The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-13758, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
13:02
I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. I thank those who engaged in the public consultation ahead of our developing the bill. That is always an important part of our process, and I am grateful to those who did so.
I am also grateful to the committees that are involved in scrutinising the bill and, in particular, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I am pleased that its stage 1 report supports the bill’s principles, and I look forward to hearing from the committee convener in a few moments, just as I look forward to working closely with the committee and others as the bill continues its passage through the Parliament.
I thank my predecessor as Minister for Parliamentary Business, my friend George Adam, who developed the bill’s proposals. I am very grateful for the effort that he took in engaging with a range of people, organisations and the Parliament in developing and forming the proposals in the bill, and I assure members that I am committed to continuing that approach.
As we mark a quarter century since the Parliament’s first elections, the bill is an example of the positive changes that this Parliament has made in how elections are run, always seeking to put people first.
Jamie Hepburn makes a very good point about the bill being about the Parliament, but does it strike him as odd that the proposals are being brought forward by the Government—the executive? As we consider how we make such changes in the future, does he think that there should be a greater role for the Parliament to look at, instigate and initiate them, rather than the changes being Government initiated?
It is always in the hands of the Parliament to initiate any proposals that it wants to initiate, and we will probably come to discuss some in a short while. Mr Simpson will be speaking today, I think, and he has some proposals in this area. Other members are, of course, able to do so, and any committee of the Parliament is able to do so—in particular, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I am always up for that approach, and the Government will always co-operate as such. Indeed, I was just about to make the point that, although the bill has been introduced by the Scottish Government, it is the Parliament’s bill, and I hope that it will command the support of all colleagues here.
The bill covers a range of issues, including reforming Scottish Parliament and local government elections, carrying forward Government commitments to extend candidacy rights and improving accessibility for voters. It reforms our key electoral organisations and addresses issues arising from the United Kingdom Elections Act 2022, especially on campaign finance, and it builds on experience from the pandemic.
The bill extends candidacy rights for Scottish Parliament and local government elections to foreign nationals with limited leave to remain. It seems right that those who can vote in our elections should also be able to stand for election unless there are strong reasons otherwise. I highlight the powerful evidence that was provided to the committee on the impact of changes that have already been made by this Parliament on voting rights for foreign nationals. Ahlam Hamoud Al-Bashiri of the Scottish Refugee Council told the committee:
“I am so happy that, in 2020, the right to vote in Scotland was given to refugees and that I, as a refugee, can vote in national and local elections here. In 2021, when I went to cast my vote for the first time, it was one of the most beautiful moments of my life. I am so glad that I chose to make Scotland my country.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 18 April 2024; c 7.]
That is a sentiment that many of us who have taken for granted our right to vote might have underestimated or not fully appreciated. Those are powerful words that bring home the real impact of what changes to voting rights bring to people and how they can involve them in this vital tenet of democratic elections.
I was therefore pleased to see that the stage 1 report welcomed the proposed extension of candidacy rights. All of us here have been candidates for election, often many times and, for many of us, for more than just this Parliament. We have had varying degrees of success when standing for election at different points, but we have all gone through the process of being a candidate. We are aware of the risks that those who stand for public office face.
It is crucial that campaigners, candidates and those running elections who face the risk of abuse in what should be a safe environment feel secure, and that action is taken if they do not. That is why the bill builds on the 2022 act to allow a court to bar from becoming MSPs and councillors those found guilty of offences involving intimidation of campaigners, candidates and elected representatives. The bill also goes further than the 2022 act by allowing those found guilty of offences involving intimidation of electoral workers to be disqualified. I hope that that sends a very strong and clear message to those who administer our elections that any intimidation or abuse of them is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.
The bill makes a further change on disqualification, so that future changes to House of Commons eligibility rules no longer automatically apply to MSPs. Further changes on disqualification are also planned for stage 2. We have sought views ahead of lodging amendments to disqualify sex offenders from becoming MSPs or councillors.
As I mentioned a few moments ago in response to Mr Johnson, we are aware of Mr Simpson’s proposed member’s bill on removal from office and recall. I am very grateful to have had the chance to have what I believe were constructive discussions with Mr Simpson—I hope that he concurs—around that proposed legislation, which has three elements. One is a system of recall, similar to the process introduced for MPs. Just a few weeks ago, a motion on that in this Parliament had substantial cross-party support. Another element is about removal from office due to a lack of participation, and the third is about the threshold for criminal conviction in disqualifying people from elected office.
I have been discussing the detail of those matters with Mr Simpson. As I said, I intend to continue that work over the coming period, ahead of stage 2, to assess any possible implications for the bill that we are debating today.
On campaigning in general, the bill broadly mirrors the UK Elections Act 2022 on spending during election campaigns, redefining notional expenditure, limiting overseas spending and modifying third-party campaigning costs. Those changes would simplify the law and they have been broadly welcomed.
On digital imprints, the actions of the UK Government have left us with little choice but to repeal the existing Scottish rules, which were the first in the UK and have operated successfully. The UK Government chose to pursue a broad reading of the internet services reservation, which we continue to think is incorrect. The bill responds to that unilateral change. However, we have retained one aspect in discussion with the Electoral Commission, such that an imprint is required on unpaid-for material posted not just by a regulated campaigner but by all organisations. We see that as addressing an important gap. The committee’s stage 1 report highlights concerns about the enforcement and oversight of those measures, and I intend to engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that their concerns are addressed.
The bill also builds on lessons learned during the pandemic on the emergency rescheduling of elections. We have made it clear that those proposed provisions are only for situations in which a delay is essential, such as a public health emergency. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has called for those who make postponement decisions—for example, the Presiding Officer and the convener of the Electoral Management Board—to provide a written statement of reasons for any such decision, and I will lodge an amendment to that effect. I have also noted the proposal from electoral administrators that the maximum period for a delay to council elections should be four weeks rather than two, and I intend to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to reflect that proposal.
We all want the highest possible registration for and participation in elections and we all want Scotland’s citizens to be actively involved in our democracy. To that end, the bill makes provision for electoral innovation pilots. At present, only councils can propose pilots. The bill will allow schemes to be proposed by the Electoral Management Board, electoral registration officers and ministers. Piloting allows us to test whether potential changes and innovations will work in practice.
The current election campaign has highlighted again the need to help people with sight loss to vote independently. Pilots should be able to help people to register to vote. I intend to lodge an amendment to clarify that changes to the registration system can be piloted.
The bill seeks to do much more. I do not have time in this opening statement to speak on it all, but I will speak on more of it at the close of the debate. I look forward to hearing the contributions of members.
I close now by citing evidence that the Electoral Reform Society provided to the committee:
“It is also important not to focus only on elections, but to think about the opportunities to strengthen our democracy in the periods between elections, too.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 18 April 2024; c 23.]
