that people have felt excluded from the CPG culture in the past because it has tended to be dominated more by the creative industry sector, which is also really important, so it is to make sure that both sides get a voice and get an input. The fact is that, for coming along, Sarah, I know that it is a busy morning for you. I had nothing to ask in a question, but I thought that we would look at the list of cross-party groups that I have been approving. You mentioned the music sector in some of your comments that there is a cross-party group in music. There is clearly room for both cross-party groups to exist, but I wonder what the relationship might be with the cross-party group in music that might be looking at a variety of things that the cross-party group that you are seeking people for might also seek to look at. Do you look at any partnership working or common themes or just any thoughts on that? Not at this point, no. The first cross-party group that we had was a very high-level discussion, and it had quite a big attendance. I think that the culture council's comment was that we could have about 20 different culture groups. We are trying to think about the whole range of issues—crafts, fashions and textile, designs, photography, writing and publishing heritage, cultural education and performing arts. It is still quite a huge section, even without thinking about the CPG on music. I do not think that we are worried that we are going to overlap on each other. I anticipated that that would be the answer, but I just want to ask certain questions because overlaps a theme that comes up quite often, not specific to the cross-party group, but just a more general matter that is what this committee looks at. I suppose that it is just for the records, who will the deputy convener be? That is in our forum. We have formally applied it. Sue Weber? Yes, Sue. That is all right. Partly to follow on from Bob, and this is absolutely not a criticism. In fact, I welcome the way that the proposed CPG has dealt with this, because there are a number of concerns expressed about the total number of CPGs that exist. I welcome your comments, Sarah, about the need for two separate CPGs, but that the workload that the two will do will reduce and are approached to different people so that MSPs can witness the experience and, indeed, the knowledge that different sectors bring. I think that is most helpful. I thank you for your attendance today. We will make the decision on the next agenda item and the clocks will be in touch, but thank you for your time. I think that the only thing that I did not clarify was that we would be looking at the publicly funded remit, and the creative industry sector would look at the private sector, and go back to that, the different government departments. That was a key issue for us as well. It is very helpful. I appreciate that I have not been to one of these, so I appreciate looking at previous discussions about the committee. That has answered your questions. That is good. Thank you very much indeed, Sarah. We now move to agenda item 8, which is the cross-party group approval. It is for the committee to consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party groups that we have heard from today. That is on island, on long Covid, outdoor education, women and families and justice, and culture and communities. Are there any comments from any of the committee members before I formally move to asking Tess how to comment? My only point around the island is that we have BEPA, the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I support setting it up, but just to follow up to make sure that there is reference in that CPG to BEPA and the word that BEPA does. The British Irish Parliamentary Group is a group that has been in existence for a long term and allows co-ordination between the parliamentarians from the different areas. I know from experience how valuable it is. Although it was not confirmed in the evidence, I am quite sure that it will be involved. What I will do is undertake to speak to the convener, if we agree the group, to point out your comments on that. Are there any other comments about any of the groups? Or can I formally ask if the committee are in agreement with the formation of the groups that we have heard from this morning? We are all in agreement. Agender item 9 is the cross-party group's re-registration. Our final item today is for the committee to consider a change of purpose for the proposed CPG on colleges and universities, and the proposed CPG on nuclear disarmament, and a change of name and purpose for the proposed CPG on improving Scotland's health. As members are aware, those changes of name or purpose have to come before the committee to be formally approved. Do anybody have any comments that they would like to make, or I was intending just to put this as a single question to the committee? If we are happy with a single question, are we agreed that the proposed CPGs on colleges and universities, nuclear disarmament and improving Scotland's health can be re-registered in the new session? I am in agreement with that. Can I thank the committee members for today? That concludes our meeting today. Thank you Edward, Tess, Paul and Bob.