Official Report 797KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01988, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill at stage 1. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
14:37
I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill, which is a single-issue bill that fixes an inadvertent gap in existing legislation.
In December 2024, the Scottish Parliament unanimously approved the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 3. That bill included provision that was intended to extend candidacy rights in Scottish Parliament and local government elections to all foreign nationals with limited leave to remain. Earlier this year, it was discovered that, regrettably, an error meant that Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain were unintentionally excluded from the extension of candidacy rights at local elections. As a result, those individuals do not currently have the right to stand as candidates in local government elections in Scotland. It is important to be clear that that is a limited and specific gap that applies only in relation to local government—there is no equivalent gap affecting members of this Parliament. The oversight affects only Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain who wish to stand for election to and hold office in local government.
The current situation is not what the Government intended, and it is clear that it was not the intention of Parliament in unanimously agreeing to the changes to candidacy rights in 2024. During the evidence sessions that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee had on the bill, administrators and academics agreed that there was no logical reason for a difference in rights between Commonwealth and other nationals. I do not believe that that difference should remain in place. The law should be changed to be clear and consistent in time for the local government elections in May next year. The bill will mean that Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain will have the same rights as all other foreign nationals who are resident in Scotland for the upcoming elections in May.
I am curious to understand the minister’s thoughts on the Scottish Government’s consultation, which showed that 77 per cent of the public are against the measure.
Thomas Kerr asked me a question on that the other week. It is important that we engage during the process of undertaking to legislate in this place. We go through a process of thorough consultation; we put out a consultation and ask questions to inform the legislation that we take forward. In this case, the consultation informed the legislation in a number of ways.
We initially intended to legislate to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for both Parliament and council elections. People responded to that and opposed it, and our decision in that regard was informed by the views of a range of organisations, which set out reasons why we should not do it. We reflected on those and changed our position.
Beyond that, in general terms, I think that it is beneficial when candidacy rights reflect those who are enfranchised. I think that that is a sensible approach, and that is why we have taken forward the legislation as we have.
However, I recognise that, in its stage 1 report, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee did not agree with the general principles of the bill. I have considered the committee’s recommendations and responded to them in writing. However, I reiterate that the bill deals with only a single issue: it fixes an oversight in legislation that affects a very specific, and small, cohort of people.
I will briefly address one of the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report—I should say that I am grateful to the committee for its scrutiny of the bill so far. I will make some observations on the committee’s recommendation that the Government reconsider its wider position on allowing those with limited leave to remain to stand for office in this country. First, the committee is asking the Government to reconsider not simply its position but the wider law on candidacy rights—a law on the statute book that was agreed to by Parliament.
The bill before Parliament today has the extremely narrow purpose of correcting an oversight in legislation that Parliament unanimously approved in 2024. It is not intended to revisit the broader policy framework governing candidacy rights. I remind members that the bill was introduced on an accelerated timescale because of the proximity of May’s elections. I maintain that it is not a vehicle for a substantial change to the law.
The Government would not propose or recommend making substantive changes to candidacy policy so close to an election. We are committed to upholding the Gould principle under which changes to electoral law are expected to be made at least six months prior to a major election.
However, as I set out in my response to the committee’s report, we will give consideration to its recommendation in that regard. I also note that the committee, and indeed the Parliament, is entitled to consider the wider policy on candidacy rights more generally. As I said to the committee in giving evidence and reiterated in my response to its report—and as I set out again today—should the committee choose to undertake work in this area, the Scottish Government will, of course, engage in the process. However, a wider assessment goes beyond the purpose of the specific bill before us, and we should remind ourselves that that is what we are considering today.
The minister described the bill as a formality. However, can he confirm whether the Government has made any assessment of how many people would be eligible to stand in the upcoming elections in May, given that the change is quite a significant development in our democratic process?
To make an assessment of how many people would be entitled to stand, we just need to look at the electoral roll, which is about 4 million people.
I think that the question that the member intended to ask was how many more people will be able to stand. We do not have that specific number, because this area is controlled at United Kingdom level, but we estimate that it would be a very small number indeed.
On the wider point of how many people might stand, which is probably the more fundamental point, we already know that a fairly small proportion of the overall population choose to stand in any election. In the 2022 local government elections, there were 2,548 candidates out of a total of 4 million people who might have been able to stand. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that the change that we seek to make today for a very small cohort of the population is not likely to lead to a massive upsurge in the number of people seeking to hold elected office.
The point that I was making is that we are considering a very narrow area today, and it is important—indeed, it is incumbent on us—to try to fix mistakes when they arise, which is what the bill seeks to do. Failing to address the issue ahead of May’s election would risk confusion.
Rejecting the bill would mean that a Canadian citizen with limited leave to remain would not be able to stand in the election next May, but an American citizen with the same leave to remain could; an Australian citizen with limited leave to remain would not be able to stand, but an Indonesian citizen with the same leave to remain could; and a New Zealand citizen with limited leave to remain would not be able to stand, but a Philippines citizen with the same leave to remain could. If the bill is not passed, urgent action will be required to change election guidance to make that clear.
The issue of foreign interference in elections was discussed during the evidence sessions on the original bill—the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. I understand and recognise that it is important that we are alive to the reality that there are those who would seek to undermine our democracy, but let us be clear and serious about the fact that there is no evidence that our candidacy rules have opened the door to interference in Scotland.
If a change has to be made six months before an election, how can the change that the Government is bringing forward be made in time, given that it is less than six months until the election in May? The bill would make a change.
The fundamental point is that the change that we are seeking to make now is what was expected. People were proceeding on the basis and the understanding that those with limited leave to remain, whether they were Commonwealth citizens or nationals of another country, would be able to stand. To respond to the member’s question, that is why we need to do this now. I go back to the point that there is no evidence to suggest that our candidacy rules have opened the door to significant foreign interference in Scotland.
Like me, the minister was probably surprised that returning officers and their staff do not conduct any checks on whether somebody is eligible to stand for election. Does the minister not think that that opens the door for people to mistreat the system?
Actually, I was surprised that Ms Baillie was surprised, because she has been standing in elections for an awful long time—I say that respectfully.
I thought I was checked.
She thought she was checked. Well, I do not know what Ms Baillie is worried about if she thinks she should be checked. I have every faith that, although Ms Baillie is here to hold me robustly to account, she is probably not here to undermine democracy.
This is not The Stand comedy club. I am making a serious point about the integrity of our electoral system, and I would be grateful if the minister would treat it seriously.
I do treat the matter seriously, but the point that I was making, respectfully, is that I was genuinely surprised that Ms Baillie was surprised, because that has been a feature of our electoral system for a long, long time. The member says that people should be checked. This is not directly related to this specific bill but is a wider issue, but I have said in response to the committee’s report that the Government will give consideration to that matter. We have a consultation coming on wider changes to electoral law, and we will consider the matter as part of that. That is what I will do—
That is very big of the minister.
I agree that it is very big of me to do that. That is the type of person I am. If a recommendation is made, I will consider it. That is what we are going to do.