The bill is designed to help that effort.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.
I call Martin Whitfield to speak on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
13:11
As convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the committee.
It is an opportune time to debate electoral law. I am sure that all members will join me in encouraging people who are able to vote to do so next week, and to continue to vote, in future elections to which the bill relates, because our democracy is founded on the moment when a person makes a decision about who they wish to represent them.
I echo the minister in thanking all those who provided written and oral evidence on the bill. I also thank all my fellow committee members for the constructive way in which they approached the committee’s stage 1 report.
The committee supports the general principles of the bill, although there are a number of matters on which we either call for further clarification in advance of stage 2 or have already suggested changes to the Government. I welcome the openness that the current minister and his predecessor have shown towards the committee with regard to taking advice, discussing and being able to reach what I hope are satisfactory conclusions. The Scottish Government has provided a response to the committee’s report that indicates an openness to consider a number of the committee’s recommendations for amendments, and I am grateful for that.
The bill covers a number of very different aspects of electoral law. I will not speak to every detail of the bill, but I will cover the committee’s main conclusions and recommendations. However, I urge all members and those outside of the Parliament to read the stage 1 report, listen to today’s debate and engage over the recess period, so that changes, amendments and ideas can be brought forward in a timely manner.
Given that so much of the bill is, in essence, a framework bill and will rely on secondary legislation, I wonder whether the convener of the committee could outline his view on how that secondary legislation should be drafted, reviewed and amended so that it can genuinely be a cross-party effort. That secondary legislation is ultimately where much of the detail of the bill will be embodied.
I am grateful for that intervention, but I disagree with my colleague’s point. The bill is not simply a framework bill in the style of other bills that we have considered; it delves into a great deal.
Nonetheless, as my colleague will pick up in due course—indeed, he may already have done so from reading the report—some criticism has been levelled at the bill. Perhaps “criticism” is too strong a word; there is an inquiring view as to the extent of secondary legislation, which goes to the heart of the matter: who should control our electoral methods? Is it—indeed, should it be—this Parliament? We have already had an indication from the minister of the Parliament’s ability to launch opportunities, indications and changes. Alternatively, should that control sit with Government? We will pursue inquiry on that as we move forward.
The committee supports the extension of candidacy rights to individuals with limited leave to remain. The majority of those who provided evidence to the committee welcomed the proposals. There are, however, some concerns in the evidence about the potential risk that it could be used by foreign players to undermine Scotland’s electoral system. The committee has invited the Scottish Government to consider those risks further.
The bill also introduces a Scottish disqualification order, which would disqualify an individual, subject to an order, from standing for election to the Scottish Parliament and/or our local government in Scotland for a period of five years. It also provides that, where an individual is convicted of certain offences and the court believes beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was aggravated by hostility related to electoral workers, the court will, in most cases, be required to impose the additional sanction of a disqualification order.
The committee is content with the provisions on disqualification, but it noted a potential risk of vexatious candidacy for the Scottish Parliament elections, as the bill would prevent an individual who is subject to such an order not from actually standing for election, but merely from taking up the role. The committee notes the reference provided by the minister that the elections order offers sufficient safeguarding. The committee has asked the Scottish Government to keep that issue under review and to consider future amendments via primary legislation, should any issues of vexatious candidacy transpire.
The committee invites the Scottish Government to carry out an evaluation of the impact of the proposed changes in relation to increasing the diversity of those campaigning or standing for elected office, and in relation to the levels of abuse and intimidation that women and minority candidates in particular experience.
The policy memorandum to the bill indicated that the Government would welcome the committee’s view on the introduction of a provision that provides for the disqualification of individuals who are subject to sex offender notification requirements from being MSPs or councillors. Responses to the committee indicated stakeholder support for the introduction of such a provision. The committee also noted that other legislatures in the UK have brought forward legislation in that area. The committee supports the introduction of that provision in principle, but detailed scrutiny of how such provision could or should operate is not possible without sight of specific legislative proposals. The committee looks forward to engaging with the Government on that issue ahead of stage 2.
On campaign spending, the committee made a number of recommendations. Those include:
“that the Electoral Commission should be consulted before Scottish Ministers add a category to the list of third party campaigners”
and
“that the Scottish Government should undertake work with relevant stakeholders to consider how the range of campaign expenses could be increased to support increased diversity in candidates for elected office, such as, but not restricted to, childcare costs”.
The committee also recommended
“that, in relation to restrictions on spending by overseas third party campaigners, the Scottish Government provides further information as to how it intends such restrictions to be enforced”,
and
“that the Scottish Government undertakes further work with stakeholders to bring the reporting regime for Scottish Parliament elections into line with the regime for UK Parliament elections.”
The committee welcomes the consideration that has been given to providing greater flexibility in relation to the rescheduling of Scottish elections. Concerns were raised with us by the Association of Electoral Administrators in relation to the minimum period, but the minister has already covered the intentions in that regard.
We also recognised, and emphasised, the importance of clarity and transparency in relation to decisions to reschedule elections. The committee considers that the provisions in the bill could be strengthened by an additional requirement for a statement of reasons explaining why an election is being rescheduled.
We are largely content with the provisions of the bill in relation to election pilots and the establishment of a democratic engagement fund. Nevertheless, we ask the Scottish Government to take into account the recommendations in the report, including on mechanisms for election pilots and specifying the amount of funding in the democratic engagement fund.
I realise that time is short, so I will push on swiftly. The committee supports the proposed revision to extend the deadline for Boundaries Scotland to submit its next report on council wards and councillor numbers from 31 December 2028 until 30 April 2031. We welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to look at automaticity as the way forward and to set out details of its proposals in that regard before stage 3.
The Electoral Management Board plays an important role in the elections, and the committee welcomes and supports the establishment of the Electoral Management Board as a body corporate, so that it can undertake contracts and better facilitate the provision of elections.
The committee has called on the Scottish Government to provide more clarity on the significant number of areas that could be dealt with through secondary legislation, and the committee would like to know when it can expect to receive that additional information. The committee asks for it to be provided well in advance of any secondary legislation being laid.
The committee would also like to receive clarification in respect of when the relevant secondary legislation—either that which has been outlined in the minister’s letter or other necessary secondary legislation—will be laid in advance of the next Scottish Parliament elections.
The committee looks forward to working with the Scottish Government and all members across the chamber on the bill, which I believe is a very important one. We are reminded of the Gould principle that any amendments to election rules should be made sufficiently in advance of an election so that everyone understands them, and not less than six months before an election.
I am grateful for your patience, Deputy Presiding Officer.
We have some time in hand, but I will leave it to members to decide how they wish to use that time—or not, as the case may be.
13:21
I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its excellent and detailed report on the bill. I hope to work closely with the committee on my proposed bill, which members have already heard about—there is some crossover between my bill and the bill that we are considering—later this year, so I want to keep in with the committee and its fantastic convener. [Laughter.]
