Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 14, 2013

Official Report 874KB pdf

---

Scottish Independence Referendum Bill: Stage 3

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate and 30 seconds for all other divisions. Members who wish to speak in the debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 12—Inspection of Electoral Commission’s registers etc

Amendment 1, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 5, 22, 23, 26 to 31, 35, 37 to 42, 48, 49 and 51 to 55.

This group consists of 24 minor and technical amendments to sections throughout the bill. They were identified as being necessary during a review of the bill following stage 2. They make minor changes that are consequential to amendments that were made at stage 2, update cross-references, improve the consistency of wording in the bill and make minor drafting amendments.

I will run through the amendments briefly in turn. I apologise in advance for the length of my remarks on the amendments in the group. I might be about to prove in the next few minutes that not all aspects of passing historic legislation are exciting.

I start with amendment 1. At stage 2, the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee agreed to amend the bill to require the Electoral Commission to publish permitted participants’ pre-poll donation and loan reports during the referendum period so that voters have as much information as possible about the sources of campaign funding. Section 12 sets out detailed arrangements for the publication of documents that the commission must make public, including the register of permitted participants and referendum expenses returns. Amendment 1 applies those arrangements to the publication of pre-poll reports on donations and loans.

Amendments 5 and 48 correct erroneous cross-references. Amendments 22 and 23 relate to the security of postal ballot papers. Amendment 26 amends the definition of “postal ballot paper” to ensure that it covers ballot papers before they are issued to voters and during the issuing process. Amendment 49 adds a reference to that definition to the list of defined expressions in schedule 8, for ease of reference and to ensure that the definition can, where necessary, apply to references to the term elsewhere in the bill.

I turn to amendment 27. Paragraph 54(8) of schedule 2 applies the provisions in paragraph 53 of that schedule, which require secure destruction of documents, to the marked polling list. Amendment 27 ensures consistency by bringing the wording of paragraph 54 into line with Government amendments to paragraph 53 at stage 2.

I turn to amendments 28 and 29. When a voter asks for their ballot paper at the polling station, the presiding officer may ask them a set of questions to ascertain that they are entitled to vote. In certain cases, a voter’s name will appear on a notice of alteration to the register of electors rather than on the polling list. Amendments 28 and 29 simply ensure that, in those cases, the presiding officer will refer to the correct document when they ask the voter to confirm their identity and entitlement to vote.

Amendment 30 relates to an amendment to rule 33 of schedule 3 that Annabel Goldie lodged at stage 2, and it might assist members if I explain a bit more fully why a further amendment to that provision is proposed. As Annabel Goldie made clear at stage 2, the intention of the amendment was to clarify that although the counting officer’s decision on a ballot paper is final, the decision could be made subject to judicial review. However, the amendment was drafted in such a way as to omit the word “final” from the rule in question, which means that in its current form the rule no longer states that a decision made by a counting officer in respect of a ballot paper is final. Amendment 30 seeks to reinstate the word “final” to ensure that Annabel Goldie’s original intentions are delivered.

Amendment 31 has been proposed in light of the changes that amendment 53 will make to definitions in the bill. With regard to amendments 35, 54 and 55, paragraph 23 of schedule 4 requires the responsible person for a permitted participant to declare the accuracy of the permitted participant’s referendum expenses return under paragraph 20. Amendment 35 seeks to insert a definition of “regulated transaction” for the purpose of that declaration in line with the definition of “relevant donation”. For consistency and ease of reference, references to the definitions of “relevant donation” and “regulated transaction” are added to the list of defined expressions in schedule 8 by amendments 54 and 55.

On amendments 37, 38 and 39, permitted participants will, as Parliament is aware, be required to report donations and loans that exceed £7,500 in value either individually or aggregated. Amendments 37 and 38 seek to correct a drafting error to clarify that it is regulated transactions that exceed £7,500 that must be reported and amendment 39 seeks to make a small change to the details of transactions required in the statement of regulated transactions to refer to a transaction of a description in paragraph 43(3) of schedule 4 instead of only paragraph 43(3)(a).

