Official Report 979KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15875, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 3. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons.
16:41
This year, we have been celebrating the 25th anniversary of the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament. Since its first election in 1999, this Parliament has improved participation, extended voting rights and enabled more people to stand for election. The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill seeks to continue the evolution of our elections.
The bill is wide ranging and contains a mix of technical improvements and substantial advancements. It is the result of extensive consultation both before and after its introduction. I am pleased that we have an improved bill, following the engagement of members. I express my thanks to all who have contributed—many of whom have spoken at the amendment stage today.
I also thank past and present members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and its convener and clerks for their engagement throughout the bill’s progress. I record my appreciation for the bill team’s hard work on the legislation.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, George Adam, who is recuperating in his sick bed because he has Covid-19. Otherwise he would, I know, have been here. He made it clear at the bill’s introduction that it was to be considered “the Parliament’s bill”. I hope that members will agree that we have all upheld that spirit.
The bill seeks to improve candidacy rules across the board. It empowers foreign nationals who have made their lives here to stand for election, and it means that people who commit offences in an electoral context can be disqualified from office.
As, I think, we all recognise, being involved in an election is a challenging undertaking. The Electoral Commission’s recent report on this year’s United Kingdom Parliament election highlighted the aggravation and intimidation that people who stand for election can face. It is partly because of those concerns that the initial proposal to expand candidacy rights to 16 and 17-year-olds was, ultimately, not included in the bill.
There are barriers to standing for election. That is why the Government introduced the access to elected office fund—which, since it started in 2017, has supported more than 120 disabled candidates of all parties during three national elections. I was pleased to be able to work with Jeremy Balfour and to support his amendment to put that fund into statute.
The bill also makes a significant change in disqualifying from elected office anyone who commits a sexual offence. Barring from elected office people who are subject to sexual offence notification requirements and sexual risk orders will help to reassure the public that they can trust their elected representatives. The Government played its part in those changes, but they are also the fruit of cross-party engagement, particularly with the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which engaged with that complex issue sensitively and diligently.
Many other topics are addressed in the bill. I thank Bob Doris for his amendments to address concerns about high rates of spoiled ballot papers in some council wards. It is clear that more needs to be done to assist voters in expressing their views, especially in council elections. In its stage 1 report, the committee asked the Government to lodge an amendment to make it clear that election pilots could encompass automatic voter registration. I was happy to work with Mr Doris at stage 2 to achieve that.
At this stage, I cannot provide an absolute commitment to a full pilot on automatic registration. We will, though, continue to work closely with colleagues in the Welsh Government in order to monitor progress and to consider how we can pick up lessons from the activity on automatic registration that it has under way. We will also continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Government on work to improve registration, given its on-going responsibility for Westminster elections.
That said, I am happy to commit to the Scottish Government leading work to run a specific trial on more automated forms of registration, with a particular focus on improving registration levels among young people.
At Stage 2, Ross Greer lodged helpful amendments that make it clear that our democratic engagement grant could be used for the purposes of automatic registration at education institutions. I can set out that we will seek to carry out a pilot of that nature. I envisage the Scottish Government and electoral registration officers working directly with interested schools, further and higher education institutions and local authorities.? I will happily report back on how we get on with seeking to take forward such a pilot.
I also thank Ross Greer for the further changes in respect of boundary reviews and electronic voting, and for the amendment requiring a study on the merits of randomised names on ballot papers.
At stage 2, Ben Macpherson helpfully raised the question whether MSPs should have to be ordinarily resident in Scotland. I have written to members and the committee with plans for further consultation in the spring. That will include proposals on residency requirements and candidate deposits for MSPs, removing some types of council by-election, and more issues on disqualification from office.
As I said earlier, I will in January publish a consultation on dual mandates, and will create regulations that are informed by that consultation that will bar MPs and members of the House of Lords from also being an MSP.
It is fair to say that the bill might not have attracted significant attention previously, but the matter of dual mandates coming to the fore certainly brought it into the foreground. The debate on that matter allowed us to take action to address an issue on which many people hold strong views, while also affording time to get the finer details correct. Again, I express my thanks to Graham Simpson for his work on that.
The electoral process does not begin or end on polling day. Months of planning are involved—not just by candidates, but by electoral administrators. For more than 15 years, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland has provided to returning officers and others invaluable assistance and support on the conduct of our elections. That support was central in ensuring the safe and successful holding of elections during the pandemic. We are building on that success: we are ensuring the next steps in the EMB’s evolution by enshrining it as a corporate body with an improved constitution under the direct oversight of the Parliament.
The Electoral Commission is another vital part of the electoral landscape. The bill will ensure that it has a stronger link to the Parliament by planning for and reporting on its activities in our elections.
I conclude by expressing again my thanks to all those who have engaged on the bill. Together, we have agreed a robust set of improvements to the law, which I hope will—should we pass the bill, today—deliver real benefits to voters.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill be passed.