At this stage, we are looking at the general principles of the bill, which are
“to make further provision about eligibility of elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament and in local government and to reform certain aspects of the law relating to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections”.
The committee agrees with the general principles, and so do Conservative members.
The committee’s report goes into detail on some very important areas. The bill gives foreign nationals with any form of leave to remain the right to stand as candidates in Scottish local government elections and Scottish Parliament elections. Currently, foreign nationals can stand for election to the Scottish Parliament only if they have indefinite leave to remain. The new proposal could mean that someone could be elected with no guarantee that they will be able to stay for their full term. That must be an issue.
There is also the question—which the committee picked up—whether there is a tension between the oath of allegiance that MSPs are required to swear and citizenship of another country. When he was asked about that, the then Minister for Parliamentary Business, George Adam, responded:
“There is always debate about that, and everyone has their own opinion on it, but it is up to each individual to consider how they deal with that when they put themselves forward as an elected member.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 2 May 2024; c 8.]
I think that that response was a bit of a cop-out, to be honest.
I presume that Mr Simpson would recognise that each and every one of us who stands for elected office does so on the basis of an understanding that, if we are elected, we will have to take such an oath. We have to reconcile ourselves to that fact, in the full knowledge that that could happen.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I notice that Lorna Slater also wants to intervene; I will take an intervention from her next.
In answer to the minister, of course that could happen, but the committee picked up on the fact that someone who was in that position would know that they might not be able to serve their full term. That is an issue that it would be worth exploring, possibly at stage 2.
The member will recognise that many of us who serve in this chamber already are also citizens of other countries.
Absolutely, and that is a good thing.
The bill creates a new Scottish disqualification order that can apply to individuals found guilty of intimidating electoral workers. Malcolm Burr, convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, said:
“A lot of abusive comments are made off the cuff or are of the moment and probably would not be caught. One would hope that the possibility of a disqualification order would deter anyone with political ambitions who was minded to participate in a campaign of intimidation or a premeditated act of intimidation.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 21 March 2024; c 5.]
I agree. The bill does not include provision for disqualification of individuals who have been convicted of a sexual offence and are subject to sex offender notification requirements from holding office as MSPs or councillors. However, the policy memorandum to the bill indicates that consideration is being given to such a provision being introduced at stage 2. I would certainly be happy to look at that, but it might be better if the Government does.
That brings me to another issue highlighted in the policy memorandum, which I also highlighted when I attended the committee on 2 May. Section 31 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 prevents individuals from standing or holding office as a local authority member if they have, within five years prior to the day of the election or since their election, been jailed for no less than three months. For elections to the Scottish Parliament, people are disqualified from standing or continuing to serve as an MSP if they have been sentenced to be imprisoned or detained for more than a year. The justification for the difference in approach is not clear.
As I have said, I have a member’s bill that is being drafted at the moment, which the committee will deal with. Part of it seeks to reduce the sentence limit for MSPs from over 12 months to six months. However, that would still leave a disparity in the way that councillors are treated and the way that MSPs are treated, for which I see no justification. As the minister said, I have had fruitful discussions with him about that issue and about the rest of my bill, because we need to fix that. He and I agree—I am not putting words in his mouth—that we ought to find a solution, but we need to decide what length of sentence should prevent someone from being a councillor or an MSP. It needs to be the same figure. I am confident that, over the summer, the minister and I will arrive at an agreement.
I will certainly lodge an amendment on that, but that would mean my not taking forward that element of my bill. I am strongly minded to keep the other sections of my bill, on non-attendance and recall. That should keep the committee well occupied in the latter part of the year and maybe beyond.
The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill does a number of other things. It makes new provision on campaign finance. It places a duty on the Electoral Commission to produce a statutory code of practice on the application of expenditure controls for third-party campaigners. It contains provisions on deciding to postpone elections. It widens powers to conduct a pilot on electoral processes and to adjust the date of the new review of local government wards and numbers of councillors. It will also change the law on digital imprints.
There is a section in the committee’s report on dual mandate. I think that I am right in saying that most witnesses were against that, but there are differing views among MSPs and in my party. I note that the committee did not express a view. I am personally against dual mandate.
I thank the committee once again and look forward to contributing to the progress of the bill.
13:29
I thank Graham Simpson for giving us that briefest of insights into and hints about the internal machinations of the Scottish Conservative group on dual mandate. I should probably leave that one there.
Before I go any further, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a member of the trade unions Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I am a Scottish Labour and Scottish Co-operative Party MSP, which is all relevant to the bill.
The bill makes a number of very important changes to the way in which people will seek to be elected to the Scottish Parliament in future years. It is really important that we continue to revise and refresh such rules and regulations, because that is part of a healthy democracy. Society changes, so ensuring that we remain as accessible and as inclusive as possible is very important.
I do not have the time this afternoon to go through all the issues that the bill raises, but I will highlight a few. First, the points about accessibility that the Royal National Institute of Blind People has made are very important. It highlighted an issue that was raised with me by one of my constituents, who was deeply frustrated about the lack of availability of voting devices. For people who have visual impairments, it can be incredibly difficult to register to vote, to get to polling stations and to use ballot papers. It strikes me that it should not be beyond the wit of human beings to ensure that people with visual impairments are able to vote. In relation to what is being proposed, it strikes me that we are behind the curve in making such technology available. James Adams from the RNIB put it very well in his evidence to the committee when he stated:
“there is a large cohort of blind and partially sighted people who, if they could register with the local authority to receive their voting card by email or whatever electronic method, would be able to use screen readers on their phones.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 18 April 2024; c 19.]
That is a simple and bold point.
Mr Johnson has made a number of reasonable points. In relation to people who might struggle to access ballot papers in the traditional format, ideas for tactile voting aids continue to be explored. A prototype of a card overlay that matches the size of a ballot paper is being assessed, and end users are involved in its design and development. We are actively considering all such issues.
I am aware of that, but I urge the Government to accelerate and expedite that work, because there is a great deal of frustration about that process being very long and drawn out.
I also urge members to realise that visual impairment takes a broad range of forms. Not all people who are blind or visually impaired can use Braille, so a broad range of devices are needed for different people with different visual impairments.
I follow a very broad principle on the extension of candidacy rights. If someone participates in and contributes to society, and if they pay their taxes—this is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list—they should be able to put themselves forward for election. In broad terms, I welcome the broadening of that category. I welcome the fact that a broad range of people can vote in Scottish Parliament elections.
However, we must look carefully at the criteria that are being proposed. I wonder whether there is merit in including people who are here for only a temporary period and have no expectation of residing in Scotland up to, or even close to, the point of the next election.
Critically, we must consider the possibility that such provision could be exploited by foreign powers or other agencies, as they could send people to this country who could use their ability to stand for election to manipulate an election. That is not an imminent threat, but we certainly need to consider that possibility.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will Daniel Johnson take an intervention?