On amendment 40, paragraph 57 of schedule 4 seeks to provide for pre-poll reports on regulated transactions that have been entered into by the permitted participant, and the amendment is a very minor amendment to ensure consistency in the provisions on pre-poll reports.

With regard to amendment 41, paragraph 58 of schedule 4 gives the sheriff power to order the position to be restored if satisfied that failure to comply with the transaction report requirements was caused by those attempting to conceal the existence or true value of a transaction. At stage 2, the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee agreed to amendments to insert paragraph 57A into schedule 4 to provide for the responsible person to declare that pre-poll transaction reports are accurate. As a result, amendment 41 seeks to extend the sheriff’s power to cover those requirements.

The purpose of amendment 42 is to bring the provision in question into line with the equivalent provision under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010. Paragraph 28A(3) of schedule 6 permits the sheriff to issue a compliance certificate for a discretionary requirement following an appeal against the Electoral Commission’s decision not to issue one. The reference should be to the appeal rather than to the initial application to the commission, and the amendment seeks to alter the reference accordingly.

Amendments 51 to 53 are minor amendments to ensure clarity in the definitions of the local government register and register of young voters.

With those comments, it gives me great pleasure to move amendment 1.

Well done. [Applause.]

I found the Deputy First Minister’s explanation of all those amendments highly stimulating. I am by no means opposing them but ask her to reflect on the balance of new amendments that are being introduced at stage 3 against amendments that have been lodged to respond to issues raised at earlier stages of the bill’s consideration. I was doing some reading last night for this debate and found two very good points of order, one from Bruce Crawford and the other from John Swinney, at stage 3 of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill back in 2005. Indeed, Mr Crawford might remember the occasion well. In fairness, the amendments to which he took very fair exception were manuscript amendments, which, of course, the Deputy First Minister has not lodged. However, I wonder whether in the Parliament’s consideration of stage 3 proceedings some thought might be given to the balance between new amendments and those that are consequential on previous discussions on the bill.

I am glad that Tavish Scott found my explanation of this group of amendments stimulating. I wish I could reciprocate but we cannot have everything—and before Mr Scott takes that comment too seriously, I point out that it was a joke.

I should also point out that these are technical amendments and it is right and proper that as we go through the process of reviewing the bill any minor tidying-up amendments are made. This is also an appropriate time to make them, as the Parliament has the ability to scrutinise them fully. As is always the case with Tavish Scott’s interventions, I will reflect carefully on his comments and feed them back into the process with regard to future legislation.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2—Further provision about voting in the referendum

We move on to group 2. Amendment 2, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 3 and 4.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are related to changes that were made to the bill at stage 2 that were designed to allow counting officers to start issuing postal ballot papers before the cut-off date for applying for an absent vote in the referendum. We acted at stage 2 in response to requests from electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission to allow more time for the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 address concerns that the wording of the bill could mean that postal ballot papers could not be issued to some postal voters with certainty that they would be postal voters any earlier than the normal 11 days before the poll. The bill as amended at stage 2 linked entitlement for some to an absent vote to being on a list of absent voters at “the cut-off date”, which is defined as being the 11th day before the referendum.

The amendments will remove some references to “the cut-off date”, which will mean that the counting officer will be able to issue postal ballot papers as soon as it is practicable to do so without the bill specifying when that should take place. That will retain the intention of the amendments that were agreed at stage 2 while addressing the concerns that have been raised about the practical application of the amendments. It is likely that the chief counting officer will issue a direction to counting officers on that subject to ensure consistency.

I move amendment 2.

As no one else has asked to speak, do you have anything that you wish to say in winding up?

No.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments 3 to 5 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

We move on to group 3. Amendment 6, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Amendment 6 is a minor technical amendment that seeks to remove the maximum signature size limit on proxy and postal vote application forms. It will bring the requirements for the application forms for the referendum into line with those for other elections, and it is intended to ensure that the design of the forms does not have to be changed for the referendum, thereby ensuring consistency and value for money.

I move amendment 6.

Before the Deputy First Minister has a heart attack, I do not propose to oppose amendment 6. I wish to apologise to the Presiding Officer and the Deputy First Minister for my late arrival. I was misinformed about the time of commencement of proceedings.

