Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-07109, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill.
15:40
I am very pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill and to fulfil the Scottish Government’s commitment to extend the referendum franchise to all 16 and 17-year-olds.
The bill is a crucial first step towards next year’s historic poll and in the journey towards a referendum that is designed, built and made here in Scotland, and I thank everyone who has been involved in its development. In particular, I pay tribute to the thorough and detailed scrutiny of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, which has been invaluable in shaping an important piece of legislation. I am extremely grateful to the committee’s convener, members and clerks for their very constructive contributions. I also thank my bill team and officials for the incredible amount of hard work that they have done on the bill. The bill has, of course, been introduced and has progressed through the Parliament to a very tight timescale, and has progressed in the latter stages in parallel with the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill.
In addition to the Government’s formal consultation, which sought views on the full range of referendum issues, including the franchise, we have sought detailed views from experts in electoral administration and child protection on the more specific aspects of taking forward our proposals. The key contributors whom I want to thank include electoral registration officers, returning officers, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the Electoral Commission, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Scottish Information Commissioner, Young Scot and the Scottish Youth Parliament, which has campaigned hard for the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. It can take great credit and pride from its achievement in seeing the bill pass through the Scottish Parliament, assuming that it does so later on.
The help and advice of all those organisations have proved invaluable in shaping the legislation. That help and advice started with their comments and responses to our targeted consultation exercise in December and continued right through the bill’s development and parliamentary progress. I thank them for their thorough and constructive scrutiny and for their willingness to engage and share their considerable knowledge and expertise.
I hope that members who have been involved in the bill’s progress will acknowledge that we have listened carefully to the range of views that have been expressed and that, where it was appropriate to do so, we have amended our proposals accordingly.
As members are aware, the bill sets out who will be able to vote in the referendum next year. As members are also aware, the franchise is based on the franchise for local government and Scottish Parliament elections, as that most closely reflects residency in Scotland. It is absolutely right that those who live in Scotland should be able to vote on its future and have a say on the matters that affect them. The key difference, of course, is the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people have a significant stake in this country’s future, and it is absolutely right that they have the opportunity to vote on 18 September next year.
It has been a long-standing policy of the Government that the voting age should be lowered to 16. The bill provides a detailed, workable and practical framework that allows 16 and 17-year-olds to register to vote in the referendum. It provides that a young voter registration form will be sent to every household in Scotland this year along with the annual household canvass. Those forms will collect details of all young people who will be eligible to vote in the referendum whose details would not otherwise be captured by the canvass. As I said in the debate on the last amendment that we debated, the form has been independently tested and the results of that testing were that it is clear, intelligible and easy to use. The testing report recommended a variety of minor changes to the form, which we took on board at stage 2, but generally the form was found to work well, and no eligible young voters were missed.
In recognition of the fact that we need to treat the details of those who are not yet 16 with particular care, the bill provides for the creation of a separate register of young voters to hold the data collected on the young voter registration forms. Access to that register will be strictly controlled. I note that all members agreed to that as the bill progressed through Parliament.
As I have said, the bill has benefited enormously from the input of stakeholders and the bill committee. The majority of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 were a direct result of comments from stakeholders or were based on the results of the independent testing of the form. For example, EROs told us that it was important to specify the date of the end of the canvass for the register of young voters in the legislation, because that would provide clarity about when the canvass period for young voters ends and rolling registration begins, and that it was important to bring that into line with the canvass period for the local government register. Therefore, I lodged amendments to that effect at stage 2, which were accepted by the committee. I also lodged a number of amendments regarding the young voter form, which resulted from the testing process. Those changes were aimed at ensuring that the form will be as clear, intelligible and easy to use as possible.
Further, earlier this afternoon, I proposed a final change to the form. Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Scottish Information Commissioner stressed the importance of young people knowing that alternative routes of registration might be open to them if there are any concerns at all that inclusion in the register might affect their personal safety. They suggested that a sentence might be added to the form to achieve that, which was a suggestion that was included in the committee’s stage 1 report. That is why the amendment that was debated and agreed to this afternoon was lodged. The amendment makes it clear that individuals can use a previous address to register, or can register anonymously if there are concerns about their personal safety. Importantly, it also suggests that they contact their electoral registration officer to discuss any concerns.