16:48
The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) (Scotland) Bill followed a consultation that was launched by the Scottish Government in late 2022. The consultation focused on administration and governance, election scheduling, candidates, voting, and campaigning and finance.
It was through that consultation that many initial productive exchanges were had between MSPs and stakeholders. For instance, the plans to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to become councillors and MSPs were dropped after widespread opposition and concerns became clear.
The bill is now being welcomed, either in whole or in part, by a host of organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society in Scotland. In January, the society’s senior director, Mr Willie Sullivan, even described the bill as a tidying-up of Scotland’s electoral system.
That kind of support for the bill reflects the common desire to have an electoral system that is continually updated to meet the current and future needs of voters. My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I agree that laws on electoral issues are not static, and we have continually supported the bill’s aim of creating a more efficient and transparent electoral system. Given that the 2026 Holyrood elections are just around the corner, those aims could not be more relevant to us as MSPs and to the public.
I support the aims of the bill, but it is worth looking at exactly what it sets out to change in order to make an updated Scottish electoral system a reality. Its provisions cut across various areas of electoral law and would, for example, grant the Electoral Management Board for Scotland its own separate legal personality as a corporate body.
Other changes include expanding the group of people who can propose an electoral pilot scheme to improve democratic engagement.
Further provisions would allow the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament to propose an election date that is either four weeks earlier or eight weeks later than it would typically be held.
Notably, the Electoral Commission will be subject to changed requirements to present five-year plans. Those plans would detail the commission’s intentions alongside requirements for resources pertaining to devolved functions in Scotland.
I am certain that colleagues from across the chamber will join me in welcoming the progress that has been made since the bill’s introduction. Although I acknowledge the progress that has been made so far, which is an encouraging sign of things to come, I have concerns about the bill—and I am not alone. Although it supports parts of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland has also expressed reservations about the practical challenges of some of its provisions. Its concerns focus on proposals to allow non-citizens living in Scotland with limited leave to remain to run for public office.
I do not believe that people who have been subject to a sex offender notification requirement should ever be allowed to hold public office, regardless of the level of that office. The bill does not go far enough in ensuring that. That is why I lodged amendments at stages 2 and 3. My stage 3 amendments would have required any candidate to declare in the nomination papers whether they had ever been subject to a sexual harm order, risk order or notification requirement. I absolutely understand and take on board the minister’s concerns that that requirement would be in breach of the European convention on human rights.
However, personally, I think that this is a missed opportunity. It is unfortunate for anyone who agrees with me—I can safely say that that is quite a lot of people I have spoken to—that the bill fails to—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, absolutely.
I have already made this point. I completely understand and appreciate the concerns and reservations that any person, including Annie Wells, would have about an individual who has a history of sexual offending standing for elected office. I reflect Mr Whitfield’s points about the responsibility that parties have in respect of who they nominate.
However, although Ms Wells might feel that the bill does not go far enough, does she accept that the changes that we made at stage 2, which mean that people can now be prohibited from holding office in the Scottish Parliament or in local government if they have a sex offender notice or order, represent a significant improvement on where we are now?
Yes, I absolutely agree with that. However, the voices of the victims of sexual offences have not been heard throughout the bill’s passage. I welcome the minister’s response, and I know that we all share the same concerns. However, the issue was how we could get that requirement into the legislation, and there just was not a way to do it—I appreciate that.
The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill has been several years in the making, from the extensive consultation on electoral reform that was launched by the Scottish Government in 2022 to the point that we have reached today. We are much closer to changing our electoral system for the better and to making it fit for the future. Admittedly, although the bill is not exhaustive with regard to its aims, as is demonstrated by the concerns that I have just highlighted, its provisions broadly achieve its aims, and steps in the right direction are being taken towards more comprehensive changes.
Moreover, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce electoral reform regulations next year, with the intention to have proposals ready for implementation in time for the next Holyrood election. I will work constructively with colleagues from across the chamber when the time comes, and I very much look forward to examining the regulations carefully with the same goal in mind, which is to create a more transparent and smoothly run Scotland, wherever in the country people go to the polls to choose their representatives. That is the right thing to do.
I call Martin Whitfield to open on behalf of Scottish Labour.
16:55
It is a pleasure to open the debate for Scottish Labour on a bill that has almost haunted me since I came into the Parliament. Like other members, I will start by thanking my colleagues on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I also thank those who have supported the committee: the clerks and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre, with their knowledgeable input. I thank those who gave evidence to the Scottish Government’s original consultation between December 2022 and March 2023 and those who contributed to the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny and assisted us with on-going evidence on the fundamental but complex issues that arose during consideration of disqualification.
I thank the Minister for Parliamentary Business for his positive, open-door approach, and I hope that he feels that I replicated that as far as I was able to do so, both as convener of the committee and as the representative of Scottish Labour on the matter. I echo the minister’s thanks to George Adam, who opened up the original consultation with, “Bring me anything you can think of”—and people obliged. That became a vehicle for trying to restrict things and bringing things in. It is interesting that a bill that was introduced only on 23 January 2024 finds itself, at the close of the year, in a position where, hopefully, it will become statute.