Many thanks.

Deputy First Minister, would you like to wind up?

No.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

We move on to group 4. Amendment 7, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 8 and 9.

In response to comments from electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission, the Scottish Government amended the bill at stage 2 to extend eligibility to make an application for an emergency proxy vote. The bill currently permits emergency proxy applications after the 11th working day before the referendum on the ground of a disability recently suffered, because the voter is likely to be unavoidably absent from home on polling day, or for occupation, employment or service reasons. The bill provides that voters can make such an application at any time between 11 days before the poll and 5 pm on the day of the poll.

To address any security concerns, the bill includes a requirement for attestation for all applications for an emergency proxy vote. However, the Electoral Commission has suggested that that represents an unnecessary inconvenience for voters who apply for such a vote between 11 and six days before the poll. Under the arrangements for local government and parliamentary elections, voters in such circumstances would not normally require to have their applications attested.

As I made clear to the committee during stage 2, there are sound reasons for our amending the bill in the way that we did. That said, I am sympathetic to the concerns that the Electoral Commission and the committee have raised, so I ask Parliament to agree to amendments 7, 8 and 9, which will retain the extension of eligibility for emergency proxy applications that was agreed at stage 2 but will remove the attestation requirements for applications that are made between 11 and six days before the referendum.

That approach will address any concerns about arrangements being consistent with voter expectations about attestation requirements, while maintaining the system’s security and flexibility.

I move amendment 7.

14:15

The Deputy First Minister has lodged amendments that appear to bring the bill closer to the model that applies under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the model that the Electoral Commission prefers. Nonetheless, the approach that is being taken to postal and proxy votes in the referendum is somewhat novel. I have been involved in many elections and a number of referendums in Scotland over the years, but I have never been involved in a poll in which voters could appoint on polling day a proxy to vote on their behalf.

A high turnout can be expected next September, and measures to encourage a high turnout are welcome but, on balance, although the provisions that we have agreed and the amendments will move absent voting nearer to the Electoral Commission’s original position, they will create a novel situation. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the commission’s response to the amendments, which is that the complexity created by successive Government amendments at stages 2 and 3 will result in

“a new category of application”

for emergency proxy votes between the 11th and sixth days before the poll, for which new guidance will be required? It might have been easier all round if the Government had followed the existing approach, instead of introducing novel arrangements.

Mr Macdonald is wrong on some aspects. On polling day at the Aberdeen Donside by-election, an emergency proxy vote was given at 3 o’clock in the afternoon to a lady who was receiving chemotherapy. His take on what happens at the moment is slightly wrong.

I say to Lewis Macdonald that we lodged some of the amendments in direct response to calls for amendments to be made. I recall that, at stage 1, his colleague Patricia Ferguson called for us—rightly—to make some of the amendments. We have listened carefully to the points that have been made.

The Electoral Commission’s briefing welcomes amendments to the application procedures for emergency votes, including the removal of the need for attestation for applications that are made before the fifth day before the poll. The commission expects the chief counting officer to issue guidance on the process.

We have tried to meet the concerns. At stage 2, we discussed whether it would be right to bring the proxy vote application timescale into line with that for postal votes. The point was made then that that would not cater for all the concerns that have been raised. The example of the Icelandic ash situation has been given in the chamber. At short notice, people might be unable to come home to vote.

We have struck the right balance and we will have reasonable and robust arrangements in place. In the light of that, I hope that all members will support the amendments.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendments 8 and 9 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

We move to group 5. Amendment 10, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 11 to 21, 24 and 25.

The bill as amended at stage 2 contains a process that is to be followed when a person has been issued with a postal vote but has changed their mind and wishes instead to vote by proxy. That involves the return of the postal vote papers and the cancellation of the postal vote.

Following discussion with the Electoral Commission, we propose to amend the bill to provide a fuller process for allowing postal ballot papers to be cancelled when people switch between the four methods of voting—in person, by post, by proxy or by postal proxy—or when they change their address after the papers have been issued. The amendments are based on similar provisions that are to be introduced throughout Scotland for Westminster elections under United Kingdom legislation.