The next household canvass, which begins in the autumn of this year, will see young voters being asked to register for the first time. EROs will collate that information into a register of young voters, upon which, as I have already said, there will be strict access controls.
I assure Parliament that we and the Electoral Commission will continue to work closely with EROs to ensure that the collection of data for the register of young voters is as efficient and effective as possible. I am sure that we will return to this point during the passage of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, but the referendum will be run to the highest standards of fairness and transparency, and the efficacy of the registration process plays a vital part in that.
Although the bill’s main focus has been the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, we have also had a robust debate around the rights or otherwise of prisoners to vote in the referendum. As I said earlier, I want to thank members who have ensured that we have had a thorough debate on the issue. Although I took a different view, I respect the views of those who advocated change. I understand and appreciate that they did so from a position of principle. Although I hope that the passing of the bill today will settle the matter for the purposes of the referendum, I have no doubt that the issue will be debated again with regard to elections in this place and elsewhere.
This bill is an important milestone. It marks the first stage in legislating for a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future. Those of us who passionately advocate a yes vote do so because we believe that the responsibility for the decisions that shape our country and the lives of the people who live here should rest here in Scotland. It is entirely consistent with that principle of responsibility that our 16 and 17-year-olds, who assume many of the responsibilities of adulthood, should have the right to participate in the referendum and play their part in determining the country’s future.
The bill determines the franchise for the referendum, which will be consistent with the franchise for elections to this Parliament, which is right and proper. In addition, it lowers the voting age for the referendum to 16, recognising the vital stake that young people have in the future of our country. I believe that the proposals in the bill are a practical and workable way to allow every eligible voter aged 16 or over to vote in the referendum next year.
It therefore gives me enormous pleasure to move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill be passed.
15:49
As Parliament knows, this bill has been subject to an expedited process, so that the electoral registration canvass can begin in the autumn. It has been possible for the committee to meet that exacting timetable only because of the co-operation of witnesses and the excellent work of the committee clerks and their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre, who have supported the committee every step of the way. The committee advisers have also been extremely helpful, as has been all the evidence that we have received over the past few months during our deliberations.
The bill, like all legislation, has improved as it has passed through Parliament. The bill that we will vote on this afternoon has been strengthened by changes that have been made as a result of contributions to the consultation and, I hope, proper scrutiny by the committee. As legislators, we would all do well to remember that admitting that something can be done better or that there is still room to improve legislation is not a sign of weakness in Government. Indeed, the strongest Governments are those that can openly discuss issues and realise that they do not always get it right first time. There will be times when political points have to be made on issues, but on matters such as the protection of young people, for example, we have a common agenda. I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister has recognised that this afternoon.
Scottish Labour strongly supports the principle of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and believes that that right should be extended to all elections. If anyone had any doubt about the ability of young people to listen to the debate, engage in the arguments and come to sensible conclusions, they had only to listen to the excellent contributions of the young people who gave evidence to the committee to be reassured on that point. There are, nevertheless, challenges inherent in extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, particularly those who are vulnerable for whatever reason, and much of the committee’s focus was on ensuring that the bill offers them the necessary safeguards and protections. I believe that it now does that. I welcome the advice that has been offered by stakeholders and the testing that has been carried out to ensure the clarity of the canvass forms.
The committee was reassured that service personnel will have the same opportunity to exercise their franchise as they have in elections to the Scottish Parliament. There remains the issue, however, of the children of service personnel who cannot make a service declaration but who will, on this occasion, be old enough to vote. I realise that that is likely to be a small group of people, but I think that it is right that the effort is made to ensure that they can vote. It is a matter of principle and should be pursued. I hope that the necessary provisions can be made during the passage of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, to which this bill is closely allied. I also look forward to hearing from the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and the Ministry of Defence about how they will work together to ensure that service personnel are encouraged to participate.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government lodged an amendment at stage 2 that picked up the points that were made in evidence by members of the Scottish Youth Parliament about cut-off dates being incorporated into the young voters registration form. I had proposed a slightly different way of achieving that end, but I happily accept the cabinet secretary’s version.