The original policy memorandum suggested
“a number of improvements to the law affecting Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections.”
The bill has certainly achieved that.
I wish to address again the amendments that Annie Wells lodged and her contribution in the committee at the earlier stages. It is challenging when rights are restricted given the knowledge that should be open, but that speaks to the iterative nature that election bills need to have. They are bills of the Parliament as much as they are bills of the Scottish Government. Some members may not agree with me on this, but I envisage that it will not be overly long before we must look again at primary legislation.
In the meantime we have the secondary legislation. If I have any criticism of the Scottish Government, I would draw attention to the role of secondary legislation in this field in particular, and to the extent to which the Scottish Government feels able to decide what it wants in that regard. I look forward to hearing from the minister on that—not necessarily this evening, but at a date early in the new year.
When we were discussing amendments, Keith Brown raised the challenges of dual mandates, which were eloquently debated. One thing that was not mentioned that I think is worth mentioning is the challenge of having two elections, one for a Scottish seat—be it at council level or for this Parliament—and one for the UK Parliament, for which we use very different electoral methods. An historical example of where we tried to do that, with two elections at the same time, categorically showed the challenge of that. There is always a cost element, and we must take that into account.
There are also the electors and their expectation. We are aware from the recent election to this place and from earlier elections that incorrect instructions have been given. Voting and election law is an iterative process.
I will mention a number of other matters that have not, so far, been debated. We touched on the complexity of campaign finance for Scottish elections and the role of third parties and assistance. That is a very complex area, and it would be foolish for anyone to believe that we fully understand it and have got our heads round it, as it is an ever-changing field. Mention of the elections in the US points to something that we need to consider. The election pilots have been talked about at length, and they represent a huge step forward to allow tests in the real world, with the proper restrictions and control. It is open to those who are knowledgeable on the matter to bring such tests forward.
We have not mentioned digital imprints today, and those represent a massive change in how members of this Parliament and people across Scotland will interact with the electorate, noting the requirement for the electorate to understand what is happening.
We touched on the boundary changes, which make sense, and on the Electoral Management Board for Scotland becoming a corporate body, which is important.
In conclusion, this is an iterative step, but it is the right step to take on the 25th anniversary of the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament. It has not all been easy, and complex issues have been highlighted. We are pressing into secondary legislation some very important decisions, which I know members will oversee properly and fully. The Government would expect no less, and the electorate would demand no less from us. However, there is still an on-going discussion to find the best method, because elections are not just from 7 am to 10 pm on election day. They are all the weeks and months beforehand, and they include engaging with young people to ensure that they are registered to vote and that they want to vote, engaging with older people who may never have voted and raising the numbers of people who vote in certain areas. All that is the responsibility of anyone who seeks election. It is also the responsibility of others who have been empowered to do that in the bill.
17:01
I said earlier, when moving amendments on aggravators, that our democracy is under significant pressure. The choice facing all elected representatives and parties, not just in Scotland and the UK but across most if not all of the democratic world, is whether to exploit divisions for personal or party advantage or to defend the fundamental principles of a democratic society. Maximising participation minimises the opportunities for negative, hostile actors to undermine trust and legitimacy in our elections, so the bill is welcome in many respects. I am reminded of a phrase that a colleague of mine has used a lot, which is that politics should be something that the public feel we all do together, not something that is done to them by politicians—too often, it feels like the latter.
Following on from Martin Whitfield’s closing comments, I think that 25 years into devolution is the right point to consider fundamental questions of reform. In that respect, the bill makes welcome but, I think, limited progress. There was an opportunity for major reform, although I do not want that to be mistaken for any frustration with the bill itself. The progress in the bill is very welcome but, for example, earlier this year, there was some debate—mostly by MSPs but outside of this place—about the size of Parliament. There were 129 MSPs in 1999, and there are 129 now, but we have far more power and responsibility than we did before. There are significant capacity issues for the Government to have the required number of ministers and for Parliament to have enough MSPs and enough capacity to effectively scrutinise the Government and the wider public sector, and proposals from different parties and, indeed, the Presiding Officer, were made on that very issue.
On that point, should election bills and election law not sit as an animal of this Parliament rather than of the Scottish Government? We have capacity through committee bills and other things, but could one of the iterative moves be to look at that so that we can address as a Parliament the election challenges that are coming down the line?
I am very grateful for that intervention. Although there is a role for the Government, particularly in resolving administrative issues around elections, as a matter of the health of a democratic system, having wider issues of electoral law and electoral reform sit primarily with Parliament would be very welcome. If Mr Whitfield is perhaps hinting at his committee’s interest in future committee bills in that area, I would certainly welcome that.
That point came up at stage 1, and I think that I was pretty clear then that the Government would absolutely welcome Parliament taking the lead on these matters. What I suggest, with great respect to those members who are concerned about doing so, is that they should get on with it.
I am very grateful for that intervention from the minister, and for that outbreak of consensus, which has been a pattern in a number of areas of debate, although perhaps there were different motivations in mind for the parties involved.