I move amendment 10.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendments 11 to 27 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 3—Conduct rules

Amendments 28 to 30 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 4—Campaign rules

Amendment 31 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

We move to group 6. Amendment 56, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, is grouped with amendments 57 and 58.

Amendments 56 to 58 bring us to the heart of the bill, which is the rules that govern those who campaign in the referendum. We have agreed on a cross-party basis on most of the rules about designated organisations, permitted participants and spending limits to ensure fairness and transparency and so that voters can hear both sides of the argument and know who is making those arguments. However, spending limits will be effective only if the rules about who can spend the money are effective. The amendments in this group are intended to ensure that organisations and individuals that are permitted to spend money are open and honest with the voters about who they are.

People who are not seasoned campaigners are of course welcome to take part, and the amendments would not affect that. However, they would make it more difficult to have front organisations or to come up with clever means of registering twice, because they would explicitly deny access to separate spending limits for any organisation that is not genuinely separate from another permitted participant or designated organisation. No body would be recognised as a permitted participant if it was largely run or funded by another such body or shared with that body a lead officer with powers of representation, decision making or control, nor would the lead officer of a permitted participant be able to register as a permitted participant in his or her own right. Those restrictions would not limit the ability of individuals or organisations to take part in the referendum, but they would ensure transparency about who they are.

At stage 2, the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee divided on similar amendments, which were opposed by the Deputy First Minister and rejected by Scottish National Party members. However, I ask the Government to think again, because I believe that the amendments that Nicola Sturgeon has lodged on spending to a common plan make my amendments all the more necessary. We will debate the Deputy First Minister’s amendments in a moment when we reach group 7. At this point, I simply note that any reduction in accountability of small organisations for spending under a common plan should be balanced by an increase in transparency about who such organisations actually are. The amendments in group 6 would provide for such increased transparency and would do so in a way that I believe is compatible with the Government’s approach. They do not run counter to any of the provisions that are supported by the Electoral Commission; rather, they build on them to address a specific concern. I believe that our amendments would make the bill stronger and give voters greater certainty about just who is seeking to influence their vote.

I move amendment 56.

I am in sympathy with Mr Macdonald’s amendments because, usefully, as Mr Macdonald indicated, they would create a specific distinction about who is campaigning for what and under what guise. That would provide an additional and welcome degree of clarity to the bill as well as transparency for the public. That transparency for the public is all important, so I welcome and support the amendments.

The amendments are a sensible stab at a genuinely difficult issue. I believe that Lewis Macdonald seeks to improve the bill. Throughout consideration of the bill, the Deputy First Minister has made sensible remarks about transparency and the evidence that the committee took from the earliest stages of our deliberation was strong on that simple principle. Therefore, when a measure is proposed, even at this late stage, after the stage 2 debate, I believe that there is merit in seeing what can be done to strengthen that transparency for the very reason that the Deputy First Minister has used from day one—and with which I agree—that the bill must command public support. It must be seen to be entirely beyond reproach, and Lewis Macdonald’s amendments seek to help with that, so I hope that members will support them.

A range of principles is involved. During the committee’s stage 1 and stage 2 discussions, members recognised that we need to strike a balance between many principles, such as transparency, encouraging people to participate freely, and ensuring that the possibility of the rules being misused is closed down.

When he is making his closing remarks on the group, could Lewis Macdonald go into a wee bit more detail about what he means to achieve with his amendments? In particular, could he talk about the definition of “closely connected” that he offers. Including the wording that

“the body shares ... a person who has powers of representation, decision-making or control in relation to a permitted participant”

might go a wee bit too far. We know that many people are involved in different forms of activism and campaigning in Scotland on a range of issues, and they happen to be members of and actively involved in many different organisations. Is Lewis Macdonald suggesting that two permitted participants or organisations, one of which is represented on the other, would be covered by the provision, or is he simply talking about an organisation that happens to have one or more members in common on its organising committee? The latter would be going too far in inhibiting people from participating freely as members of two different organisations.

Lewis Macdonald lodged three similar amendments at stage 2 and they were rejected by the committee. I will set out again the reasons that I gave the committee why the Government was and continues to be unable to support the amendments.