I think that Ms Dunbar was ahead of the minister, so I will give way to her first.
I call Jackie Dunbar, who joins us remotely, for an intervention.
Daniel Johnson was talking about people who would be residing in Scotland only temporarily. Is he talking about people in the rest of the UK in that regard, or is he talking about only European nationals and other nationals?
We just need to think through the issue carefully. If someone is standing for election, they should be committed to representing the constituency or the region for the period of that parliamentary session. We should explore that issue in our discussions.
I will give way to the minister, but I think that I might be running out of time.
It is fine.
I assure Daniel Johnson that Jackie Dunbar is frequently ahead of me; I see that he agrees from a sedentary position.
I agree with Daniel Johnson’s latter point, on concerns about manipulation and outside agencies. We have to consider that very carefully. It is a serious matter.
However, when it comes to strict criteria on who can or cannot be a candidate, I ask him to reflect on the fact that, in advance of standing for election, not one person here had to sign anything to say that they were committed to living in Scotland for any extent of time. The assumption—the expectation—is that we will do so. That is no different from the current position.
Sometimes, such things need to come out through the voters deciding whether a person’s commitment—whether to a time period or to particular principles—is a reason to vote for them.
I note the time. I will briefly mention third-party campaigners. It is natural that a broad range of third-party organisations—such as those referred to in my declaration of interests—participate. Transparency is important but, in our consideration of these things, we need to recognise the fact that trade unions, campaigning bodies and, indeed, allied parties are a healthy part of our democracy. We should seek to ensure that we do not put them at a disadvantage while we seek to promote transparency and clarity.
Very briefly, I say that we need to think about the possibility of committee bills in looking at how we reform our democracy. All committees in this Parliament have a capacity that has never been taken up. I have concerns about the fact that much of the detail relies on secondary legislation. The committee needs early sight of that and the ability to contribute and amend it, and I ask whether, in the future, the SPPA Committee or a similar body could take forward proposals such as these on a genuinely cross-party basis, because I question the legitimacy of the executive taking forward proposals to reform elections, which are properly a matter for the Parliament.
13:37
Sometimes dramatic, sometimes mundane and always interesting to those of us who are involved, elections offer us an incredible opportunity to voice our say about what values we want to guide the decisions that shape our country. Civil participation in our democracy is the only way to make it thrive. The inherent value of voting makes it a foundational principle for healthy democracies. That fosters expressiveness, equality and legitimacy and serves as a tangible link between residents and their representatives. It is the bedrock of our governmental structure.
The bill reminds us that this very institution is organic and welcomes expansion and inclusion. In contrast to those elsewhere in these isles who fight to conserve rigid and archaic structures, we have been allowed by devolution—in the relatively short history of this Parliament—to institute large advances in expanding rights. We have charted a different path in Scotland, and I hope that we will continue to expand and enhance access to our democratic institutions for everyone who lives here, so that they feel listened to and represented.
Votes at 16 for Scottish and local government elections is one of the greatest steps forward that we have taken to extend the franchise, and we have seen how young people have engaged with electoral processes as well as politics as a whole. That has certainly had an effect on policy.
I thank the clerks and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for their work, along with everyone who took part in evidence sessions and in the consultation. I also thank my good friend George Adam for the work that he put into the bill when he was Minister for Parliamentary Business. There is lots to welcome in the bill, and I note the general support and agreement of the committee in the stage 1 report.
Parts 1 and 2 of the bill, which extend candidacy rights at Scottish Parliament and council elections to those with limited leave to remain in the UK, are necessary and important changes. A right to vote for refugees was first brought to the chamber in a Green amendment that was lodged in 2018 by my colleague Ross Greer and was supported by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party MSPs. We firmly believe that those who reside in Scotland must be afforded the right to vote and decide how best they would like to be represented, and it is logical to give those who have the right to vote the right to stand at such elections.
I am also supportive of having a backstop provision for responding to any unanticipated events, such as a public health emergency, particularly in the light of the impact on this chamber of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I encourage the Scottish Government to take bolder action. In 2019, my colleague Mark Ruskell pressed for measures that are now in the provisions of this very bill. Scottish Greens have been at the forefront of several of these campaigns. We pressed for the expansion of voting rights to asylum seekers, and we continue to urge the Government to take action on that. I am pleased to hear of the amendments that the minister seeks to lodge. I am sure that we will speak to him on amendments ahead of stage 2.
I was pleased, too, to hear Daniel Johnson raise the issue of accessible voting. Earlier this session, I attended an event at the sensory centre in Falkirk on voting accessibility for partially sighted or registered blind people. The technology that we saw is hugely important for people who require it, and that need extends to people with various impairments and disabilities. Communicating changes to electoral systems and how we vote is also important for people with impairments and disabilities, and that should be at the heart of any measures that we introduce in the future.
We must do more to renew our democracy and to encourage democratic participation at all levels. Reform work still needs to be done in this session of the Scottish Parliament, and it should be a continuous endeavour. It is the view of Scottish Greens that there should be a more radical review of democratic reform and voter turnout so that we can start to incentivise active citizens in our society. That is the correct step forward. We will support the bill at stage 1.
We move to the open debate. I call Bob Doris, who is joining us online.
13:41
I am pleased to speak in this short debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 1. I thank members of the committee for their sterling work and for their very informative and helpful stage 1 report. I also thank the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Jamie Hepburn, and his predecessor, George Adam.
I wish to discuss how we ensure that we use the bill to make the most fundamental and core democratic function—casting one’s vote—actually count. I have a direct constituency interest in the issue, but the points that I will make should be pertinent to us all. At the 2022 Scottish council elections, in Canal ward in my constituency, the spoiled ballot paper rate was 5.64 per cent, which was more than three times the national average. Most of those papers had been spoiled unintentionally. Canal ward is a four-member ward; there were two parties fielding multiple candidates, and a well-known independent candidate was also on the ballot paper. Many voters indicated a first-preference vote for more than one candidate, mostly by placing two or three Xs on the ballot paper. Parts of the ward have low income levels, such as Possilpark, which has the most challenging Scottish index of multiple deprivation data in Scotland. It has an enduring low turnout of voters, which at the last council elections was almost 14 per cent lower than the Scottish average. The risk factors for things going wrong were therefore clear and evident.
Let me view that through the prism of the bill that we are scrutinising. Part 5 of the bill contains a proposal for a democratic engagement fund. The previous minister suggested a figure of £300,000. The policy memorandum states that, where
“a grant or assistance scheme is put in place, this is expected to be focussed on local organisations which work with harder to reach groups and which have clear objectives to improve democratic participation, such as through encouraging registration.”