I moved a number of amendments at stage 2 to address long-standing democratic deficits and barriers to participation. I thank the committee for its patience with the sheer number of amendments that I lodged. Some of those amendments were based on recommendations from the Electoral Commission that had long gone undelivered; others were based on policies that had been long advocated by external organisations; and some were simply the result of my own experience as an election agent, a campaign manager and a member of staff for a party, and of course as a candidate.
I will cover some of those amendments in closing, but I will highlight just one of them now. It was not on aggravators; rather, it concerned the safety of those who are involved in elections. It was an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 and which secured unanimous support, for which I am grateful, on no longer requiring election agents to publish their address. That was based on the experience of an election agent in my party who had an individual turn up at their door on the Saturday after the election, seeking the elected representative for whom they had been the agent. Fortunately, it was an individual who you might describe as overly enthusiastic rather than dangerous, but that was nonetheless extremely alarming for the election agent. That amendment is a small but simple example of the range of measures in the bill that will improve our democratic system.
Despite some frustrations that I have about missing an opportunity for more substantive reform, therefore, the Scottish Greens and I will be glad to vote for the bill this afternoon, for the great many necessary changes that it makes to our electoral systems.
17:05
The debate has been excellent, and it gives me pleasure to offer the support of the Scottish Liberal Democrats for the bill before us, which I hope will be passed to become an act of Parliament.
Before I properly begin my remarks, I pay tribute, as others have, to the committee and its work, to those who were involved in the evidence sessions and to the officials working around the bill, who often go unsung.
I am pleased that the bill commands broad support across the chamber. The changes that we are discussing today may seem little, but they are necessary and they speak to our custodianship of our democracy as we leave it for those generations of parliamentarians to come who will fill the chamber.
As Churchill said,
“democracy is the worst form of government, except for all”
the others. What he meant by that is that democracy is imperfect—and it is. As new technologies come online and as we see new realities in our changing population and how we view the world, it is incumbent on us to reflect those changes in the pages of the legislation that we pass in this place.
I am particularly pleased that the legislation will extend candidacy rights at Scottish Parliament and local council levels to people with limited leave to remain in the country. Four years ago, this Parliament—rightly, I think—granted refugees the right to vote in elections in Scotland. It is only right that, if we extend the franchise to them, they can stand in those elections.
At stage 1, we heard some concern about enabling such individuals to stand. Does the member agree that it is perfectly possible for such individuals to stand for election, putting themselves before the electorate, and for the electorate to decide whether someone with limited leave to remain can represent them adequately?
I am grateful for the minister’s intervention. He makes the point very well. This place is made better by the richness of the diverse views and life experiences that we bring to the chamber.
I can think of no more deserving voice, which we do not hear enough of in the chamber, than that of somebody who has sought safe harbour and has been given sanctuary in our country. I think that they would seek to serve their community as ardently as anybody who has been elected to the Parliament so far. Those people who are concerned about that should try to defeat the argument on open ground. If they are worried about those candidates representing their community, they should stand against them and let the people—whom we, in this Parliament, trust with so much—be the final arbiter and judge.
As I expressed in my very brief remarks earlier, my party supports, and has supported, the amendments in the name of Graham Simpson—which have been agreed to—to prevent dual mandates, so-called double jobbing. This job is a privilege, but it is all consuming. If you let it, it can destroy your quality of life, your pastimes and sometimes even your family—I would urge members not to let it do that. The idea of somehow being able to hold an equally pressing job in an institution several hundred miles from here is, therefore, completely alien. I am glad that we have finally boxed that off. It was an aberration of the devolution settlement that we have resolved today.
Although I am gratified by the progress that we are making today, we should not lose sight of the things that we still have to do. As we move forward, we need to look at a more robust system for breaches of the ministerial code—we touched on that slightly in the ministerial statement that came before the stage 3 proceedings this afternoon. We also need to give voters the fundamental right to recall their MSPs, which they are afforded with MPs at Westminster.
As I have said several times in the debate, the Liberal Democrats also want an answer to the question of how we verify the suitability of elected members, whether in this chamber or in our council chambers, for the delicate work of supporting vulnerable individuals in times of need. It remains an unanswered question whether we would verify that through the protecting vulnerable groups scheme or a bespoke scheme. I worry and regret that we may be forced to answer that question after something terrible happens. We should not wait for that.
We need to do more. I think that we would all agree that there is a need to encourage the representation in the Parliament of underrepresented groups, whether they be women, LGBT+ minority communities, disabled people or black and minority ethnic groups. It is vital that everybody in our society has a voice in our nation’s Parliament and that they are reflected in its make-up.
We also need to encourage people from every background to get involved in the democratic process by engaging with elections and coming out to vote. We should all be pleased that voter turnout at the Holyrood election in 2021 was, at 63 per cent, the highest since this Parliament’s inception. However, that still meant that thousands of people did not engage with the democratic process.