I return to the bill. On concerns about foreign interference, I reiterate the point that the bill relates to enabling Commonwealth citizens to stand for election. Commonwealth countries are our friends and allies. On the idea that enabling people from the various countries of the Commonwealth to stand for election is going to undermine our democracy, I would say that I am starting from a very different place from people who have such a perspective. The fundamental point, of course, is that I see no justification at all for there being a difference in rights between Commonwealth citizens and those from non-Commonwealth countries.
We are also not alone in taking this approach. Since 2019, the UK Government has signed five reciprocal treaties with countries that allow—
Will the member take an intervention?
The minister will have to wind up and is not able to take any more interventions.
The treaties allow the citizens of those countries to stand in local government elections in the UK. Those are in place across the UK, and what we are doing here is not unique.
That applies to five countries.
I heard Ms Baillie say that it applies to five countries—I have just said that it applies to five countries. Yes, it is five countries. The point that I would make—[Interruption.]
The minister needs to wind up, so it is not helpful for comments to be made from a sedentary position.
The point that I would make is that, if we were not to pass the bill and we were not compliant with wider treaty obligations, we would need to think through alternative primary legislation, which we do not have time to pass between now and the elections.
I look forward to hearing what members have to say, and I am sure that we will have a full, thorough and frank debate. I look forward to responding to comments at the end of the debate.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill.
I call Jenni Minto to speak on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
14:50
I wish to add some personal thoughts, given what has just happened in First Minister’s question time. This absolutely underlines the importance of committees reviewing legislation. The personalisation of the questions that were directed at the First Minister earlier shows the lack of understanding of how the Parliament operates. This is a committee report. I have found the process uncomfortable. I have questioned my role in it, and I have questioned how I conducted myself. I take my role as an MSP and a committee convener extremely seriously. As far as I am aware, neither Mr Findlay nor Mr Offord has had the responsibility of being a committee convener, and I hope that they never do. I note that neither of them was part of the committee deliberations.
I am pleased to speak on the general principles of the bill on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. As the minister has said, it is a very short bill that intends to fix an error. Its principles, which I will touch on later, were considered and debated when the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill went through the Parliament in the previous parliamentary session. Despite that, the new bill still must be robustly scrutinised. We took evidence from three panels of witnesses: electoral administrators, academics and, finally, the minister. We are very grateful to all those who provided evidence to us.
The bill has been introduced because of a drafting error. It does not help that the law in this area is unnecessarily cluttered. That, in itself, carries an increased risk of legislative reform becoming, in part, a story of mistakes waiting to happen. As a letter that the committee received from the Electoral Commission Scotland explains, the electoral framework is
“fragmented, outdated and increasingly complex, spread across at least 25 major statutes and is the responsibility of three legislatures”.
It is in that context that the error in the 2025 act occurred. I am pleased to note that the minister accepts, in principle, the clear case for consolidating electoral law into one clear statute that everyone can rely on, as we recommended in our stage 1 report.
Before discussing the central aim of the bill, I will touch on two general issues about elections that were raised in evidence. First, witnesses told us that enforcement of the rules relating to the nomination process relies in large part on the good faith of candidates. Electoral administrators usually accept nomination forms at face value without further compliance checks.
Secondly, witnesses reminded us that we live in a time of growing geopolitical tension and that, in some respects, the rules of the game in electoral politics are under ever-increased challenge. International actors increasingly have the tools and motivation to intervene in domestic public affairs. On whether the current arrangements for verifying candidates’ eligibility remain fit for purpose, I welcome the Scottish Government’s willingness to reconsider those as part of its consultation on electoral reform, which will be published later this year.
Given the fact that individuals and foreign nationals on limited leave to remain go through rigorous criminal records checks, and no MSP goes through such checks, does Jenni Minto agree that MSPs should be subject to similar criminal records checks to prevent foreign interference?
I think that that was the point that Jackie Baillie was considering. Like her, I was surprised to learn that that does not happen, because I know the stress of filling out those forms correctly and how my agent felt when she delivered my forms to the local authority.
I will now turn to the main point of the bill. It intends to put Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain on an equal footing as candidates in Scottish local elections. The committee accepted that there is a logical case for doing so. Professor Toby James told us that
“the inconsistency”
in the law
“does represent an inequality”.
Nevertheless, the bill has prompted us to reopen the discussion on the principle of extending candidacy rights, given our duty, under the standing orders, to question the principles of the bill. We concluded that we did not support the general principles of the bill, because we did not accept the premise that there should be a general right for non-UK citizens with limited leave to remain to be councillors or MSPs.
What led us to that view? First, Scotland’s approach to candidacy rights for foreign nationals appears to be unusual by international standards. Professor Alistair Clark told us that he had tried to find other countries that extended candidacy rights to those without a permanent right of residence but, in the data sets that he had looked at, he had
“struggled to find any such countries”.—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 8 October 2026; c 5, 11.]
Secondly, the committee did not discern a clear evidence base to justify extending candidacy rights to people with limited leave to remain when the 2025 reforms were introduced.
We also heard that the right to be represented does not directly correlate to the right to be a representative. MSPs and local councillors are elected to serve all constituents, regardless of their constituents’ eligibility to be candidates.
Finally, we live in a time when confidence in politicians and state institutions is fragile. Governments looking to reform electoral law must take the public with them. The consultation on electoral reform that preceded the 2025 act showed that 77 per cent of respondents disagreed with extending candidacy rights to people with limited leave to remain.
In 1958, only 4 per cent of people in the US agreed with interracial marriage. Does the member believe that public opinion is the only decider of whether a law is legitimate?
I believe that what the committee has done is listen to and reflect on the evidence that we were given. I could turn that around, but I think that that was the important conversation that we had in the committee.
For the reasons that I have set out, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government reconsider its position on allowing foreign nationals with limited leave to remain to stand in Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
In session 6, I was one of the MSPs who voted in favour of the changes to candidacy rights. However, we can sometimes choose to exhibit strength as individuals and humility as parliamentarians by reflecting on and revisiting our decisions. I hope that that goes some way to explaining my response to Q Manivannan’s second intervention.
The minister’s response to the committee indicated an openness to reflect, too. He framed that as being in response to any further scrutiny that the committee may undertake. I suggest to him that there is space for the Scottish Government, within its resources, to do the necessary work here, including in its upcoming new consultation on electoral reform.
I want to end with a clear message. This Parliament has benefited from having representatives with different voices and different life experiences, and so have council chambers across Scotland. I know that, personally, I have, too. The committee strongly supports the principle that our elected representatives should be diverse and, collectively, should look like the communities that they represent. I therefore look forward to listening to the views of the rest of the MSPs in this debate.
14:58
Although I am opening the debate for the Scottish Labour Party, I am also a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I am grateful to the convener for outlining the thinking of committee members who heard evidence about the bill. I will repeat many of her points, and I make no apology for doing so.
I acknowledge at the outset that the bill is to correct an error in legislation that was made by the Scottish Government. We can all agree that that error is regrettable and that more care should be taken when drafting legislation, although I accept that, as the convener has pointed out, there is complexity in electoral law.
I turn to the substance of the committee’s consideration. In so doing, I make it clear that I am in no way questioning the right of any current member to be elected to this chamber but that I want to talk about the potential and unintended consequences for the future.