To that list of factors, we could add tackling patterns of low turnout, the high rate of spoiled papers and other issues. If the scheme does not seek to tackle issues such as the ones in Canal ward that I have outlined, it will not be doing its job properly. We need more detail on the underlying principles for the strategic use of any given fund and how its effectiveness might be monitored. The Electoral Commission is considering the introduction of a similar fund.
That takes me to part 8 of the bill, which covers how five-year plans by the Electoral Commission are agreed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, including the budgets that will underpin them. I would welcome the placing of a statutory duty on the Electoral Commission for any strategic plan to tackle issues such as the ones that I have identified in Canal ward. That position is shared by my local council colleagues Councillor Gow and Councillor McLaren. Together, we have met representatives of the Electoral Commission to discuss the matter further.
I thank Bob Doris for the contribution that he made while he was a member of the committee. Does he agree that the Electoral Commission itself should have the ability to control the five-year plan rather than the SPCB having the ability to alter it?
That was an interesting intervention. I note that the Welsh Parliament and the UK Parliament are taking a different position from the one stated by the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I agree with the convener, however, that the underlying principles that support the plan should be set out in the bill, although the plan itself would be a matter for the Electoral Commission.
I have met the previous minister and representatives of the Electoral Commission to further my proposals. The current duty on the Electoral Commission is simply to
“promote public awareness of ... current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems, together with such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine”.
We can probably agree that that could be clarified and brought into a bit more focus. It appears reasonable to me that the Parliament should reflect some underlying principles in the bill that should guide the strategic plans, which will hopefully facilitate meaningful work and outcomes in communities across Scotland—including in Canal ward, as I mentioned earlier.
I know that the Electoral Commission is increasingly seeking to do more work in this area, and not only at election time. I look forward to exploring the opportunities ahead of stage 2 to make votes count right across Scotland, and I look forward to working with the current Minister for Parliamentary Business to that end.
13:46
I am pleased to be speaking in today’s debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. It has been really interesting for me, as a relatively new member of the SPPA Committee, to understand where the bill is going. As we have heard, the bill contains numerous proposals that aim to alter aspects of our electoral system.
The suggested changes focus on voting, election schedules, campaigns and finance, administration and governance, and candidates. On the issue of candidates, part 2 of the bill is dedicated to disqualification criteria and increasing the diversity of candidates.
Concerning disqualification criteria, the policy memorandum suggests that consideration will be given at stage 2 to barring individuals who are sex offenders or have been convicted of sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from becoming either councillors or members of this Parliament. Notably, that would be comparable to legislation on the issue passed by other legislatures.
On the diversity of candidates, particular attention has been given to increasing the role of women and minority candidates. Those groups often experience larger degrees of abuse when standing for public office. That is particularly present on online platforms—namely, social media. To safeguard and improve diversity, the Scottish Government has been asked by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to undertake an evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed changes pertaining to individuals who are looking to campaign or run for office. In response, the Scottish Government reiterated its commitment to increasing the diversity of candidates for public office, and it agrees that conducting an evaluation on the impact of the changes before 2031 would help to realise that aim.
Aside from individuals, the bill looks to widen democratic participation by making it possible to offer financial support for activities deemed to be related to Holyrood elections or local government matters through a new democratic engagement fund and electoral pilots. Monetary assistance from the fund would be allocated to increase the engagement of campaigners, candidates and voters. Despite no money yet being allocated and more clarification being needed, the committee largely supported that proposal, alongside those for election pilots.
With regard to election pilots, the bill would seek to amend the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002. That proposal is intended to provide greater accessibility to voters. For example, it was noted that election pilots could play a central role when considering automatic voter registration in future. Like the engagement fund, that provision would, at least in principle, help to make the Scottish voting system more equal and reachable to all voters in Scotland.
The bill and its proposed changes to our electoral system are still very much in their infancy, and the bill is not, at least at this stage, an exhaustive one. However, the general spirit and aim of the bill is to make our electoral system—the very mechanism that we employ to exercise our democratic rights—more open and equal by refining the criteria for individuals who wish to represent the Scottish people here at Holyrood or in local government. The changes are aimed at making Scotland’s electoral system more accessible and more structured around the will of the Scottish people; I look forward to future debates and to collaborating with colleagues to achieve those ends.
13:50
I am pleased to speak this afternoon for Scottish Labour.
As colleagues have set out, we support reform, and, as anyone who has been at a door or has looked at their inbox lately will know, the appetite for change is strong. People are fed up, partly because of what some do when they are in office but also because of the process to get here, as we have heard with regard to representation by and difficulties for equalities groups.
Setting the highest standards in public life is not just about behaving better or making better decisions—although we must improve both—but about the central issue of restoring trust between the public and politics. I think that there is a lot more that we can do in that respect. We could look at, for example, second jobs, the right to recall MSPs who have engaged in wrongdoing and stronger sanctions for breaches of ministerial codes. Crucial to any such approach, though, is the ability to pilot improvements to increase participation in, access to and understanding in our politics, particularly for underrepresented groups. It is that issue to which I want to turn.
Participation and representation matter. I have spent much of my time both here and before I got here campaigning for better representation of women, disabled people, LGBT people and black and minority ethnic people in our homes, our streets, our councils, our banks, our bars and, indeed, our Parliaments. It is important that we see a diversity of society reflected here.
As it stands, though, our Parliaments still fall short in that respect. We know that women make up only 34 per cent of the UK Parliament—or as it was before it was dissolved—and 46 per cent of the Scottish Parliament. Less than 1 per cent of MPs are disabled; only 10 per cent of MPs and 4.5 per cent of MSPs are BAME; and 7 per cent of MPs are LGBT. The figure for MSPs is not available, and the Scottish Parliament information centre has said that it is difficult to gather such information, because we rely on people coming forward—or coming out, as I have described it in the past.
We should therefore take the opportunity provided by this bill, if we can, to address that. Much of this will come down to someone’s fear of saying that they are a disabled person, for example. I do not have to say that—it is pretty obvious—but, for some people, that is not the case, and we should make it easier for them to do that. It is an issue that goes quite far back—indeed, as far back as President Roosevelt, who said that he did not declare his disability because of concerns about how it could be seen. We need to sort that out, and part of what this bill could do is address that issue.
We know that representation matters, because we cannot continue to make the same decisions with the same people and expect different results. We have to bring the innovation in all Scottish society into this chamber and, indeed, council chambers across the country. We have taken some steps in that sense, but we still have far to go.
I am really interested in what Pam Duncan-Glancy is saying, but I wonder whether she has any specific proposals—she might not, as yet—to deal with the issues that she raises.
I will highlight a specific example shortly, but there are other examples that I can point to across civic society. Engender, for example, has done some really good work on increasing the representation of women in politics, and I think that the Parliament should look to and learn from it and, indeed, the work of other equality groups.