I can see that the Deputy Presiding Officer would like my speech to come to an end. I am pleased to offer the support of the Liberal Democrats for the bill. This has been an uncharacteristically jovial and positive debate—let us have more of that.
We move to the open debate.
17:11
I am pleased to speak in this important debate, which is crucial for democracy and transparency.
The Scottish Parliament—rightly, in my view—agreed not to consent to the UK Elections Act 2022, as it is for our Parliament to legislate on electoral law in Scotland relating to local and Holyrood elections.
As a recent substitute member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I had catching up to do on the detail of the bill, and I hope that I manage to capture the crucial elements today.
As we have heard, the bill introduces provisions to expand candidacy rights, protect candidates and campaigners from intimidation and improve administrative arrangements for elections in Scotland.
In what I understand was a largely consensual committee process—that is always the best kind—the minister worked to bring together all points of view to accommodate different opinions on most areas. Indeed, he stressed an open-door policy in which all views would be considered, and I think that they have been.
Improvements to the bill have been made during the scrutiny process, including amendments at stage 3 that will allow the issue of dual mandates—which has hit the headlines recently—to be addressed before the 2026 election.
On that important issue, the Scottish Government has been clear that it is supportive of ending the practice of dual mandates whereby members of the Scottish Parliament are also able to be members of the UK Parliament or peers. However, it should be noted that the issue was not really discussed at stage 1 and there has been no consultation on the matter, which is why provision to introduce secondary legislation has emerged in the amendments at stage 3.
The Scottish ministers have now committed to holding a public consultation, to allow political parties, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the public to provide views on dual mandates for MPs, peers and councillors prior to the 2026 Holyrood election.
The bill is an opportunity to create an electoral system that improves democratic engagement, including for those who have chosen to make Scotland their home. That is hugely important, and I agree whole-heartedly with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s comments.
The bill extends candidacy rights in Scottish Parliament and local government elections to foreign nationals with limited leave to remain, ensuring that all those who live in Scotland can play a bigger part in our democracy. Welcoming all those who choose to make Scotland their home is an important signal, and it is an especially important reform for European Union citizens in Scotland who had their democratic rights removed by the folly of Brexit.
The bill proposes important changes in a number of areas requiring action, including candidacy, voting and electoral administration. It also extends the UK Elections Act 2022 disqualification order to bar those found guilty of offences involving intimidation of campaigners, candidates and elected representatives from being MSPs and councillors. Additionally, it creates a Scottish disqualification order, which will apply to people found guilty of offences involving intimidation of electoral workers.
The legislation makes changes in relation to spending in election campaigns, including to the definitions of notional expenditure, overseas spending and third-party campaigning. Those changes broadly match those made by the Elections Act 2022 for UK Parliament elections.
Learning from recent lessons based on the experience of Covid-19, the Government has included in the bill measures to allow elections to be rescheduled in emergencies. That is an absolutely necessary future-proofing measure.
The bill revokes the existing Scottish regulations on digital imprints, but it adds to the new rules that are applied under the Elections Act 2022.
We have heard that, to support innovation in elections, the bill also allows pilot schemes to be brought forward by the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and by electoral registration officers and Scottish ministers. The bill creates a power that enables the Scottish Government to fund efforts to increase democratic engagement across Scotland.
Another aspect of the bill is the boundary changes, but I do not have time to explain those.
I think that we are all agreed that the bill is a huge step forward and that it will make an important difference to the democratic rights of voters in Scotland. It puts voters first in its programme of electoral reforms.
17:15
I begin by reminding Parliament of my voluntary registration of trade union interests.
Next year marks the centenary of the birth of the great parliamentarian, the great democratic socialist, Tony Benn. His view was always absolutely clear that, in a democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people, and they merely lend their power to those who represent them. He used to say that,
“with a stubby little pencil attached to a piece of string, voters can put a cross on a ballot paper that will remove an MP from parliament, or a government from power, without killing anyone.”
Hard won by the trade union movement, by the Chartists, by the suffragettes, these are democratic rights, which, history teaches us, we have to keep battling to defend and to advance.
So, I welcome the fact that we have extended the voter franchise and that, today, we are extending the candidacy franchise, too, because I agree with the simple principle that those who can vote in elections should be allowed to stand in elections—although it is worth recalling that, when Jennie Lee was elected in the North Lanark by-election of 1929 as the youngest woman MP ever at the time, at the age of 24, it was before she was even old enough to vote.
In contrast, I reject the argument that we have heard expressed during the passage of the bill that allowing asylum seekers to stand for election and extending civic rights somehow opens up the possibility of “abuse from foreign powers”, presumably through sleeper agents, undercover or maybe brainwashed a la “The Manchurian Candidate”. I think that is far-fetched. In fact, we should be much less worried about the overseas infiltration of our politics via this futuristic, dystopian plot than we should be worried about the present-day overseas-funded infiltration of our elections and our referenda by dark money and the super-rich.
We should be much less worried about electoral fraud by people who care for and accompany voters with additional needs into our polling stations than we should be worried about the disenfranchisement of people because of digital exclusion, or as a result of Boris Johnson’s law requiring voters to produce an identity card.