The basic premise of the Government’s position is that anyone with a limited right to remain in the UK can stand for election. That was part of the Bute house agreement between the Scottish National Party and the Greens and was, as I understand it, suggested by the Greens. If that right to remain were to expire, the individual would cease to be an elected representative and there would be a by-election.
Three main issues concern me.
The first is security. We are living in increasingly uncertain times, the threat of global conflict is real and we know that there are bad-faith actors in every walk of life. In that context, there is a real possibility of foreign interference in Scottish elections. Two electoral experts, Professor Toby James of the University of East Anglia and Professor Alistair Clark of Newcastle University, both gave evidence that the risk of foreign interference in our elections has become more prominent, that there are no mitigations in place and that we are not even asking questions about it.
I will illustrate the scale of the potential risk. This year alone, there are 17,770 students from mainland China in Scotland and they have limited leave to remain. There are 6,140 students from America who have limited leave to remain and more than 3,000 students from Arab nations who have limited leave to remain. It is a testament to the strength of our university education that that is the case, but does that mean that they should all be eligible for election? The American intern in my office, who is here for four months, has limited leave to remain and could stand for election if she chose to do so.
Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain currently have the right to serve in our armed forces. Does Jackie Baillie condemn that as a security threat too?
No, but we are talking about elections to the institutions that have the power to shape policy across the country and that spend substantial sums of money. I do not think that is comparable.
My second concern is that no one is checking. I know that, like me, many members will have painstakingly filled in their applications to stand for election and will have triple checked those before submitting them to the returning officer. I was genuinely shocked when, in evidence to the committee, returning officers told us that they do not make any eligibility checks at all and do not even carry out identity checks, and that that is apparently left to the candidates. So, someone can be in the country on a student visa with limited leave to remain and can stand for election even if they are not eligible, because no one is checking. We are not being serious about this.
My third concern is that Scotland appears to be an outlier. No other UK country does this. Professor Clark told us that he could not find any international examples at all of countries doing it. As the minister was right to point out, we have a limited number of reciprocal arrangements—five in total—with countries such as Portugal, but that is not in any way equivalent to the wholesale extension of rights that is being proposed. Instead, those arrangements were subject to negotiation, discussion and agreement.
I understand that the Government’s argument is that someone who votes in an election should be able to stand in that election, but people do not need to be eligible for election to be represented. Members are responsible for representing all the people in our constituencies.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am not taking any more interventions, because I need to get on with making my remaining points.
It does not follow that someone should have candidacy rights because they have voting rights.
As with so much of the Bute house agreement, I think there is genuine regret among some SNP members about where they find themselves on this and other issues. People have referred to the 77 per cent of respondents who disagreed with the Scottish Government’s approach, and that is one factor. If members have concerns—as I know they do—we should not double down but instead should be honest enough to acknowledge that we might have got this wrong and to review the 2025 legislation.
The committee’s decision was unanimous and did not come just from the Tories or Reform. SNP members, and I as a Labour member, exercised judgment based on the evidence that we were given. Our conclusion was cross-party and informed by the evidence. Members of the Parliament should not ignore that strong consensus because their party whips have told them to do so.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, we should not agree to the general principles of the bill, even though, as I acknowledge, it seeks to correct an error in drafting, because what it actually does is compound an error that we made in the first place.
15:05
I, too, may repeat some points that have already been made. Today, I speak not as a Reform UK MSP but as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which has been tasked with undertaking a rigorous examination of the bill.
I am genuinely pleased that, on the first bill in the current session of Parliament, the committee has been able to reach a clear cross-party consensus. I hope that that can set a more positive precedent for how we work collaboratively as we move forward, taking party politics out of the equation where possible for the good of the communities that elected us in May. That will not always be easy, but it is worth recognising when it happens, and the benefits that it can bring.
Across party lines, we agreed that, while the bill technically corrects a drafting error, the committee does not accept that there should be a right for those in Scotland with limited leave to remain to stand as councillors or MSPs. As such, we have recommended that the Scottish Government reconsider its position.
Public opinion on the matter is clear. The Scottish Government’s own consultation on the legislation showed that 77 per cent—
Will the member give way?
I am not taking interventions.
Members: Oh!
The member does not have to take interventions.
The Government’s own consultation showed that 77 per cent of individual respondents were opposed to extending candidacy rights to foreign nationals with limited leave to remain.
It would be remiss of the Parliament not to take that into account, even if it was overlooked in the previous session of Parliament. Given the unintended consequences that have emerged since the election and the reaction of those who elected us to this chamber, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that opposition on this issue has only strengthened further.
Limited leave to remain is temporary; it does not provide the secure lasting connection that should be expected of someone who is seeking to hold elected office for a full term. The practical risks are real. A visa could expire during a term of office, which would mean that a member of this Parliament could find themselves attempting to conduct their duties as an elected MSP from another country. Surely we can, across the chamber, agree that that would be at best unfortunate and at worst farcical, and that it would risk—[Interruption.] It would risk bringing this Parliament into disrepute—[Interruption.]
The member must be heard.
Will the member give way, like I did for him?
I will not—[Interruption.] I have already made—
The member has indicated that he will not be taking interventions.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The current system means that eligibility relies heavily on candidates acting in good faith when submitting their paperwork. Evidence to the committee confirmed that the Electoral Commission does not carry out detailed checks on candidates. That opens the door to the risk of potentially hostile foreign actors standing for election on limited leave to remain.
Further evidence that we gathered confirmed that Scotland is an international outlier—[Interruption.] No other country in the world allows those with limited leave to remain—
Mark Simpson, can you sit down for a moment, please? Thank you very much. I remind the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans that courtesy must be extended to all members at all times.
I call Mark Simpson.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The further evidence that the committee gathered confirmed that Scotland is an international outlier. No other country in the world allows those with limited leave to remain or its equivalent to stand in elections in this way.
Public trust in politicians and political institutions is fragile and continues to be tested. These are not minor concerns that we can ignore; we must be responsive to both the practical realities and the public view.
The committee’s position is measured and practical. It is not about the contribution that people make while they are in Scotland but about ensuring that those who stand for election, and those who are elected, have a sufficiently stable status to enable them to serve the people who elected them.
I therefore support the committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Government reconsider allowing people with limited leave to remain to stand in Scottish Parliament and local government elections. Cross-party agreement on that principle is welcome, and I hope that the Government’s approach will now reflect both that consensus and the clear public view.
15:09
The purpose of the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill is to correct an error in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025.
The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill was passed at stage 3 without a single opposing vote on 17 December 2024, before receiving royal assent on 29 January 2025. The Scottish National Party, which introduced the legislation as a Scottish Government bill, voted in favour of it at stage 3. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party voted in favour of the bill at stage 3, after successfully pushing for stage 3 amendments to prohibit dual mandates for MPs and peers. Scottish Labour voted in favour of the bill at stage 3. The Scottish Green Party voted in favour of the bill at stage 3, and it backed the amendments to ban dual mandates. The Scottish Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the bill at stage 3. A consensus position was reached by a Parliament that was very involved in shaping the bill and that agreed on its principles and contents.