The bill that is in front of us represents an opportunity to change things. We should seize the moment with the pilots. I agree with James Adams from RNIB Scotland, who said that
“blind and partially sighted people”
still do not
“feel that they can vote in confidence or in secret”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 18 April 2024; c 16.]
and that we need to change that situation. He said that we should “bite the bullet”, and I hope that we can do so through this legislation, including in relation to digital polling cards.
We also need to welcome the increase in participation by supporting a fund for participation. The Electoral Commission, Engender and RNIB Scotland have suggested in their evidence that such a move would build the capacity of civil society to reach underrepresented groups, and we should seize that opportunity.
Finally, going back to the example that I mentioned, I would highlight the access to elected office fund, which was set up after cross-party campaigning and with a lot of support and effort from the disability movement to encourage more disabled people into politics. We should learn from that fund, and I would be grateful if the minister could, when he closes, confirm on the record whether he will consider reopening it for the next Scottish Parliament election.
13:55
We have before us a bill at stage 1 that will go a long way to strengthening our democracy in the Scottish Parliament and across our council chambers. I thank everyone who has engaged with it this far.
The bill introduces provisions to expand candidacy rights, to protect candidates and campaigners from intimidation, and to improve administrative arrangements for elections in Scotland. It provides an opportunity to create an electoral system that improves democratic engagement, including for those who have chosen to make Scotland their home.
In the short time that I have to speak, I want to focus my remarks on where I believe we can focus attention to improve the bill to ensure that we deliver on our collective aim to positively enable greater diversity in political representation.
During my time as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities community wellbeing spokesperson, along with the then COSLA president Councillor Alison Evison, we convened a barriers to elected office working group, as we urgently wanted to understand why our council chambers were largely male and pale. At the time, there were fewer than 30 per cent women councillors and a very low number of people from minoritised communities or with disabilities in them. When we started to dig into intersectionality, it became very apparent that there was a mountain to climb before our council chambers and, indeed, the chamber that we are in today reflected the communities that we serve.
As a little side note, Councillor Kelly Parry and I did a wee act of breaking the glass ceiling. We became the first community wellbeing spokespersons to job share, as she went on maternity leave. Both of us were paid the full salary. That was a first. We need to recognise such achievements.
I thank Engender for the briefing that it provided to MSPs for this debate and for its efforts to dismantle structural sexism in order to increase women’s social, political and economic equality. Like me, Engender knows that, by having women—disabled women, black and minority ethnic women, women who are carers and women on low incomes—in our chambers shaping policy and legislation, we make lives better. That was one of the key drivers for me when I first sought nomination. As a former Women’s Aid worker, I saw local decision making result in the tendering of our specialist service. I wanted to be around the table to ensure that our voices were heard and acted on. I often think of the saying “If you’re not around the table, you’re on the menu”. What I did not expect was the level of intimidation and misogyny that I have encountered over the past nine years in office.
There are a few ways in which we can strengthen the bill to increase diversity and support that diversity when people are in office. First, how do we know what we do not know? Without a duty on the Scottish Government to survey candidate diversity and experience at all future local elections, we will not have robust equality monitoring data. Intersectional data on the protected characteristics of our elected representatives is vital in ensuring a high-quality democracy. I will always campaign for disaggregated gendered data. We simply do not have enough of that.
Secondly, candidate and elected member safety is key, because the toxic levels of abuse and harassment right now are having a chilling effect on women’s participation in politics and on their decisions whether to stand again for elected office. Just last month, I was granted a five-year non-harassment order. I know that I am but one of many politicians who have faced threats and intimidation. Like Engender, I press the Scottish Government to look closely at incorporating the recommendations from the Jo Cox civility commission and to exempt costs associated with candidate safety from election spending limits.
Thirdly, we need to provide financial support to ensure participation. Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I urge the minister to look at the successful access to elected office fund, which was administered by Inclusion Scotland and helped to alleviate financial barriers that disabled candidates faced.
Finally, how can the Parliament, our councils and, indeed, our political parties ensure that mentoring, support, coaching and training are available to ensure that those who are furthest from elected office are supported to get there and stay there?
The bill is our vehicle to increasing participation. I urge members to support it at stage 1.
We move to the closing speeches.
13:59
Democracy is a core value that everyone in the chamber shares, and radical local democracy is one of the four pillars of the international green movement.
Democracy is a journey—it is not something that we do just once but a continuous process of achieving consent to govern. We are lucky to have lived for so long in a democratic country with a peaceful transfer of power, but I worry that many people have forgotten that the peace, freedom and human rights that we enjoy are the products of democracy, and that undermining democracy places those invaluable things at risk.
We live in times when the value of democracy and the legitimacy of its processes are being questioned around the world. Power does not want to hear truth. Power is selective about which people it wants to listen to. Even in the UK, the Conservative Government purposely brought in measures to make it harder for people to vote, by requiring identification to vote in UK elections, thereby solving a non-existent problem of voter fraud but exacerbating a real and chronic problem of voter turnout. We know who the Conservative Government does not want to listen to; it purposely refused to extend the franchise because it fears the will of the people, including young people and immigrants who have come from certain places or circumstances.
I am proud that Scotland has updated and expanded the franchise and that we have a new opportunity to visit and improve our democratic processes. On the journey of democracy, we must always check in and ask ourselves who is getting a say and whose voices are being excluded.
One of the big challenges in our democracy right now is that a large proportion of people who have the right to vote do not do so. One of the purposes of democracy is to rebalance power by redistributing it from those who have it to the people. The people in Scotland who vote are just those who are able to jump through the hoops of social norms and voter registration processes and either arrange a proxy or postal vote or get leave from work, get to a voting station and, now, for UK elections, bring an accepted form of ID.
I have suggestions for how we can make it easier for people who are allowed and wish to vote but are unable to navigate that landscape. First, it should be an automatic expectation that all high schools support their students of 15 years or older to register to vote. There is strong evidence that people who start voting at 16 and 17 continue to vote in higher numbers than those who become eligible when they are 18. I am, of course, grateful to those schools that already do that.
Would Lorna Slater go one step further and suggest that automatic registration at, say, 14 or 15 should take place, and that, over and above what they do already, schools should be required to facilitate an understanding of the democratic purpose?
I would be happy to support automatic registration, but I am not clear on whether that is a fully devolved matter. If it is, for Scottish elections, I would certainly approve of automatic registration for young people.
Martin Whitfield might also wish to come in on my second point, which is that there should be a duty on Scottish public bodies to register people to vote when people engage with them. He might point out that there should be an automatic registration when people engage with Scottish public bodies, and I would support that.
Of course, that needs to be paired with protections to assure people that being added to the electoral register would not bring adverse consequences from public or private bodies, such as being pursued for debt collection.
The Scottish Green group looks forward to working with the minister ahead of stage 2 on the proposed provisions around disqualification. Safeguarding constituents is a key concern, and the proposed criteria seem like an obvious area for disqualification.