We should be much less worried about extending voting rights to people who are detained on mental health grounds than we should be worried about the integrity of our very democracy in effect lying in the hands of the owners and the chief executive officers of gargantuan, predominantly US-based, technology corporations.
Dark money, digital disinformation and dirty politics—that is the very real and present danger we are actually facing now. And that is why I support all attempts in this bill to tackle that, to improve transparency, to curb digital disinformation and to introduce better checks and balances on third-party campaigning.
We welcome this bill. We will be voting for this bill and it is right that we see how best we can end the dual mandate. The total abolition of the House of Lords would be one step forward.
Finally, democracy cannot only be about voting in elections. As George Eliot presciently wrote 150 years ago in “Felix Holt, The Radical”, a novel on the early days of chartism,
“all the schemes about voting… and annual Parliaments… are engines”—
only—
“the force that is to work them—must come out of human nature.”
This is the people’s democracy. We have to be its guardian, we have to be its defender, and it is our duty to ensure that that force of human nature is nurtured, is encouraged, is liberated and is put to work for good.
We move to closing speeches. I call Ross Greer to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. You have up to four minutes, Mr Greer.
17:20
I start by thanking all the external organisations and individuals who contributed to the bill and made it stronger. If I have a small note of frustration, it is that there are some organisations and individuals who have had a lot to say about electoral reform over recent years but barely had anything to say during this process or were entirely absent for it.
The process was poorer for their absence, because I have agreed with many of the things that they have said in the past. I know that it might come as a surprise to those of us in the Parliament, but some people do not find legislating to be quite as much fun as campaigning. However, legislating is incredibly important, and I urge those who have made compelling cases about electoral reform to engage with the many consultations that will come about as a result of the bill.
A number of the amendments that I moved at stage 2 but did not press to a vote will now go to consultation. I am glad that the Government has agreed to that. One of my proposals was to deliver on an Electoral Commission recommendation from 2015 to remove cash deposits. It might seem a little odd that it was me who moved that amendment, given that my party can only now—finally—afford to pay deposits and stand in most places. However, I lodged the amendment because, as the Electoral Commission noted, it is wrong to place a financial barrier in the way of people participating in elections.
Of course, some kind of threshold is absolutely required. What we proposed instead, which is common in other jurisdictions, is a requirement to be nominated by a certain number of registered voters in the relevant area—the constituency or the region. I am grateful to the minister for agreeing to put that forward for consultation.
I moved other amendments in that space of democratic reform, one of which would have replaced council-level by-elections when a councillor has to vacate their post with the nomination of replacement councillors. That would simply replicate the system that a number of other countries that use the single transferable vote system have in place to recognise that a single-member by-election for a multi-member ward often distorts the result and results in a number of people going without the representation that they chose at the election.
I found it interesting that a number of members from different parties spoke to me about that proposal outside the committee proceedings, to either strongly agree with or oppose it, and there was no pattern based on which party they were from in the positions that they took on that. That was reflected in many of the issues that we addressed in the bill.
I thank Ben Macpherson for raising at stage 2 the issue of having residency as a candidacy requirement. It is a shame that we could not agree to his amendment on that. I do not think that it is controversial to say that someone should be resident in Scotland in order to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that, although that will not be the case for the election in 2026, it will be the case subsequently.
The bill builds on a strong legacy of electoral reform in the Parliament. We have introduced votes at 16 and voting rights for refugees, which I was reminded of in the past few weeks due to recent events in Syria and the downfall of the Assad regime. At the 2021 election, I ran into two friends of mine who were Syrian refugees and who voted at the same polling station as I did. I am sure that they would not mind me saying that they were both middle-aged people who, for the first time in their lives, were casting their votes in a free and fair election. That was because this Parliament decided that they, as residents of this country, had just as much right to have a say in who governs the country as any other resident. I would contrast that legacy of electoral reform here with the previous UK Government’s record on the introduction of voter identification, which is an entirely unnecessary requirement.
In closing, I thank the minister and the bill team for their co-operation; Graham Simpson for his incredibly important amendments; and George Adam for the approach that he took in kick-starting the process. I would like to agree with not just Alex Cole-Hamilton but Winston Churchill, which is not something that I do very often. Mr Cole-Hamilton reminded us of that famous Churchill quote that democracy is the worst system, apart from all the others. It is indeed a messy and difficult way to run a society, but it really is the only way that is worth trying. As I said earlier, politics should be something that we, the people, all do together, and it should not be something that is imposed on the public by politicians. I am glad that the bill takes us a little bit further towards that eventual goal.
17:24
The quality of the past 40 or so minutes of debate underlines the quality of the interaction and cross-party working that the bill has involved. I welcome Rona Mackay to the committee and thank her for her contribution. I agree that we reached consensus and that we did so reasonably well. When we disagreed, we did so reasonably—if we showed that skill at other times, perhaps people would look less disrespectfully at the chamber sometimes.