It is right to be frustrated by drafting errors in legislation that the Scottish Government has presented to Parliament, although all of us parliamentarians are equally culpable for not catching the problem. We all unanimously agreed on the principle of the bill and on its implementation. It is a sound democratic principle that there should be no taxation without representation, and I am very disappointed in those members who have changed their minds on their democratic principles and have used a drafting error as an excuse to leap on Reform UK’s anti-immigrant bandwagon.
The Scottish Greens will support the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill at stage 1 tonight. In fact, as Jackie Baillie said, the expansion of the democratic franchise in Scotland has been led by the Scottish Greens, and we are very proud that 16-year-olds can vote in Scotland, too. Because it is the right thing to do, we will support the bill at stage 1 tonight. It is the right thing to do to correct a drafting error that implements the unanimous intention of this Parliament. It is the right thing to do to resist the hateful anti-immigrant pressure of the far right. It is the right thing to do to implement the principle of no taxation without representation.
Is the member really saying that 77 per cent of the Scottish public are far right?
What I am saying is that, since entering the Scottish Parliament, Reform UK members seem to have disgracefully pulled other members in their wake by making fear-driven statements that thousands of these people will be eligible for election and that Commonwealth citizens who have had to have background checks to get leave to remain somehow present more of a danger to our democracy than the Reform UK representatives who have been accused of—and, I think, sentenced due to—having links with Russia, even though they are full UK citizens. It appears that, for Reform UK, full UK citizens with links to Russia are okay, but Commonwealth citizens are not okay. I am very disappointed in the colleagues who have fallen into Reform UK’s trap on this.
Will the member take an intervention?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have just heard a blatant lie and mistruth. Not a single one of my colleagues has any connection with, or has been charged in connection with anything relating to, Russia. Will the member correct the record?
That is not a point of order.
I will take an intervention from Kate Campbell.
The 77 per cent figure has come up quite a few times. It relates to the consultation responses, from which it is clear that the main concern was about people not being able to remain for the whole parliamentary session. The changes that Labour has made to immigration law mean that many people have to wait 10 years before they can even apply for indefinite leave to remain. Ten years is equivalent to two council terms. When it comes to the 77 per cent figure, the concern that was raised is actually being addressed—sadly, in a way that we would not like it to be addressed—by the cruel policies of Labour immigration law.
Interventions must be short.
I thank Kate Campbell for that very pertinent and helpful intervention.
It is a matter for the consciences of other members—and, indeed, the consciences of their constituents—whether they would be willing to vote for a person who has limited leave to remain, but to try to block such people from standing and being able to serve their communities is shocking. Shame on all of you who allow Reform UK to pressure you into voting against these democratic principles and letting down your constituents in that way. I hope that your constituents who have limited leave to remain will take note that you think that they should be second class and not have the same rights as everybody else, and I hope that they think about that the next time they vote, too.
15:14
You know, I think that I will actually live quite happily with Lorna Slater’s shame and disappointment. I do not need to be told in this chamber that I cannot think for myself. However, that was the usual type of personalised comment that I would expect from the Greens in such a debate.
Presiding Officer, for the interest of the chamber, I declare that I am a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I understand why ministers introduced the bill—there is a logical argument for correcting a drafting error in the legislation before next May’s council elections. However, as the chamber has heard, the committee has unanimously concluded that we should reconsider the policy itself around who can stand for elections. That, for me, deserves a considered response, because committees do an incredible amount of work to produce their reports, and respecting Parliament means taking their conclusions seriously, including those conclusions that are uncomfortable for some of us in the chamber.
I recognise that the legislation on who can stand in an election was passed only two years ago—we have heard plenty on that point already. However, the debate has moved on over those past two years, and this May’s election brought the practical implications of that into focus.
I might misquote the member slightly, but I agree with him that although there is an understandable rationale or logic for seeking to correct the legislation, the committee has made wider recommendations. Does he not consider that it would be perfectly possible for us to pass this straightforward and narrow bill to correct the mistake? Then, by all manner of means, if Parliament wanted to reconsider how it approaches the matter, it would be well capable of doing so.
The convener of the committee—I will correct the record if I am wrong, but I think that I am right in saying that it was the convener—noted that. That point was widely debated in committee and, although I cannot speak for the latter, my view was that our doing that would mean that we entrenched the policy, which, as is quite clear from the evidence that we have taken, needs to be rediscussed. Although I get what the minister has said, it was the committee’s view that doing what he described would entrench the policy, and that point is in the report.
I want to talk about the wider security context. I know that I will be challenged on that point, but I think that it is important. In October 2025, MI5 reported a 35 per cent increase in the number of people whom it was investigating for state threat activity, including espionage against Parliament. In October 2026—just last month—Sir Ken McCallum, director general of MI5, said that its state threat case load had quadrupled over the past decade, and that it was
“devoting more resources to countering state threats than during the Cold War.”
He went on to say:
“Since I started in this role in 2020, there has been another generational shift. We have again entered a new era of national security—requiring a new response.”
That changing security context deserves serious consideration when we review our electoral safeguards.
I do not disagree at all that the espionage threat to this country in particular is far greater than at any time many of us have known. However, does the member recognise that hostile states will not put all their evil, malign hopes on the backs of people who have limited leave to remain, who might not be here next year and might swiftly be sent packing?
Of course, I do not think that hostile states will put all their—what was it—evil-aligned hopes on to the back of people with limited leave to remain. However, foreign states are interfering in this country’s election process—we heard that from the Electoral Commission at committee this morning. It is very hard for anybody in this chamber to claim that hostile states could not use this as a vehicle to do so.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make a tiny bit of progress, then I might come back to the members.
Let me be clear that that does not make someone on a temporary visa a security threat, that foreign interference can involve people of any nationality and that the Government has not reported interference arising from those candidacy rights. However, growing threats make reviewing safeguards sensible, particularly when candidate eligibility depends heavily on self-declaration—a point that Jackie Baillie made. That self-declaration concern has been brought out in the committee report, and I urge the Government to think about it carefully.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I do not know who was first. I will take Emma Roddick’s intervention.
I share the member’s concern about foreign interference in elections. In recent years, we have seen that much of that has been through cyberattacks, misinformation and disinformation online. Should we not consider that issue when it comes to members of the Parliament changing their views because of pressure on social media—pressure that is coming from a far-right campaign that in many ways is racist?
I just do not buy the argument that this is a far-right campaign. I point out that, at committee, we heard evidence from a wide range of different people. To suggest that this is from the far right is just dangerously wrong.
Scotland is an outlier in this area of elections. No other UK nation extends candidacy rights to all foreign nationals with limited leave to remain. Indeed, in evidence, Professor Clark could find no international example of such an expansive approach.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make a little bit of progress before I come back. I do try to take as many interventions as I can.
As has been pointed out, 77 per cent of respondents to the Government’s 2023 consultation opposed the extension of the rights. After the committee’s decision, I had thought that ministers would pause the bill and perhaps bring parties together, given the cross-party consensus at the committee. I recognised that that would leave the Commonwealth issue for local elections unresolved for next May, but the committee’s argument was that correcting it now risked entrenching that policy. The Government should have listened to that, but, as usual, where the Government will not listen, the Scottish Conservatives always will. We will listen to the 77 per cent of people who do not agree with the extension of rights to stand in an election and to the information about the increasing national security threat.