We want to ensure that we have fully thought through the detail and potential consequences of creating a power to dismiss those who have been democratically elected by their constituents.
Getting all nerdy and technical about election systems and processes is something that the Scottish Greens get very excited about. We are pleased to participate in the debate and are very much looking forward to working with the minister and other members on the bill as it moves forward.
14:04
I thank all members for their participation in the debate. It is clear that democracy and our democratic institutions, not only in this country but around the world, are beset by significant challenges. Many of those challenges are based on the issue of whether the populace trusts that institutions work for them and are responsive to their needs. Much of that is about outcomes and whether people feel that their lives are getting better or worse. People want to know whether the political system, as established, works for them, their family and their community. Those questions are all legitimate and are at the core of why people lose trust in institutions.
That is the substance of the political debate that we are engaged in at the moment. We will have a general election in a matter of days, and we also engage in political debate day by day in this Parliament.
The bill that is in front of us deals with the structures around that, which need continuous revision. Those structures inform the issue of trust and enable us to represent our policies. Colleagues from across the chamber have made strong points about representation and about how the people who are elected have an impact on the decisions that we make, the character of our discussions and the outcome of our policies. When we make rules that determine who can represent us, we determine the trust that people will have in us in the long term—or so the theory goes.
It is right for us to review and revise the many technical provisions that the minister set out in his opening statement and which I am sure he will speak more about in closing. Scottish Labour agrees with the principle of reform and agrees that we should take action.
There have been many suggestions today about where we might go further, and there will be an opportunity for members to influence the bill as it progresses through stage 2. There are broad opportunities regarding diversity. Several members have made specific points about visually impaired people and the provisions that could be put in place in the short term, before the next Scottish Parliament elections, to ensure that we can engage with that group in society. That should be reasonably straightforward. The minister has set out how he is already engaging with that, and I hope that practical action will be forthcoming.
We have also heard a little about how we must be careful about where the responsibility for some matters lies and whether that sits with the Government or the Parliament. That is an interesting discussion, but we must absolutely ensure that the Parliament, rather than the Government, makes the rules.
Colleagues have spoken about the significant growth in the number of framework bills coming through the Parliament, which brings significant democratic problems. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has seen deeply inadequate costing for such bills, which leads to an impact on public finances. The fact that so many provisions are now set out in secondary legislation, which has a lower threshold for parliamentary scrutiny, is a worry to us all. It is right that that point has been repeated in the debate.
I am wondering about the balance between the Parliament and the Government. The responsibility for dealing with the Electoral Commission’s five-year plans sits with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. What is Mr Marra’s position on that?
That is certainly worth consideration, and Mr Whitfield made a contribution on that basis. At the moment, the Government and the Parliament seem to have a rather strange idea about what the corporate body is for, and we are asking the corporate body to do things that it is not meant to do or was never established to do. We must look more broadly at what we are asking of it; I know that members of that body share those concerns.
I will move towards a conclusion by touching carefully on a couple of other issues, one of which is limited leave to remain. I was glad to hear the minister speak constructively about some of the challenges that arise from that and about how it might be open to abuse from foreign powers. We should look more broadly at that at stage 2.
I will close, as Martin Whitfield did in his role as committee convener, with the Gould principle of ensuring that the work is done quickly so that, when we engage in the 2026 election, everyone understands the rules on which it is based and we can rebuild trust in our politics.
14:09
I welcome the opportunity to speak. It is clear that there is a fair amount of consensus among all the parties on a way forward. That has been helpful as we have reflected on the changes that might come at stages 2 and 3.
Annie Wells said that we want an open and accessible election process. I think that we all want that, and we want to keep reviewing the situation to ensure that it is open and accessible to everyone who lives in Scotland not only to take part in voting but to have the opportunity to stand for election. Although there is consensus, amendments will undoubtedly be lodged by the Government and members of other parties at stage 2.
I thank Martin Whitfield and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for producing such a detailed report, which has given those of us who have not had the opportunity to hear the evidence a very good understanding of what the issues were.
I will pick up on something that Pam Duncan-Glancy said. She is absolutely right that we need to ensure, particularly for people with a disability, that the Parliament is more open and that people do not have a fear that their disability will be used against them if they stand in an election. I have the privilege of being part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for this region, and it is interesting how many members in other jurisdictions who have a disability are not willing to declare that, because they feel that it will affect them. We are in a better place, but there is still work that can be done. Like my colleague Mr Simpson, I look forward to seeing the proposals that she will bring forward in stage 2 amendments.
Pam Duncan-Glancy touched on the access to elected office fund. It is very disappointing that it has not been possible to use it for the UK election—that was a backward step by Westminster. I am not convinced that the fund’s availability should be at the Government’s discretion. I would be interested to explore with the minister the question whether the fund could be put into the bill to ensure that, if there is a Scottish Parliament election or a local authority election, the fund will always be there and funded appropriately by whoever is in government.
I wish the minister well in his discussions with my colleague Mr Simpson over the summer—I am sure that those conversations will be a delight for him. I look forward to seeing some detailed proposals coming forward from that.
I will pick up the remarks that Daniel Johnson and Gillian Mackay made on people with visual impairment. We are taking a very long time on this. I have had the privilege of going to a number of sessions like the one that Gillian Mackay described. In the 21st century, we must be able to do something more quickly. I urge all of us to move forward on this, and I am sure that the minister will get support on that from other members. There are one or two areas that I would, not necessarily this afternoon, be interested in—
Will Jeremy Balfour give way?
Yes.
I thank Jeremy Balfour for taking my intervention. As well as there being adaptations for people with visual impairments, I note that we have not even started looking yet at a range of other impairments that impact people’s ability to participate in the democratic process. Does Jeremy Balfour agree that we need to do much more across the disability spectrum to consider what more we can do to involve people in the democratic process, including in voting in elections?
I absolutely agree. I hope that we have moved beyond thinking that, if there is a ramp, a place is then accessible. However, I still think that we have a long way to go.
On the point made by Pam Duncan-Glancy, I wonder whether we should all, in our political parties, look at how we select our candidates. We are maybe not seeing people from other minorities coming forward in the selection process.
I would like the minister to reflect on a couple of points in relation to the duty of returning officers to provide support for those with disability, which is part of the law in the UK. He reflected that that was not necessarily needed. I am sure that most returning officers do a very good job but, if we are reviewing the matter, there should be legislation to ensure that returning officers do everything that they can to make polling stations accessible.
I note from the financial memorandum that no such pilots are planned, which slightly concerns me. We have talked about having such pilots, but there is nothing about them in the bill. I hope that that will happen quickly.
My time has gone, so I will say that I welcome the bill. As Mr Simpson pointed out, we will be voting for it at stage 1. Along with other members, I look forward to engaging with the minister to make the bill even better at stages 2 and 3.