We sought solutions to the problems that we were confronted with, which were brought to us by people from outside who gave evidence in our committee sessions. That was evident in the nature of the amendments that were lodged, because there are solutions to the problems.
I echo Richard Leonard’s speech: the real challenge is what sits outside looking in at and attacking democracy. Those people fear democracy and have the ability, given their large sums of money, to overturn an election, if they choose to do so, almost irrespective of campaign finance rules.
It is worth reflecting on the nature of the people who exercise their vote now. In the UK general election, there was the rise of a new political party. It has managed to speak to the electorate, and people are coming out to vote for it at council elections, for which turnout is very low, as we have heard. All of us who sit here have a responsibility to challenge that, to take truth to the people and to say that, often, what is in front of them are different options for achieving an agreed goal: having a better country to live in.
At times, the bill has been very challenging. Selfishly, I reiterate my thanks to the committee clerks, who put up with some frustratingly silly questions from me and took the time to ensure that I sometimes almost understood what I was asking other people to do. We are supported by groups of people without whom so much of this would be massively challenging.
I will conclude by talking about voters themselves: the individuals who pick up a stubby pencil, which is often still attached with string—people sometimes wish to take a pen because of concerns about the system—to do the individual thing of casting a vote in a booth. I hope that the pilots will allow us to consider people who, instead of voting 1, 2, 3, put a number of Xs and people who choose to express their views in an artistic form that perhaps does not result in a vote being counted but which sometimes causes slight amusement at the table at the far end of the counting hall, where there are arguments about exactly whom the person is expressing an interest in.
I am conscious of the time—I hope that we can reach decision time at the appropriate moment—so I once again thank all the members who interacted with the committee and took the time to come forward with points and ideas.
I go back to what I said in my opening speech: this is an iterative process. I might well take up the offer that the minister expressed about getting on and doing it ourselves. We might take up that offer with enthusiasm, so I hope that he does not regret making it. I hope that, in formulating a democratic system that is perhaps the best of the worst, we can move forward so that people feel that this is their Parliament, that their council is their council and that the people who represent them truly represent them.
17:28
Scottish Conservatives understand that electoral policy does not stand still and that the bill will update the law in time for the 2026 Holyrood election. Electoral reform that improves the running of Scottish elections and, at the same time, makes our democracy more transparent is very welcome, and I thank the minister for working closely with us throughout stages 2 and 3.
Although my colleague Annie Wells’s amendments were not pressed to a vote, it was important to debate the issues that she presented to the chamber. Earlier, Martin Whitfield acknowledged the challenges with balancing various rights. I do not believe that sex offenders should ever be allowed to hold public office, regardless of the level, so I hope that, at some point, the Government will take the bold step of reviewing that complex issue, because I do not believe that it can be ignored.
I will briefly touch on the amendments that focused on dual mandates, whether they involve councillors, MSPs, MPs or members of the House of Lords. I am quite relieved that the proposals will first have to go to consultation in order for us to gain a better understanding of the unintended consequences that they might have, and that some of them may progress no further than that. Martin Whitfield mentioned some of the pragmatic elements in relation to costs and having elections that are run concurrently, given the different electoral methods—and the instances of different incorrect instructions that have happened in the past.
I certainly hope that any consultation will be open and fair, and that views will be accepted without any prejudged conclusions. I had a dual mandate for a period of 12 months: I was a councillor for the Pentland Hills ward in Edinburgh while I was a regional MSP for Lothian. It was a genuine privilege to do both, and I believe that there was not a second during that period when I let down any of my constituents, either as a councillor or as an MSP. I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton that that is perhaps because it was not hundreds and hundred of miles away, but just up the hill.
I do not think that I would ever have become an MSP had I not been a councillor first. My involvement in local government was a great place to gain experience and cut my political teeth while letting me stay heavily involved in my local community and learn more about what other opportunities in politics exist, such as being an MSP or an MP. If that was no longer possible, I know that this Parliament would suffer from missing out on a diverse range of potential MSPs.
A lot has been made of elected representatives double jobbing and taking double pay while they do dual roles. As an Edinburgh councillor, the payroll system made it quite straightforward for me to arrange for my councillor salary to go directly to two nominated charities in the Pentland Hills ward, without the money ever coming to me or my bank account. It was an honour to support those two charities for the period of 12 months, and I know from feedback that the money was spent locally and directly supported families and individuals in need.
The minister highlighted some of Bob Doris’s amendments that spoke to the high rates of spoiled ballots, and Martin Whitfield spoke about some of the animations that we all see. We also heard Ross Greer’s ideas about compulsory registration—or, rather, automatic registration, to get the terminology right.
So much of what we have heard today was also discussed before this afternoon. As Mr Greer pointed out, maximising participation will enhance the trust that people have in politicians. We all need that to be restored quickly.
With the Scottish Government introducing further electoral reform legislation next year, in readiness for implementation in time for the next Holyrood election, we will work constructively with colleagues from across the chamber when the time comes, as we have done so far.