I have taken action. I have started the process of introducing the right to stand bill. To be clear, a person who does not have the right to permanently stay in the United Kingdom should not be able to stand for election here. That is just common sense. Our simple right to stand bill will fix the law. The current rules leave our democracy vulnerable to interference from hostile states, especially in an increasingly volatile world. The bill would restore the position that existed before August 2025, meaning that only candidates with indefinite leave to remain or pre-settled status would be able to stand as MSPs or councillors.
Given the Government bill’s narrow scope, I am pursuing a separate legislative route. I know that a member’s bill will take time, but if the Parliament agrees to the current bill’s general principles today—although I hope that it will not—I ask ministers and colleagues to help my proposal to progress alongside it as far as possible to allow for the fullest debate and discussion with respect to the committee decision.
I cannot support this bill and its principles today. It is clear to me—and, I hope, to many others, that the world has changed, and we must be brave enough to reflect on our previous decisions. The committee was brave enough in the light of the evidence to point that out.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am really sorry, but I am out of time. What I seek, if the bill does pass at stage 1 today, is the right for a full debate in the Parliament, and I seek that debate through the new right to stand bill.
15:22
I declare an interest in that I am a dual national with British and Canadian citizenship. My mother was, for a time, exactly the kind of person whom we are talking about here—a Commonwealth citizen with limited leave to remain. She is now a full legal alien in this country.
This is a short and technical bill. It is quite surprising that it has fomented such discord, but I understand why. The provision should have been passed as part of the previous legislation. We recognise that there is much about that legislation that we did not necessarily have a full focus on or time to discuss, and I agree with the Scottish Government that this bill closes the gap. The cabinet secretary was right to point out the odd dichotomy. An American citizen with limited leave to remain would be allowed to stand in the forthcoming council elections, but my mother, 40 years ago, would not have been. The bill closes that loophole.
Even though some of our laws are imperfect and we need to revisit them, we must make sure there is a level playing field until we have time to do that. The diversity of this chamber—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way to Jackie Baillie.
Did I pick the member up correctly that he thinks that the original legislation was not as it should be?
I will come on to that. We are starting to understand that there are aspects that might be imperfect, which is why, as I go through my remarks, I will say that there is a desire among the Liberal Democrats to see a review. I will speak in more detail about what I mean by that.
The diversity in this Parliament is its greatest strength, and the Parliament should absolutely reflect the communities that we seek to represent. I am pleased that we have made some progress to that end in the past 27 years, but I recognise some of the challenges on which the committee has cast light, as well as its recommendations and the concerns that it raises. There are practical issues that we need to be mindful of. To be frank, when we passed the 2025 act, we did not adequately consider the challenges of someone with limited leave to remain serving a full term of office.
Let me be clear that many people who are here with limited leave still make a contribution, and sometimes an enormous one, to this country’s economy and society.
Given that we are not even a year into this session of Parliament and a member has left, does Alex Cole-Hamilton recognise that we can never be sure that someone will be able to carry out five years of service, no matter what their background is?
Make no mistake, I am not suggesting that that challenge might be a disqualifying criterion, but I think that we have not looked at the issue properly. That is why I suggest a review, which I will come on to in a moment.
People with limited leave to remain work in our public services. They are the backbone of our health and care service. They raise families here, they pay taxes here and, as Q Manivannan rightly pointed out, they sometimes fight and die for us. They invest in this country by setting up businesses and attending our universities, yet they now face a long wait before they get the security and, arguably, the recognition that that contribution should come with, through indefinite leave. Indeed, the wait has been made even longer by the Home Secretary’s most recent announcements.
That frustrates me deeply for a number of reasons. I will not go into all of them, but we should confront, with empirical analysis, the challenges that the committee has put before us. There has been talk of the security threat, for example. I am not sure that we will mitigate any perceived security risk by voting down this tiny loophole bill. As I said in my intervention earlier, I do not think that hostile actors would put all of their eggs in the basket of spies who do not have the right to stay here for very long. Part of the problem is that we are trying to legislate in the dark. As the committee’s report highlights, there is a lack of collection of data on candidates in Scotland. We should recognise that and get to grips with it.
Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at stage 1, but we will do so to allow further exploration. I am keen to work with clerks on a stage 2 amendment that would introduce a review of the provisions of the bill. A post-legislative review of any practical issues of extending candidacy rights for Commonwealth citizens would serve as a proxy for a review of the 2025 act. It would highlight deficiencies in that legislation and the need for change, or it might help to allay the concerns that have been raised.
I understand where the concerns about the 2025 act have come from and where they first came to light, but hard cases make bad law. If there had not been a news storm in the summer about the immigration status of Q Manivannan—who, by any metric, is an asset to this Parliament—I do not think that we would have noticed this bill, and it would likely have just gone through on the nod. I do not think that 77 per cent of the public would have responded to the consultation in the way that they did without the right-wing pile-on that we saw Q suffer. As evidence for that, I point out that Reform UK said absolutely nothing about either repealing or amending the 2025 act in its 2026 Holyrood manifesto. It has no electoral mandate to drive opposition to the bill.
I will close with a plea. It is now clear that the 2025 act may be imperfect and, as such, could benefit from review and even amendment, but it is important for the standing of the Parliament that the rest of the debate this afternoon is about the bill that is before us and that we resist the urge to challenge the status or legitimacy of parliamentarians who have been duly and legally elected to this place.
We move to the open debate.
15:28
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a serving councillor in Dundee City Council.
Due to our shared history and long imperial past, Scotland still lives with the legacy of the Commonwealth, an association of 56 countries around the globe. The benefits of that association were enjoyed in Glasgow this summer, with the successful Commonwealth games, which brought together more than 2,700 athletes from across the globe and gave 177 of our athletes the rare opportunity to perform and compete under our own flag, the saltire. The games also gave us the opportunity to demonstrate the shared values and ethos that hold the Commonwealth together.
I am also proud of the fact that, over the history of the Parliament, we have taken steps to extend the franchise to those who live and work here, and who choose Scotland as their home. In 2020, voting rights were extended to 16-year-olds, and the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Foreign Nationals) Act 2022 ensured that UK Government treaties were followed in order to give nationals from Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain the right to stand for election here.
To give members a flavour of the discussion four years ago, I will read an extract—which I found last night—from the Official Report of the debate back in June 2022. Unfortunately, the member who said this is not currently in the chamber. That member said:
“I would like to mention the importance of helping and supporting people to become candidates for election, including the citizens who will be impacted by the bill and others. It is important that we facilitate that so that people—our friends and neighbours and others in our communities, including those from other countries—feel that they can stand for election. It is incumbent on us, who enjoy the privilege of elected office, particularly in this place, to make that possible.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; c 90.]
Just for the record, those words were spoken by the Parliament’s very own Stephen Kerr MSP. I am sure that he will stand by his words today.