Awareness raising was a key element of our deliberations, because it is in everyone’s interest, regardless of their views on separation, to ensure that voters are informed and prepared when they go to vote. We should also aim to ensure that their experience of the process is a positive one. The committee noted that the Electoral Commission has a budget of £1.8 million for advertising and that it was satisfied that it could work with that arrangement. I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for providing yesterday a note of its current plans. I particularly welcome the fact that it has recognised that September 2014 will be a time of transition for many young people who will be leaving home to take up places at university and that it will be important for them to be aware of the provisions concerning proxy votes, because they are likely to be registered at their home address but perhaps living at a new address connected to their university at the time of the referendum. I also welcome the Electoral Commission’s commitment to keep Parliament informed of progress on its plans.
The only issue on which there was a clear political difference in the committee was prisoner voting. The arguments have largely been rehearsed here today in the debate on amendments. I want to be clear about this: Scottish Labour thinks that the issue should be subject to debate, but we believe that the debate must take place in the correct context. We cannot consider voting without looking at the purpose of prison and whether prison is solely a punishment or should, as we believe, have a strong and meaningful role in rehabilitating prisoners.
As we know, there is currently a blanket ban on prisoner voting, and we have heard today arguments in favour of lifting the ban for this referendum only and in certain cases. Those arguments centred on the idea that prisoners serving shorter sentences should be allowed to vote, with prospective cut-off points of six months and four years being suggested. However, in 2011-12, 11 murderers and eight people found guilty of rape were given sentences of up to four years. In the same year, 73 per cent of those imprisoned for common assault, which includes domestic violence, were given sentences of less than six months. I believe that the debate must also be informed by a critical consideration of sentencing policy. In the curtailed scrutiny process that we were involved in, there was insufficient time to have the kind of debate that would be needed before such a change could be considered, but I look forward to the day when that debate takes place.
To those of us on the Labour benches, it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary was unwilling to share any legal advice that she might have on the issue. We have raised this point before, but I make no apologies for raising it again. Ms Sturgeon has been content to quote the committee’s legal advice, which suggests that the position on prisoner voting is compliant with the European convention on human rights, but she presumably has her own legal advice, as she had made up her mind before the committee had even asked for evidence. I know that the cabinet secretary will maintain that ministers do not discuss legal advice, but they can do so when it is in the public interest. I believe that this is one case in which the public interest would be best served by hearing the advice that shaped the Government’s assertion that ECHR compliance is not a threat to the bill.
You should be drawing to a close now, please.
We may take a different view from the Government on what would be a desired outcome from next year’s referendum, but we agree that young people should be able to take part in that referendum, not least because, as they said to us in committee, they will have to live with its consequences for the longest time.
15:56
Today represents the final stage of phase 1 of an important legislative process that will culminate in the referendum on 18 September next year. I echo Patricia Ferguson in thanking all those who have been involved in the process in whatever capacity. In aggregate, their evidence has helped the whole process of scrutiny and improvement of the bill.
Although the issues at stake in the referendum are immense and are already being debated passionately, deciding who is entitled to vote is also of profound importance. Broadly speaking, I think that deploying the existing franchise for local government and Scottish Parliament elections is sensible, but using as significant an occasion as the referendum on Scotland’s future as a testbed for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds is, in my opinion, premature and misjudged. As I observed during the stage 1 debate, I do not deny that there is a debate to be had about the franchise and the age at which it is obtained, but little if any value can be extrapolated from the limited experience in Scotland of such an extension, given the dismal turnout levels for the health board elections. If there is a desire to look at age levels for elections—or, for that matter, when people may first drive a car, purchase alcohol or hold a firearms licence—a broader debate and more widespread consultation would have been sensible.
Being mischievous, I observe that the First Minister is not a man to make decisions without a reason, nor is he averse to a promising punt. I can surmise only that his enthusiasm for extending the franchise was because he envisaged wide-eyed innocence and unquestioning sentiment embracing and promoting his separatist agenda and fanning the yes vote. However, the young people seem to be having the last laugh, because a recent poll suggests that 60 per cent of them will reject independence. Notwithstanding their commendable common sense, I still feel that extending the franchise for the referendum is premature. I realise that I am a lone voice on this issue, but my dissent, which is noted in the committee’s stage 1 report and in my party’s opposition to the bill at stage 1, will be reflected by my voting against the bill at decision time.