The minister spoke of the many planned consultations. I hope that they will be managed to ensure that there is successful engagement and that the public does not get consultationitis. It is, after all, in all our interests to create a more transparent and smoothly run Scotland in which people across the country go to the polls to choose their elected representatives.
The minister called this Parliament’s bill. To conclude, I formally state that the Scottish Conservatives will support the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.
17:33
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate for setting out a wide-ranging and positive set of contributions that reflects the constructive dialogue that has taken place throughout the parliamentary process. However, I was rather surprised to hear Martin Whitfield say at the outset of his speech that the bill is one that has haunted him. I do not know whether that is because we are approaching the festive season, but I have never thought of him as an Ebenezer Scrooge-esque figure who is haunted by any form of spectre. I hope that the successful passage of the bill will exorcise him of any haunting sensation that he has hitherto experienced.
Annie Wells mentioned our collective desire to have an electoral system that is constantly updated, refined and improved. I very much agree with that. I also reflect on the fact that the bill has been refined and improved over the period of its passage through Parliament. That in itself has served to better refine and improve our electoral system.
Annie Wells also said that electoral law is not static, which I agree with. Indeed, that is why we have already indicated the activity that we will undertake, and it is why, through the process of not recognising electoral law as static, I have announced that the Government intends to carry out two consultations on issues that have been raised throughout the passage of the bill. In January, I will publish a consultation on the detail of dual mandates, ahead of introducing regulations in the autumn—informed by that consultation—that will bar dual mandates so that MPs and peers cannot also be MSPs.
I very much appreciate and thank Rona Mackay for her remarks about my willingness to engage with others. She really spoke to the necessity of that form of consultation because, although we have established our position on what we should do, we need to get it right, and that is what that consultation is designed to do.
I should say, in relation to Richard Leonard’s remarks, that I very much agree and concur with him that the best way to deal with the prospect of a dual mandate for a member of the House of Lords is his preferred solution. I also have a solution as to how we could end the practice of dual mandates for MPs and MSPs, which would be for Scotland not to send anyone to serve in the House of Commons and to become an independent country. I look forward to Richard Leonard coming to the same conclusion in due course.
I will publish a second consultation in the spring on issues such as residency requirements, deposits, by-elections and disqualification. Those issues arose, frankly, as a result of amendments that were lodged at stage 2. I had not planned on taking forward such a consultation, but, as those suggestions were proffered earnestly, I have determined that we should consider them further and take forward a consultation.
I have already spoken of the plans to have a review of the boundary-setting process, which indicates that we are likely—Martin Whitfield made this point—to return to the need for further primary legislation should we seek to introduce any form of automaticity.
I am grateful to the minister for returning to, if not my haunting, my favourite issue of automaticity with regard to boundary review. We need to fall in line with the rest of the democratic world in relation to boundary justifications. I look forward to the Government’s proposals in that consultation and, if possible, the primary legislation either in this parliamentary session or in the very near future that will enable that to come about.
In the interest of transparency, I note that it is very unlikely that any such legislation will be introduced in this session, but we will take that forward as soon as possible as a review process. I will, of course, ensure that Mr Whitfield’s committee is kept apprised.
On the issue of who should have responsibility for activity related to refining our electoral process, is that the legislature or the executive? Following the exchange between Mr Greer and Mr Whitfield, my intervention on Mr Greer might have seemed a little supercilious, but it was not entirely meant to be. I genuinely make the point that I would welcome proposals emerging from the Parliament, and Mr Whitfield is very welcome to come and speak to me about proposals. He suggests that I might regret that, but I can assure him that my disposition will be less Frank Sinatra in “My Way” and much more Edith Piaf. I said that just so that I could mention Frank Sinatra; “The Manchurian Candidate” was mentioned earlier by Mr Leonard, so I thought that Sinatra deserved a mention.
The Government has a role to play in this process. Candidly, the Government probably has more capacity than the Parliament to take forward reform of electoral law, and I hope that the process of the bill demonstrates that I am more than willing—within reason, of course—to ensure that the Government’s capacity can be used by MSPs to make changes to electoral law. That capacity exists, and members can discuss issues with me, including the composition and size of the Parliament, which Mr Greer mentioned. That was not a proposition that he or anyone else made for the bill, but I will be candid and say that I would have welcomed that, although it probably would have overshadowed any debate that we had on dual mandates. If members want to suggest other ideas, I will be happy to engage with them.
I conclude by again thanking members for their contributions and the important progress that we all seek to make in developing our democracy. The bill will improve and modernise Scottish elections and will take important steps to safeguard our democracy for voters, candidates and administrators alike, but for voters in particular. I was taken by Mr Leonard’s quoting of Tony Benn, who said that
“sovereignty belongs to the people”,—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 May 1990; Vol 173, c 134.]
and they merely lend it to those who are elected. I fundamentally agree with that, and the bill serves to preserve that principle.
On that basis, I commend the bill to Parliament and hope that we will pass it.
That concludes the debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 3.
Air adhart
Decision Time