Seòmar agus comataidhean

I expect that the minister was indeed about to do so, given that it is something that we have already discussed. However, as he has mentioned the number of candidates standing for election, I would emphasise that, in any system in which a list of disqualified individuals was maintained, surely there would be a mechanism to check the list of disqualified individuals, not the list of candidates.

Unless there is an explosion of the kinds of issues that result in people being disqualified, the list of disqualified individuals will always be far smaller than the 2,500 people who stand for election to local authorities. All that a returning officer would have to do would be to cross-check the list of disqualified individuals; at no point in the system would anyone have to check all 2,500 candidates. It is just a matter of checking one list against another, rather than the other way around. As much as the minister is factually correct to point out the number of people who stand for election, that bears no relation to the workload involved in checking who is disqualified.

I am happy to take up the minister’s offer of engagement ahead of stage 3, with the caveat that we might end up not reaching agreement anyway. However, I am happy to give that a go and, therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 69.

Amendment 69, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 35 to 43 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

After section 28

Amendments 4 to 7 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to.

Will the minister give way?

Absolutely. That is an interesting point for us to consider. The cost of administering a by-election exceeds the annual salary of a local councillor, so there is a cost benefit analysis to be made on that point.

I apologise to Mr Simpson, because I cannot remember what the exact results have been in his ward at most local authority elections. If I recall correctly, if he were to have vacated his ward mid-session for whatever reason, I do not think that it is particularly likely that his party would have won the by-election, which would have left those who had originally voted Conservative without the representation that they had asked for. [Interruption.] Ms Webber is reminding us that her party probably would win a by-election in her former council ward.

However, in general, the point stands. That is shown by the examples that I have mentioned, including in Perth City North at the moment and in Dundee. It was a regular occurrence in Glasgow for years, including in the Hillhead ward, which my party won at a recent by-election. If we were to win another by-election in Hillhead, we would have three out of three councillors in a ward that originally elected one Green candidate, one SNP candidate and one Labour candidate.

I do not believe that Parliament has ever debated the issue before, so I will move amendment 57 because I want to air the issue. If there is an appetite to explore the matter further, my intention would be to come back at stage 3 with a more detailed amendment. Frankly, I did not want the legislation team in Parliament to put an extensive amount of work into an amendment if there was no appetite for it across the Parliament, but I want to explore the issue at this stage and ascertain whether there is an appetite to explore it further.

I move amendment 57.

That is a fair point from the minister. My counter to it is that, much as I think that the bill is full of reasonable suggestions, in many respects it is a missed opportunity. There was a missed opportunity for the Government to consult much more widely on opportunities for democratic reform, which would have coincided with the 25th anniversary of the Parliament.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the points that the minister made and I draw out what he said about the commitments made elsewhere in relation to consultation and his offer to the committee to consult on the issue. I am perfectly happy to take up that offer. I acknowledge that amendments 57 and 68 propose significant changes and that consultation on those amendments would be helpful.

In lodging the amendments, I wanted to provoke and kick-start the debate, so I am perfectly happy to withdraw amendment 57 on the understanding that the Government will take the proposals forward as part of any future consultation that draws in other areas, which we will come to later in our proceedings.

Amendment 57, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Before section 3

I am grateful to Joe FitzPatrick for that intervention and I recognise the substantial amount of work that he did on the issue when it was part of his ministerial role.

Depending on what the minister is about to say, I am very open to not pressing amendment 66 at this stage. Like some of the other issues that we have discussed, it is an important principle and a long-recognised area of debate that needed to be aired as part of the process. If there is the potential for us to reach agreement ahead of stage 3, I would be more than happy to take that approach, but I will wait to hear what the minister has to say.

I move amendment 66.

I have nothing further to add, convener. I will press amendment 63.

Amendment 63 agreed to.

Amendments 64 and 65 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

The question of randomising ballot papers, or the advantage or disadvantage of alphabetical order on ballot papers, is not unique to Scotland or the UK, and I am sure that members will be familiar with the issue. This is a long-standing area of debate in all parliamentary democracies.

There is strong evidence that appearing at the top of the ballot paper is an advantage. A quite comprehensive study in 2015 in Denmark found, on average, a 4 per cent advantage to the candidates at the top of ballot papers. In Scotland, the advantage might not be as significant as 4 per cent—there has not been the same rigorous study here—but there are plenty of other studies from across the world showing various levels of advantage to candidates who are at the top of ballot papers. Nothing can be done to prevent that, because somebody needs to be at the top of the ballot paper.

However, based on the principle of fairness, but also the perception of fairness, I think that we should randomise ballot papers so that there is no way to secure that advantage. I remember one particular incident in which a candidate from my party was accused of having changed their surname so that it began with A. That candidate was successfully elected—

Yes, by something in the region of 4 per cent.

I can confirm that that candidate was not particularly enthusiastic about being elected to the local authority in question, and most certainly had not changed their surname to secure that advantage. If they had realised that in advance, they perhaps would have kept their previous surname, although their partner might have had something to say about that.

Because of that unfair advantage, I am proposing randomisation, but I have not prescribed a method of randomisation. Local authority returning officers could simply draw straws or pick names out of a hat. They might want to do it like the cup draw for the football and get minor celebrities in, live stream it and make it a bit more exciting for the three people who will be watching. That is for returning officers to decide. I have simply stated that the ballot papers should be randomised to tackle the issue.

The committee will be glad to know that I will speak to the amendments only very briefly, because I believe that they align with the Government’s intentions. I will use two examples to illustrate why the amendments, which relate to agents and candidates, are necessary.

Amendments 64 and 65 deal with the current requirement for election agents to use their home address. In the relatively recent past, there was an incident in which an individual turned up at the home address of a party election agent on the weekend after an election, because they were seeking the successful candidate who had been elected. The candidate had, quite reasonably, not used their home address in the nomination process, but that individual was able to find the election agent’s home address. Thankfully, the incident did not escalate, but it illustrates the need for us also to give the option that candidates have to their election agents, to ensure that everyone can engage with the process safely.

Amendment 63 would give candidates a new option to state the ward that they live in. At present, candidates can state the local authority area that they live in or the constituency that they live in, when that is relevant.

The example that I will use for amendment 63 relates to the recent Arran by-election. Arran and Cumbrae are the two islands in the North Ayrshire Council area. As you would expect, it is very important to Arran residents that they know that candidates live on the island and, therefore, understand life in an island community. One of the candidates who was put forward by a party did not live on the island, which resulted in the candidates who were Arran residents feeling under pressure to publish their home addresses in order to demonstrate that they lived on the island. The other option was simply to state that they lived in the North Ayrshire Council area, but that could mean that they lived in Irvine, Kilwinning or Ardrossan—in other words, not on the island—and did not have lived experience of island life.

A number of people have approached me to say that they want to be able to demonstrate that they have a connection to the relevant community. That applies not only to islands: particularly in larger local authority areas, a candidate being able to demonstrate that they live in the area is important. People want to be able to demonstrate that without compromising their and their family’s safety by publishing their home address. Amendment 63 would simply provide candidates with the additional option of stating what ward they live in, which would clarify their connection to the community.

I move amendment 63.