The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 gave foreign nationals with limited leave to remain in the UK the right to stand for election in Scotland, but, as has been said repeatedly, it failed to include Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain the same right. That is the anomaly that the bill seeks to rectify. At present, as the minister has indicated, that means that an American with limited leave to remain can stand in a Scottish election in May but a Canadian in the same circumstances cannot. To someone like me, with deep ties to Canada—a country that was built by Scots and where many of my relatives displaced themselves many decades ago—that does not seem fair.
Unlike members at Holyrood, councillors have to live or work in the council area that they seek to represent, so it matters that our council chambers fully represent all the people who live in those communities.
Does Heather Anderson agree that it is absurd that we would allow Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain to fight and die for us but not to make decisions about licensing and bins?
That is an anomaly that has been pointed out.
If someone is standing as a councillor, certainly for the Scottish National Party, they have to pledge to serve the full term. It is not just that they have to be eligible; they also need to make a commitment to serve the party. The anomaly has to be rectified.
We know that we have to do better in securing fully representative cohorts of candidates. It is still the case in Scotland that only 35 per cent of serving councillors are women and only 2 per cent are from black, Asian or minority ethnic communities. We need to make sure that our communities are fully represented, so I encourage all Commonwealth citizens to become involved in politics and play their part.
Councils work better when all voices are represented around the table. In this sometimes jaded world, it sometimes takes someone from somewhere else to remind us of how amazing where we live is. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to spend some time with Leticia Gonzalez, a Welsh-Argentinian member of the Welsh Senedd for Plaid Cymru. Her passion and enthusiasm for Cardiff were breathtaking.
The passion for an adopted home is palpable. As a councillor, I was lucky enough to be able to attend citizenship ceremonies at which the pride of new Scots shone through. Witnessing someone who wants to make Scotland their home and who wants to make their contribution to the place that they now call home is heartwarming. Sometimes, hostility towards our country comes from closer to home.
You must conclude.
Let us correct the anomaly through the bill. My party’s nationalism has always been civic, not ethnic. My good friend Alyn Smith used to say, “If you’re here, you’re one of us,” and I agree with him.
I will close with some words from Maurice Lindsay, the broadcaster and poet, who wrote in “Speaking of Scotland”:
“Scotland’s a sense of change, an endlessbecoming for which there was never a kindof wholeness or ultimate category.Scotland’s an attitude of mind.”
Our nationalism is civic. Please support the bill at stage 1 and be inclusive.
I kindly ask members to stick to time. I am afraid that we have no time in hand for the debate. I call Kate Campbell.
15:35
I was not intending to speak in this debate because, honestly, I thought that it was going to be a non-event. I read the report: the bill is just correcting a drafting error in previous legislation that was unanimously supported by all parties in 2024, during the previous parliamentary session. Obviously, we have one additional party this session, but still—I thought that the bill was uncontroversial. So, I was pretty surprised to learn that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommendation was that the bill risks
“undermining trust in the democratic process.”
I cannot get my head around that.
The facts are that the law was changed but a drafting error meant that it was not changed for everyone. Previously, people had to have indefinite leave to remain in order to stand for office. The agreement was unanimous—I say it again: it was unanimous—that the law should be changed so that candidacy rights would be extended to include people with limited leave to remain. In error, Commonwealth citizens were not included in the new rules about who could stand in local government elections. That has resulted in the bizarre situation whereby an Angolan citizen resident in Scotland with limited leave to remain can stand for election but a Ghanaian citizen cannot. An American can, but not a Canadian; someone from the Solomon Islands can, but someone from the Marshall Islands cannot. All that we are meant to be doing today is correcting that fundamental inequality.
I disagree with the view set out by the committee that we should not allow people who have limited leave to remain to stand for election. I will go on to explain why. I also think that the point should be made that the committee’s logic is flawed. Far from entrenching the policy and principle that people with limited leave to remain should be allowed to stand for election, not passing the bill would entrench an inequality. The bill would not change the law for MSPs or for people with limited leave to remain who come from all the countries in the whole world, apart from the 53 Commonwealth ones. Those rights were agreed on in 2024—I say it again—unanimously.
Will Kate Campbell take an intervention?
We should not forget that the primary reason that the law was changed was to embed the Scottish Government’s principles to align with the “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy: 2024” and have meaningful integration from day 1.
I will take an intervention from Thomas Kerr.
Kate Campbell has mentioned a couple of times the word “unanimously”. I reiterate that that was in the previous parliamentary session. The Parliament is no longer unanimous about the provision because Reform UK is totally against it. Does she accept that?
Indeed—at the start of my speech, I made the point that there is an additional party now but that I still found the controversy a little strange.
The principle of meaningful integration from day 1 was to empower individuals who have chosen to make Scotland their home and encourage them to participate fully in the democratic process. The secondary benefit was that it would help encourage diversity, so that our political representation could look more like the communities that we are meant to reflect. I will let you in on a little secret, guys—we are not doing great at that at the moment.
What has changed since 2024? What has convinced those who supported the principles of integration, participation and representation to about-turn on a policy so uncontroversial that not only was it voted for unanimously back in 2024, but there were not even any abstentions? Is it the arrival of Reform in our Parliament? Is it the media storm that Reform has managed to kick up? I seriously hope not. I am looking at the Labour Party, in particular, when I say that.
Is it the—frankly—cruel changes that the UK Government is making to immigration rules? Far from supporting integration—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will.
I thank Kate Campbell for taking the intervention and greatly value her contribution. One point that I will make in my contribution is about the committee’s scrutiny and the importance of taking on board what the Parliament’s committees highlight. It is important to make sure that we understand the committee’s evidence.
I agree. I read the committee report and I found lots to disagree with in it, which is why I am standing here, making this speech in support of the bill. We should certainly listen to what committees say, but it is part of democracy that, when we disagree with them, we should take them to task.
I am disappointed by the position that Labour is taking, and I am also disappointed that, since 2024, its new rules have made it harder for people to get indefinite leave to remain. Those rules make most people’s wait longer. It used to be five years, but it is now 10 years, and that is just to start the application. Some people will be waiting for decades before they can get indefinite leave to remain. That means that there will be more people with limited leave to remain. They may have settled in their communities, opened businesses, started families and built lives around the communities that they live in, and they should be able to represent those communities. They should be encouraged to represent those communities—and, frankly, we need them, because we are failing to represent those communities at the moment, given how utterly undiverse we are.
What has changed? I—
I am afraid that the member must come to a conclusion.
I am coming to a conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer.
What has changed? I really hope that the answer is not a slow creep of capitulation to the culture wars that are being waged by a small number of very vocal people in this chamber, because, if that is what we are witnessing today, trust in our democracy is seriously at risk.
15:41
I have been really disappointed by much of the rhetoric around this debate. When I first came to this place, in 2021, I knew that I was going to disagree with some people. I was prepared for the fact that my views are not universal and I knew that debate was going to happen, that it would often be robust, and that there would be times when arguments were difficult to hear as well as to understand. However, I did not expect to be standing here five years later and frequently having to call out blatant racism from colleagues who are here to represent everyone who lives in their constituencies. I cannot separate the change of tone on the issue from the mentions of “strangers” and banning religious headdresses that we have heard since the election in May.