14:16
I will try to keep my remarks constrained, not least because I was urged to before by some unnamed members because the canteen apparently closes at half past 2. I will try to let them avail themselves of the opportunity to get fed.
I thank members for their contributions. This has been a considered and consensual debate, which reflects the fact that, largely, members welcome the bill. Clearly, there are some ideas for further deliberation and consideration. I reflect that that is the usual experience with any legislation, but so far as the bill is concerned, I think that we are operating on a shared basis of seeking to refine and improve what we have before us. In that regard, I echo the remarks of Mr Whitfield.
Will the minster take an intervention?
We will see whether I also agree with these remarks, Presiding Officer.
Perhaps this will allow the minister to disagree with me. Would he find it helpful to put on the record in the chamber the Scottish Government’s approach towards automaticity of boundary changes, which is an issue that has sat around the bill? Might the bill facilitate its journey forward in an easier way?
I was going to cover that issue, which has been raised by Boundaries Scotland. I am broadly sympathetic to the idea, which I recognise and see the merits of. We would all recognise that it would involve a fairly substantial change from where we are now, so it merits further consideration. I will engage with the chair of Boundaries Scotland to begin that process.
That brings me back to the point on which I was agreeing with the committee convener. I similarly encourage people to engage with the bill over the coming period, in advance of the start of stage 2. I make clear again my willingness to engage with all members, just as I have with Mr Simpson, who, I can say to Mr Balfour, has been his usual effervescent ray of sunshine in his engagement with me, and I am sure that he will continue to be so.
I am sorry that I missed that.
I will invite Mr Robertson to the next meeting so that he can see for himself.
I genuinely recognise the reasonable point that has been made about who should have ownership of this activity. Should it be the executive—the Government—which has introduced the bill, or should it be the Parliament? That is a legitimate area for us to consider. I go back to the point that I made earlier that it is perfectly possible for the Parliament to make its own proposals, and I encourage it to do so where there is a sense that there is a desire for that. The Government would engage with that process.
I also reflect on what we have laid out in the bill. We are not trying to take on ownership of the process of elections; we are seeking to refine and improve the process. In fact, if we look at what we have set out in the bill, we are ceding some responsibilities. We are looking to put the Electoral Management Board for Scotland on a statutory footing. I know that the committee wanted more information on that, which we will provide. The responsibilities that are in the gift of the Scottish Government on the procurement of electronic vote counting will be transferred to the Electoral Management Board; that is an example of us ceding responsibility to another party. In asking the Electoral Commission to have a five-year plan for its devolved activities, we are making sure that the Parliament, and not the Government, has responsibility for scrutinising that.
I agree with the convener of the SPPA Committee, who correctly said that this is not a framework bill, which is a term that we are hearing increasingly. The bill contains a substantial range of measures, which are set out in primary legislation. It is not illegitimate for there to continue to be regulation-making powers that can be taken forward through secondary legislation. That is normal and sensible, because things develop and change.
Will the minister give way?
I am not ignoring Mr Johnson. I am just finishing my point and I will come to him in a moment.
It is not unusual for that to be the case, because the law changes and we have to be adaptive and responsible, and bringing back primary legislation every time creates a burden on the Parliament to go through that process. Of course, secondary legislation is rightly scrutinised by the Parliament as well. I made a commitment to the committee that I would provide details on the constitution of the Electoral Management Board, and we will do the same for secondary legislation.
Let me withdraw my description of this as a framework bill. One of the issues with the mechanisms for secondary legislation is the ability of the Parliament to scrutinise, produce reports on and amend it. Given the sensitivity around the function of elections, could the minister reflect on that point in general? Will he set out how he might bring forward draft proposals to enable members of the Parliament, particularly in the SPPA Committee, to air their views and thoughts so that they can be incorporated in the final draft of the secondary legislation that the Government will put before the Parliament, given that it is so critical to many of the proposals in the bill?
I welcome Mr Johnson’s new-found and correct recognition that this is not a framework bill. The DPLRC is starting to undertake some broad work in this area and it has reached some conclusions. I have already committed to providing additional information to the committee so that it can scrutinise it further.
A number of other issues have been raised. I do not know how much time I have to go through them all. Mr Simpson and others raised the issue of people who have limited leave to remain standing for election. The UK Government has signed treaties allowing nationals of Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain who have limited leave to remain to stand for council elections, so it is not unusual or peculiar to Scotland should we choose to legislate in that area.
Gillian Mackay asked us to consider going further on who has the right to vote in Scotland. I make the observation, and I am sure that she would agree, that we already have a generous voting franchise in Scotland. We would be happy to meet to see what else we might be able to do.
Bob Doris spoke about rejected or spoiled ballot papers. As he knows, I know the Canal ward well, because I cut my teeth campaigning alongside him in the Glasgow Maryhill constituency back in the day. He spoke about there being a statutory duty for the Electoral Commission to do work on spoiled ballot papers. We are exploring an amendment that would place a duty on the commission to report on what it and other bodies such as returning officers, who also have a role, are doing to improve voter education, specifically in relation to reducing the number of spoiled ballot papers.
A number of members discussed the importance of the pilots that are being taken forward. I welcome the fact that people are recognising their importance. Pilots can continue to inform and improve our process. Similarly to a point that I made in relation to the engagement fund, it is important that we do not become overly prescriptive about what the pilots should be. We should embed flexibility within our system, because, despite our collective wit, issues that none of us has yet considered will arise in the future.
To members such as Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour who have raised what we might be able to do to improve diversity through pilots and funding mechanisms, I say that I am happy to meet them to engage on that.
Elena Whitham talked about the Engender survey, which I am aware of. I recognise the recommendation on the collection of data and information. Of course, we undertake a candidate survey already, but Engender noted that the response rate to our survey is low. I agree—the rate is 28 per cent, despite significant resource commitment from the Government and the support of returning officers, political parties, academics, COSLA and others. I will say that creating a statutory duty in and of itself might not increase the response rate. In Wales, there is such a duty, and the response rate to the 2022 local government candidate survey there was just 12 per cent. Our view as a Government is that that exercise demonstrates the importance of continuing to press the UK Government to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which would, if commenced, require registered political parties to publish information relating to the protected characteristics of applicants for nomination and/or candidates in elections to the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We will continue to pursue that with the UK Government.
I am pleased that there seems to be wide-ranging support for the bill. We are considering electoral reform during a year in which not only will we celebrate a quarter century since the first election to the Scottish Parliament but more than 2 billion voters will be going to the polls in more than 50 countries—including in Scotland and the UK a week today. Public participation in free and fair elections is vital in a democracy, and the bill will help to strengthen elections in Scotland. I urge the Parliament to support the motion in my name.
That concludes the debate on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 1.
Previous
Minister and Junior Minister