However, recognising that the bill will be enacted, I want to make some constructive comments. It is essential that these enfranchised young people have access to information. Given that many of them will still be at school, it is paramount that local authorities understand the difference between the legitimate provision of information provided by balanced debate, and partisan propaganda. The first can be responsibly provided by properly balanced panel discussion in schools or by referring young people to the main campaigning entities, Better Together and Yes Scotland, but the second—partisan propaganda—is completely unacceptable. I recognise that it would be wrong for the Scottish Government to intrude on local government territory by imposing guidelines, but local authorities must demonstrate their resolve by opposing anything that reeks of influence or coercion by setting out a code of practice for their schools that underpins neutrality and minimises disruption to learning.
Turning to more specific aspects of the bill, section 3 prohibits convicted prisoners who are held in a penal institution from voting. We have to some extent rehearsed that issue when we discussed the amendments. Suffice it to say that I agree with the Scottish Government’s view on the issue and, given the recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, which questions such a blanket prohibition, it was right to deal with the matter in the bill. However, as I have said, there is a fundamental principle underpinning the prohibition of votes for prisoners: if a court considers prison to be an appropriate sentence for an accused, then the suspension of liberty rightly also involves suspension of franchise.
I was interested in the discussion that surrounded the risk of legal challenge on that issue. However, based on the evidence that the committee received from the Scottish Government and other witnesses, including the Law Society of Scotland, the prospect of a successful challenge seems extremely remote.
In conclusion, I will refer to a couple of the bill’s technical points that interested me during the committee’s evidence. First, the Deputy First Minister confirmed that she had been reassured by the Cabinet Office at Westminster that individual voter registration would not start until after the referendum. I would be grateful for clarification on whether progress has been made at Westminster with the necessary statutory instrument to achieve that outcome. Secondly, as I have said, I was worried that the canvass form did not make it sufficiently clear to the adult completing the form that the address of a young person does not need to be disclosed. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s amendment on that that was passed earlier; it is a welcome improvement to the bill.
16:02
On many occasions since the establishment of this Parliament in 1999, I have been very proud of what we have achieved through the legislation that we have passed. That includes the legislation to ban smoking in public places, the passing into law of minimum alcohol pricing, the abolition of tuition fees to remove the tax on learning, the far-reaching land reform legislation and the global-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. I will also feel the same pride at decision time as I did when we held firm on issues such as section 28 or on the legislation on the use of dogs for the hunting of foxes.
This is another day when we will pass into law a bill that shows Scotland standing out from the crowd as a progressive and forward-looking nation—not necessarily unique or better than anyone else but, more important, prepared to do things our own way and to make a clear statement on our values and how we value our most important resource: our people. That is how important this piece of legislation is—it says to the young people of Scotland that we value them, that we recognise their contribution to society and that we also recognise that they deserve a say in one of the most important decisions this country will make in more than 300 years.
Disappointingly, as we have heard, there are those who say that young people are not ready to make such important decisions at the age of 16. Although I respect their viewpoint, I say to them that it was not 16 or 17-year-olds who have taken us into wars that have led to countless and needless deaths; it was not 16 or 17-year-olds who introduced legislation that has led to civil unrest in the streets; and it was not 16 or 17-year-olds who created a society where so many people live in poverty, which is incredible in this day and age.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I only have three minutes.
Those decisions were taken and their outcomes created by mature and supposedly wise and experienced adults. Those of us who are older would do well to remember that age does not bring wisdom, the ability to learn from experience or the capacity to avoid calamitous decisions.
I am convinced that most young people in this country are ready and able to participate in debate. Given that they are the people who will be affected for the longest period by the results, they deserve to help to shape the outcome of their own country. If a person is of an age when they could go out into the world of work and pay their dues to society through taxation, they should be given the franchise and be able to vote.
I invite the Tories, even at this late juncture, to join the main stream of progressive Scotland as we vote through this bill. Otherwise, they will be stuck in the same place that they have been stuck for a long, long time.
16:05
When I spoke in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I was supportive of its general principles but not without some reservations. In many ways, little has changed: I am still supportive but seek assurances.
I welcome the vote for 16 and 17-year-olds and the measures to protect personal data. However, I still believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all elections, not just the referendum.
There are many Scottish people living outside Scotland who, I am sure, would like to vote in the referendum but would not normally vote in elections here. I recognise that such Scots enjoy the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom as well as maintaining their Scottish identity, so it is likely that they would bolster support for the UK. However, I also understand the difficulties that including them would present in establishing the legitimacy of the referendum.