The bill corrects a drafting error in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025. I remember the bill that became that act going through Parliament in the previous session. Why there was a drafting error and why the bill that we are discussing today is not the first bill that corrects an act that we have had to vote on during my time here, or, indeed, in the past 12 months, are valid questions that I reckon some should be reflecting on.
However, the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill went through unanimously and it gave people rights on the basis of which they may have taken life decisions. In many cases, those people have lived here for years, paid taxes and worked hard, and they will have played a part in returning the 129 people who sit in this chamber. Some of those people may even be stepping up to work hard for their communities as a local councillor next year, and they will be putting themselves forward for election knowing the kind of insidious rhetoric that they are going to expose themselves to. They do not deserve to have the rug pulled out from under them. They deserve only our support and encouragement.
I turn to the earlier comments from the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. In response to an important point from Q Manivannan, she noted that a right to vote should not necessarily correlate with a right to stand, and she was echoed by Jackie Baillie. I reflect that we have all sat here and listened to those members’ comments. I ask those who are listening to this debate to ask themselves whether, if they had limited leave to remain, they would have confidence that they were represented by this Parliament as things stand, never mind in a future where their right to come here had been taken away.
That brings me to a huge piece of context that has been missing from some of the arguments that have been made. Whatever members’ views are on the checks and balances that exist in paperwork when someone puts themselves forward for election, another strong check and balance exists, and that is that people still have to vote for them. Generally, a party has to vet them, and they then have to convince the people they want to represent that they are the one that those people should vote for. They will be subject to hustings, correspondence and media scrutiny. Even in the case of the regional list, the party has to decide that they deserve to be in a position to be elected.
Parties that were in this place at the time when the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill was considered are giving different excuses for their heel turns and different reasons why a simple correction to a bill that was passed unanimously is worth their taking the matter up at First Minister’s question time and putting out deeply concerned statements. That is a response to a far-right campaign that has, as we heard earlier today, been whipped up largely to have a go at a minority ethnic member of this Parliament—one of our colleagues—who not only deserves respect and courtesy as a genuinely lovely, hard-working, friendly and intelligent person, but is also due those things under the code of conduct that we are all subject to.
I encourage all members to think very hard about their principles, to be clear in their own minds about what their views are and to decide which of their beliefs are real. This will not be the last culture war that the Parliament is dragged into and it will not be the last time that colleagues wonder whether it is just easier to give in, due to social media pressure, but if that is what is going to drive a member’s decision making, they should not be here.
We move to closing speeches.
15:45
I have only a few closing remarks to make in response to some of what has been said. Jackie Baillie is particularly distressed about the lack of scrutiny, apparently, of people standing for election in Scotland. The member has apparently forgotten that we have a free press, which very energetically scrutinises candidates, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds. Tim Eagle was concerned that his position is not a far right position, but I say that stirring up fear of immigrants and suggesting that immigrants are a danger to us, our country and our way of life is absolutely a far right position.
I am very happy to clarify my remarks for colleagues across the chamber to say that Nathan Gill, 53, the
“former leader of Reform UK in Wales has been ordered to pay more than £22,500 after accepting bribes to make pro-Russian statements in the European Parliament.”
Therefore, it is not necessarily immigrants that we need to be worried about. Drumming up fear of immigrants and using this drafting correction to do so is deeply shameful, and I am very upset by the debate we have had in the chamber today.
The Scottish Greens will continue to work to expand the franchise, welcome new Scots and support democratic principles.
15:46
First, I commend the many thoughtful speeches that we have heard today. It is easy to see that a number of people have been honest and that they have changed their minds. I thank the committee for its report, which shows the importance of the committee work that takes place in the Scottish Parliament. It is very difficult for any individual, not least a politician, to admit when they are wrong, but the ability to do that is essential if we want to see good and consistent laws passed for the benefit of our citizens living in Scotland. That is what it is really about when it comes down to it—making sure that our citizens are properly represented.
Will the member give way?
Therefore, here is the question that we need to ask at this first stage—
Will the member give way?
Will the principles behind the bill enhance the quality of our democratic system in Scotland—
Will the member give way?
Minister, Ms MacDougall is not taking an intervention.
As a sitting Fife councillor, I am aware of the view that those principles will not do that. Having lived abroad myself, I would not expect to be given the right to stand without being a citizen of the country. Over the years, I have gotten to know my own community and I know the concerns of local residents, organisations and businesses. I am not saying that every councillor needs to have lived in an area for a certain amount of time to do a good job, but it definitely helps with being able to represent constituents and their interests much better.
I feel that that is what our voters want at the end of the day. They want to elect people they know and who understand their issues. As my colleague Mark Simpson and others have highlighted, 77 per cent of people who were initially consulted on the changes completely disagree with opening up candidacy rights in that way, and that is key. If we are all being honest, which, in fairness, I think we, across the chamber, are now trying to be, it goes against all common sense to wish the people concerned to sit in these positions of power.
Will the member take an intervention?
Fundamentally, we cannot reasonably expect foreign residents, without any long-term assurances that they will remain in the country—
Will the member take an intervention?
She is not having a debate.
—to be properly able to represent communities as a local law maker. [Interruption.]
Can we not have comments from sedentary positions, please?
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have tried, unsuccessfully, on numerous occasions to intervene, so I would like my moment, please. [Interruption.]
No other countries allow citizens from abroad to stand for elections in this way. When he appeared before the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, Professor Alistair Clark said:
“Candidacy rights do not naturally follow from voting rights”
He also said:
“Eligibility for election is not necessary in order to be represented.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 8 October 2026; c 6-7.]
I believe that Jackie Baillie touched on that point earlier, and I think that it was quite a powerful statement. As a councillor and an MSP, I deal with casework from constituents regardless of which country they come from and treat each case with the same dignity and seriousness that all of them deserve. I have no doubt that everyone across the chamber will feel the same way.
This is not a question of exclusion; it is a question of whether we genuinely believe that our families, our communities and our country are better represented by those without a permanent right to remain. I do not believe that that is the case, so I will be voting not to carry the bill through to stage 2, and I sincerely hope that all members in the chamber will do the same.
15:50
I thank the members who have spoken in the debate. I also thank the committee and, in particular, Jenni Minto, the committee’s convener. Having worked with her in the previous session, I know—as will many members—that what she said at the start of her speech was 100 per cent correct and that she takes her role extremely seriously.
The committee is made up of two SNP members, a Labour member and a Conservative member. Having listened to the committee members who have spoken today, I think that they took the relevant evidence sessions very seriously. In its scrutiny of the bill, the committee explored the impact of the bill’s principles more widely. I think that all of us can understand the committee’s role in that scrutiny, so we can appreciate the reasoning behind having further scrutiny of candidacy rights in Scotland and gain a better understanding of the implications of some of the changes made through the bill.
I would like to put on record my support and Scottish Labour’s support for the premise that the Scottish Parliament and local government should include representatives of all demographics in society and that elected members should come from diverse backgrounds that reflect our society. I thank the members who raised that point in their thoughtful contributions. However, I gently point out that it is the role of the committee and members to do the right thing and reflect on legislation.
I understand that the bill that we are discussing seeks to address a narrow technical error. However, after the evidence session that explored the policy of expanding candidacy rights to foreign nationals with limited leave to remain more broadly, the committee came to the conclusion that we should consider the issue further. The committee took evidence and then did not agree to move the bill on.