In signing the Edinburgh agreement, the Scottish Government committed to ensuring that the regulations for the referendum campaign should be based on existing legislation for elections and referendums. Lewis Macdonald’s amendments would depart from the PPERA regime in a way that is untested and could lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. Patrick Harvie’s question underlines and highlights the complexity that is at the heart of the issue, and the fact that the amendments would give rise to more questions than answers.

At stage 2, the committee agreed a Government amendment that will place a limitation on responsible persons to limit the scope for a single campaigner to attempt to circumvent spending limits by establishing multiple campaign groups. That amendment, which is now paragraph 3A of schedule 4 to the bill, was recommended by the Electoral Commission and based on a similar provision made in the enabling legislation for the referendum on the parliamentary voting system in 2011.

I recognise Lewis Macdonald’s concern about the possibility of permitted participants being set up to allow larger campaign organisations or political parties to increase their spending capability by spreading it across multiple campaigners. That would not be within the spirit of the legislation, and I have no doubt that Lewis Macdonald is sincere in trying to ensure that we minimise any potential for that to happen. However, the proposed Government amendments to the common plan provisions, which we will discuss in a few moments, will make the rules in the bill more certain. They will strike a balance in avoiding overregulation for small campaigners at the same time as ensuring that there are safeguards to prevent abuse of the campaign regulations.

The Electoral Commission has made it clear that there is a great deal of advantage in like-minded campaigners working together to put a consistent message to voters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with such activity in itself. We have therefore worked with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the rules for campaigners who are working together are sufficiently robust to prevent organisations or individuals from exceeding their spending limits or avoiding reporting requirements by using smaller campaigners to incur spending on their behalf. We have tried to do that in a way that does not discourage smaller campaigners from participating, and the amendments therefore seek to minimise the administrative burden on unregistered campaigners.

I note that the Electoral Commission supports the Government’s proposed amendments, and I will come back to it in my remarks on the next group of amendments.

An important point to stress is that any campaign that is taking the action that Lewis Macdonald is seeking to limit would be likely to be seen to be working to a common plan, and would therefore be subject to the existing controls for those circumstances.

For those reasons, I hope that Lewis Macdonald will welcome the Government’s amendments on common plans when we come to them, but I am unable to support his revised amendments for the reasons that I have set out.

I welcome the support expressed by Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott, I agree with Mr Scott that Nicola Sturgeon has shown her sympathy for the principle of increased transparency during the passage of the bill, and I welcome the tone of her comments.

However, I think that the issue remains a real one that will not be fully addressed by the provisions for the common plan. Yes, such organisations would be covered by those provisions: that is clear.

In response to Patrick Harvie’s question about the definitions in my amendments, the term

“powers of representation, decision-making or control”

reflects language that has been used in other legislation that is under consideration. It essentially means a person who has a lead role in each of two relevant organisations, not someone who is simply a member. The intention is not therefore to prevent campaigners from engaging in the campaign in different ways or while wearing different hats, so to speak. It is to prevent one organisation from effectively acting as a proxy for another. That is a real concern and it should be addressed. On that basis, I will press amendment 56.

The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

14:31 Meeting suspended.

14:36 On resuming—

We will now proceed with the division on amendment 56. This will be a 30-second division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)

Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)

Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)

Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)

Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)

Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)

Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)

Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)

Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)

Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)

Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)

Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)

Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)

Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)

Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)

Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)

McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)

McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)

McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)

McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)

McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)

McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)

McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)

Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)

Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)

Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)

Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)

Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)

Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)

Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)

Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)

Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)

Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)

Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)

Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)

Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)

Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)

Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)

Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)

Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)

Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)

FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)

Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)

Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)

Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)

Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)

Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)

Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)

MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)

MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)

MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)

Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)

MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)

Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)

Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)

McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)

McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)

McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)

McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)

McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)

McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)

Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)

Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)

Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)

Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)

Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)

Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)

Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)

Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)

Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)

White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 49, Against 65, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 56 disagreed to.