Therefore, for the sake of a clear result, the best response to their dissatisfaction will be a resounding rejection of separatism and the disruption that it would bring to those who have strong ties with the other nations of the UK and who recognise the interdependence that binds them.
As a constituency MSP with a busy main street office, I am quickly made aware of differences in opinions and the real issues that affect constituents’ lives. I have to say that no constituent has expressed any opinion on prisoners voting. Regardless of whether they have been prisoners, they are more concerned about the bread and butter issues, such as housing, education, jobs and putting food on the table. I suspect that most constituents support the exclusion of prisoners. Allowing prisoners to vote is not a major issue in my constituency, and I doubt that it would even be an issue for many prisoners.
I am prepared to accept the Scottish Government’s proposal to exclude prisoners from voting as long as it does not affect the legitimacy of the referendum. However, like James Kelly and Patricia Ferguson, I feel that, given the importance of the legal issue and our commitment as a Parliament and nation to complying with the ECHR, ministers need to tell us the legal basis that supports their view that the bill is ECHR compliant. Ideally, in her closing speech, the cabinet secretary will remove all doubt and promise to make that available.
16:08
This is truly a momentous day. Irrespective of which side of the debate members are campaigning for, at decision time they will shatter the ceiling placed on 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland. Next year’s referendum will allow 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and, as Donald Dewar once said, I like that.
The doubters who suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds should not have the vote and those who have reluctantly agreed to the decision have had many chances to amend the electoral law that governs the whole of the UK. They have consistently failed to stand up for the voting rights of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament will, yet again, lead the way with that hugely important reform. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted.
Issues were raised on how best to deal with engaging and informing 16 and 17-year-olds about the referendum—that is, informing them about how they should register and providing them with information that is clear and unambiguous but not partisan to any side of the debate.
The first issue to be dealt with is engaging with younger people to enthuse them about registering. All members anticipate a higher turnout than usual next year, but that will happen only if both sides try to engage and offer their own positive prospectus for the nation.
Secondly, ensuring that information is provided to our younger citizens and that they have a role to play in the future of Scotland is, quite rightly, a role for the Electoral Commission. It is neutral and unbiased, and in what is already a hotly contested debate it can be the vehicle that provides clarity about not the politics or the rhetoric but the process for the people who will register to vote for the first time.
During the committee’s deliberations, Rob Gibson talked about the need to ensure that the Electoral Commission develops, as we said at paragraph 137 of our stage 1 report,
“a detailed delivery plan to promote effective joint working, to clarify what it expects from others, and to ensure an appropriate degree of consistency across Scotland.”
Without a doubt, the Electoral Commission has a central role to play in working with other organisations to facilitate the referendum. I have confidence in the commission.
The Scottish Parliament is maturing. We are ready and prepared to take the next step on our journey towards becoming a normal independent country, and 16 and 17-year-olds will play their part in that. Next year, 16 and 17-year-olds—and all Scotland—will have an important choice to make. Will we choose hope over fear? Prosperity over austerity? Responsibility in Holyrood over the irresponsibility of Westminster?
I like that 16 and 17-year-olds will vote next year, and I look forward to the yes vote in the referendum.
16:11
The passing of the bill today will finalise two major decisions. One represents a progressive change for the future. The other reflects illiberal entrenchment in the past.
I am as delighted as other members are that we are giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to have their say on the country’s future. The Liberal Democrats want to create a fair society, and it has long been our policy to lower the voting age. We hope that today’s move will be the first step towards allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in all elections in the UK.
I am deeply disappointed by the position of the majority of members on prisoner voting. Outside this Parliament, there is a growing consensus on the matter, which has been stubbornly ignored by three parties in the Parliament. There is not yet consensus on which prisoners should vote, but there is consensus that it is simply wrong to continue to deprive every person in prison of the fundamental right to participate in our democracy.
It is correct that we punish offenders, but our primary aim must be to rehabilitate them. If we are serious about that and about reducing reoffending, we must ensure that prisoners are more engaged with society.
Voting is not a duty that we impose on people; nor is it a privilege that can be revoked at the slightest cause. It is a fundamental right of every member of a free and fair society, which we should not remove lightly.