The member acknowledges that the bill has been produced in order to fix an error. She must accept that we could fix that error, and the work that she talks about could still happen.
There are two views on that. There is a commonsense approach that suggests that, if we are questioning some of the changes that were made by the 2025 act, it would be counterproductive to support the bill at this stage and correct that error. That would be my view, but I completely understand that there is another view within the Parliament.
Considering that there has been a lot of conversation about people with limited leave to remain not being able to serve their whole terms, I draw the member’s attention to the following Labour councillors who have resigned, causing by-elections: David Russell, who resigned in September 2025; Kirsteen Sullivan; and Scott Arthur, who resigned when he became an MP. Further, Mary McNab was found to have been ineligible to stand, and her disqualification also caused a by-election. Are the same scrutiny criteria going to be extended to such individuals or only to Commonwealth citizens?
The points that we have debated about the scrutiny of candidates are probably quite relevant, so I appreciate that intervention. I would probably come on to that point if I had time, but time is marching on. I would certainly have a discussion with the member on that point.
Our committees have an important role in the scrutiny process, and I think that dismissing or ignoring their calls and concerns would undermine that.
There are three main points in the debate that I think are important. One concerns the technicalities and the practical issues around whether there could or could not be a by-election if someone did not have the right to remain for their full term. Secondly, there is the issue of public trust, which this Parliament cannot dismiss—we have to think about that. Thirdly, I think that we are all agreed on the need to revisit the way in which eligibility criteria are checked.
I recognise that my time is up. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.
I call the minister, Jamie Hepburn, to respond to the debate.
15:55
This has been a lively debate, and I am grateful to members for their contributions. Although the provisions in the bill are very limited—I reiterate that point—I understand that there are a variety of views among members across the chamber on the wider policy that underpins the change that it seeks to make. I accept that, but I reiterate what I said earlier: the bill has been introduced for one single, simple purpose, which is to correct an oversight in existing legislation.
I have to say that Julie MacDougall, very much like Mark Simpson, seemed very reticent to engage in any actual debate. I understood that Reform UK members were here to shake the Parliament to its foundations. If they are seeking to do that, they might want to try engaging in some form of interaction when we are having a debate. Although I agreed with Julie MacDougall when she said that there should be consistency in the law, I would simply put to her the point that it seems rather inconsistent to have a position whereby some foreign nationals with limited leave to remain will be able to stand in the council elections next year while a very small cohort who are Commonwealth nationals will not have the same right. That seems inconsistent to me, and the way in which we can resolve that is by passing the bill today.
I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton that it seems surprising that the bill should have caused such a furore, given that it is a very simple proposition to fix a mistake. The bill is printed on four pages—if we strip out its title, the blank page that we always seem to need to include in any bill, for some inexplicable reason, and the names of those who have signed it, it comes to one page of A4 to fix a simple mistake.
Its purpose is to ensure that the law operates as Parliament intended when it unanimously passed the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill in 2024. I hear it said, and it is true, that Reform UK was not elected to Parliament as a party in the previous session. However, the party has on its benches a representative who was elected in the previous session, and, if ever there was a member who was engaged in consideration of that bill at that time, it is Graham Simpson. He was fully engaged in that regard, although he seems rather less involved in this session—he seems to be hidden away by Reform UK these days, for some reason. He voted in favour of the bill, too, and we should get that on the record.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, in its stage 1 report, noted that it disagrees with the underlying policy on candidacy law relating to people with limited leave to remain. As I have set out, the Government will, as members would expect, consider the report that the committee has produced. Nonetheless, I go back to the point that I made in my opening remarks, which I also made at the committee and set out in my response to the report: if the committee wants to look at the issue again, the Government will engage with that process. Mr Eagle says that he is going to propose a bill—if he does so, it is incumbent on the Government to engage with that process, too.
However, we are in the chamber today to discuss one issue: the candidacy rights in local government elections for Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain. The bill that is before Parliament today seeks to bring the law into line with the stated intention of a bill for which Parliament voted unanimously less than two years ago. The bill before us does not seek to address the wider merits or otherwise of aspects of our candidacy law; it is about making sure that the law is clear and consistent ahead of the May 2027 local government elections.
I will turn to some of the issues that were raised during the debate. Jenni Minto talked about the challenge presented by the cluttered landscape of elections legislation, which ranges across a large number of different acts passed by different Parliaments. I recognise that, and I agree that it is a challenge. We have responded to the report that the committee produced, and we will give some consideration to that task. I should say, however, that doing so would be no small undertaking. Indeed, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, leading on the UK Government’s Representation of the People Bill, which is currently going through the UK Parliament, said in a debate that
“A full-scale consolidation and simplification would need an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation, which would be the job of more than one Parliament to achieve.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2026; Vol 859, c 1057.]
We should, therefore, go into that with our eyes wide open.
On checks on nomination forms, which Jackie Baillie raised, I have already said that we will consult on that. However, I go back to the point that I made earlier: although the number of candidates in previous council elections is a small proportion of the overall population of Scotland, it would be no small undertaking for returning officers to check the nomination forms of, say, 2,548 candidates, which is the number who stood in 2022. Again, we should go into that proposal with our eyes wide open, because that would be a significant task for returning officers.
As an aside, on the great concern that opening up candidacy rights will lead to a big upsurge in the number of candidates, I note that, in 2007, when candidacy rights were more restricted, there were more candidates for local government than in the most recent election, in 2022.
Trust in politics has been raised several times in the debate. Does the minister have any thoughts on whether a Commonwealth citizen wanting to serve their community is more likely to undermine trust in politics than a former leader of Reform UK who took bribes from the Russians?
The next line that is written here in my notes is on public trust in politics, so I turn to that. I absolutely agree with Lorna Slater’s point. Nathan Gill, as the leader of Reform UK in Wales, utterly breached public trust in politics. As far as I am aware, he is a UK national, and he is now serving time in jail for the crime that he committed, acting as an agent for Russia.
I could also mention, as an aside, that the Good Law Project has shown that, since 2010, the Conservatives have accepted £3.5 million from donors with links to Russia, including some after the invasion of Ukraine—but perhaps I will not mention that.
Tim Eagle said that we should not pass the bill, because it will entrench the issue. That is not the most convincing argument; otherwise, we would say that any bill that we tried to take forward would entrench something into the law. We are able to come back to and reconsider the law—that is what we do. We know that laws can be changed. Mr Cole-Hamilton suggested that he might lodge an amendment to introduce a form of review clause. I do not know whether that would be in scope, but I am happy to engage with him. To go back to the point that I made earlier, we will, of course, give consideration to the recommendation of the committee.
This is a simple proposition. I take seriously the issues that have been raised about foreign interference, but it seems somewhat overstated to suggest that a Commonwealth national seeking to be elected to Clackmannanshire Council will do so to be a fundamental threat to the state. The bill is about fixing a mistake that was made in legislation. We want to have consistency and clarity for our electoral administrators ahead of next year’s council elections. We should pass the bill at stage 1.
That concludes the debate on the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill at stage 1.
Previous
Point of Order