Amendment 57 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The question is, that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)

Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)

Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)

Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)

Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)

Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)

Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)

Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)

Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)

Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)

Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)

Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)

Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)

Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)

Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)

Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)

Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)

Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)

Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)

Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)

McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)

McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)

McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)

McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)

McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)

McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)

McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)

Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)

Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)

Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)

Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)

Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)

Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)

Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)

Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)

Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)

Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)

Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)

Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)

Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)

Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)

Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)

Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)

Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)

Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)

Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)

Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)

Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)

Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)

Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)

FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)

Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)

Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)

Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)

Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)

Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)

Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)

MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)

MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)

MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)

Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)

MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)

Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)

Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)

McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)

McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)

McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)

McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)

McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)

Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)

Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)

Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)

Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)

Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)

Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)

Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)

Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)

Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)

White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 57 disagreed to.

Amendment 58 not moved.

We move to group 7. Amendment 32, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 33 and 34.

The purpose of the common plan rules is to allow campaigners to work together to provide a co-ordinated message to voters, and to allow designated organisations to lead co-ordinated activity among like-minded campaigners while discouraging campaigners from working together as a means of circumventing spending limits.

Therefore, paragraph 19 of schedule 4 provides that where campaigners work together without a designated organisation, expenses that are incurred by any of them under the common plan will also be taken to have been incurred by the others. The intention is that where campaigners work with a designated organisation, the designated organisation will be taken to have incurred the total amount and the other campaigners do not need to count any of that spending against their individual spending limits.

The provisions as introduced were based on those that were used for the 2011 alternative vote referendum, with the additional requirement that the rules apply only where there is designated organisation for each outcome.

The Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee has given serious and careful consideration to the provisions and the issue was discussed in some detail at stage 2. I said then that the Government would have further discussions with the Electoral Commission about the provisions, including the amendments that were lodged by Patrick Harvie at stage 2, and that I would report back to the committee ahead of stage 3, which I did in the form of a letter to the convener last week.

In looking at possible amendments, we have tried to address the concerns that were expressed by some members about the possibility that designated organisations might try to exploit smaller campaigners in order to get round the spending controls. Concerns were expressed by other members, who wanted to ensure that smaller unregistered campaigners would not be faced with a disproportionate administrative burden that might lead to them inadvertently breaching the rules.

Paragraph 19 (2) of schedule 4 provides that common plan participants should count the total common plan expenditure towards their own expenditure for the purposes of paragraph 17, 18 and 20 to 23. Amendment 33 will remove the reference to paragraphs 20 to 23 so that the rules are confined to paragraphs 17 and 18. That means that participants in any common plan will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the wider reporting and financial controls for only their own spending.

It would be impractical to expect common plan participants to provide, for example, copies of invoices and receipts or to confirm that donations were from permissible sources, in relation to spending that had been undertaken by someone else. Amendment 33, which was recommended by the Electoral Commission, should significantly reduce the administrative burden on campaigners who are working together.

Where a common plan does not include a designated organisation, campaigners will continue to count the total common plan expenditure against the threshold to register as a permitted participant, and against their individual spending limits.

Amendment 34 will do two things. First, it will clarify the intention that where a common plan involves a designated organisation, the designated organisation will be taken to have incurred the total common plan expenditure, and the non-designated participants will be taken to have incurred none.

Secondly, it will provide that any unregistered campaigner who spends more than £10,000 on behalf of a designated organisation will be required to register as a permitted participant. Therefore, unregistered campaigners who spend less than £10,000 on behalf of a designated organisation will be completely exempt from the common plan rules, but those who spend more than £10,000 will need to register, and although their expenditure will count only against the designated organisation’s spending limit, they will still need to ensure that their expenditure complies with the wider reporting and funding controls.

Amendment 32 is consequential on those amendments and will insert in rule 19 a reference to new sub-paragraph (3A) to make clear that paragraph 19(2) will apply with these changes when a designated organisation is involved.

In summary, the amendments are intended to provide greater clarity about how the common plan rules will work in practice, and to achieve an appropriate balance between robust and transparent funding controls and minimising the administrative burden on smaller unregistered campaigners. In particular, they seek to ensure that unregistered campaigners who are working with a designated organisation are not subjected to additional requirements over an unregistered campaigner working alone.

We have had detailed discussions with the Electoral Commission about the amendments, which it supports as an improvement on previous provisions. No legislation can provide for every eventuality or scenario, and it is right that we do not try to do so. Oversight of the rules in practice will be a matter for the Electoral Commission, which has indicated that it will take a flexible and proportionate approach.

I move amendment 32.

As Lewis Macdonald said about the previous group, throughout the passage of the bill Scottish Labour has supported strong common plan arrangements being in the bill and we have consistently argued for the maximum possible transparency in relationships and spending among organisations that may work in partnership at points of the campaign.

The provisions that the Scottish Government is rightly seeking to amend apply to both sides of the debate. We do not wish to see any advantage to one side or another as a result of how the common plans are interpreted by the Electoral Commission, designated organisations or permitted participants.

14:45

Concerns were expressed at stage 2 about the burden of reporting for smaller parties and other organisations, and we understand the motivation behind seeking to remove some of the burdens. We would have preferred that it had been possible to ensure that changes to that provision were subject to further scrutiny at an earlier stage, particularly as the changes were not recommended by the committee in its report.

However, we recognise the concern about the issue that Patrick Harvie expressed at stage 2. Although we were not convinced by the original amendment, in the light of the comments of the Electoral Commission and others, we are content that the amendments strike a reasonable balance and will reduce the need for double reporting, which we accept would be particularly onerous for smaller parties. We will support amendments 32, 33 and 34.

I record my support for the amendments in group 7. I was concerned at stage 2 that a burden that would be reasonably placed on a large and well-resourced organisation might also be placed on small unresourced organisations or on individuals, and that such organisations, small campaign groups or individuals, who might have no intention, or realistic prospect, of spending anything like the spending threshold, could inadvertently commit an offence, or could be perceived to commit one, by dint of their participation in a common plan. Amendment 32 is a more successful attempt to address the issues that I raised at stage 2. I thank the Deputy First Minister for lodging the amendment.

I call the Deputy First Minister to wind up.

I thank Patrick Harvie and Drew Smith for their comments. I think that we have, on quite a complex and difficult issue, found consensus that strikes the right balance, so I am grateful to colleagues for their constructive comments in getting us to this position.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Amendments 33 to 35 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

We move to group 8. Amendment 36, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendment 50.

The bill provides for a pre-referendum period during which certain restrictions will apply to the material that can be published by Scottish ministers and other devolved public bodies, as is usual practice ahead of elections and referendums. The provisions have been closely scrutinised over time by the Electoral Commission, the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee and the Parliamentary Bureau, and the bill was amended at stage 2 to exempt certain specified material that would be published by, or under the auspices of, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Paragraph 25 of schedule 4 currently provides for the 28-day pre-referendum period to end on the day before the referendum. The Electoral Commission has pointed out that that differs from the equivalent provision in PPERA, which provides that the 28-day period will end on the day of the relevant referendum itself. Amendment 36 will therefore amend the bill to provide that the 28-day pre-referendum period will end on the day of the referendum. That also means that there will now be only one day during the pre-referendum period when Parliament will be sitting, which is Friday 22 August. In the spirit of the discussion at stage 2, I would hope that the restrictions on Government activity on that last day before recess will be taken into account in scheduling parliamentary business.

As I said during stage 2, it is vital that the referendum be run in a way that reflects the highest international standards of fairness, probity and transparency. The provisions place responsibilities on all of us to ensure that our conduct as public servants is beyond reproach, so that voters can have confidence in a fair result.

Amendment 50 is a minor drafting amendment that will bring the wording of the definition of the 16-week referendum period into line with the wording that is used elsewhere in the bill to define periods.

I move amendment 36.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Amendments 37 to 41 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 6—Campaign rules: civil sanctions

Amendment 42 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 7—Offences

Amendment 43, in the name of the Deputy First Minister, is grouped with amendments 44 to 47.

I am sure that it will come as a great relief to all members to hear that amendments 43 to 47 are technical amendments. They will extend existing offence provisions in the bill to cover proxies for votes in the same way that they cover people who vote in person, and they will help to enhance and maintain the integrity of the referendum process.

I move amendment 43.

Amendment 43 agreed to

Amendments 44 to 47 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

Schedule 8—Interpretation

Amendments 48 to 55 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon]—and agreed to.

That ends consideration of amendments.