All too often during our debates on the matter, I have heard opponents fall back on the argument that the situation should stay as it is because that is how it is. I say this: it is up to members of this Parliament to decide how it should be. We could have decided that there is a better way of determining whether to take away a fundamental right. Instead, Scottish National Party, Labour and Conservative members chose to stay rooted in the past.
Prison will achieve results only if we use it to give offenders the tools that will help them to make a meaningful contribution to the community after they are released. Excluding prisoners, particularly short-term prisoners, from voting, will reinforce prisoners’ sense of isolation and further alienate them from society.
We have missed a chance with this bill. The Parliament has taken the opportunity to open its arms to the country’s young people. We have told them that the referendum is about their future, so they should be a part of it. However, we have turned our backs on another opportunity. We could have sent the message to some of the people who will be in prison on 18 September 2014 that, even though people have done wrong, we have not given up on them and we want to give them a chance to play a part in our society.
16:13
I am pleased to have been called to speak in the debate on the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill. I am a member of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee and I thank the clerks for their sterling hard work throughout our scrutiny of the bill. I also thank all the witnesses who took the time to give evidence to the committee. Their evidence very much informed the committee’s work.
It is important to note, for the record, that the committee worked in a constructive way. Although there are key differences in members’ positions, the committee has always operated in a pragmatic and respectful manner, under the wise convenership of Bruce Crawford MSP—I hope that that earns me some brownie points in the committee.
For my part, I am absolutely delighted to be speaking in this debate as a lifelong supporter of the cause of Scotland. This is indeed a key moment for our Parliament and our country and one that will certainly make it into the history books. Just 14 short years after our Parliament here in Edinburgh was reconvened, we are now democratically engaged in setting the framework, as far as franchise issues are concerned, for the referendum on the independence of our country.
Many people over the years have imagined that we would arrive at this juncture. It is an absolute privilege to be part of this historic process today.
In agreeing the terms of the franchise for the independence referendum, we have laid down a clear marker for the kind of Scotland that we wish to see. By extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, we are saying to young people, “You are important. You are part of society. You have a role to play. We value you.” That is a very important message indeed. There were no more enthusiastic witnesses before our committee than the young representatives themselves.
It is appropriate on this day for me to quote my mother, Winnie Ewing, following her sensational victory in the Hamilton by-election in November 1967, when she famously said:
“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
With the passing of the bill this afternoon, I would say that Scotland is nearly there.
16:16
I echo the thanks of my fellow committee members to our clerks and witnesses and to everyone else who contributed to the process.
I am naturally disappointed that we are not using this bill to take two progressive steps on the question of the franchise, but I want to address my remarks to the step that we have chosen to take—on votes at 16. I am not sure that I can do it the same justice that Bruce Crawford did, who I think addressed the issue extremely well a few minutes ago.
With every school visit that I go on, every question-and-answer session I take part in with young visitors to the Parliament, and every opportunity I have to engage with young people in youth work projects or in communities in Glasgow or elsewhere, I am more and more convinced that 16 and 17-year-olds have exactly the same spectrum of passion and apathy, interest and disinterest, and ideas and confusion as every other age group.
Members who go out knocking on doors and talk to people of all age groups at election time would probably reflect on the diversity of our entire electorate. I do not believe that there is any justification for the assumption that 16 and 17-year-olds are any less able or any more able to take part in this referendum; they are as diverse as every other age group.
Given the arguments that have been made on taxation, participation in other areas of public life, work, marriage—on which we have seen a bill introduced today—and all the other personal life choices that 16-year-olds are able to make in our society, I can see no justification for opposing this opportunity to reduce the voting age to 16 for the referendum.
Those who say that the age should be reduced for all elections are absolutely right, and it is by ensuring a high turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum that we will put that case. I hope that young people, like everybody else, choose to vote yes and choose to live the rest of their lives in an independent Scotland that can achieve far more for them and for their communities.
Whichever choice young people make—and whichever choice Scotland as a whole makes—we will make the case for reducing the voting age to 16 for all elections, whether in Scotland or in the UK, if we achieve a strong turnout. We must be focused on promoting participation in this process—not just the opportunity to vote but real participation. We must encourage young people to exercise the right to vote that we are giving them today.
16:19
I hope that this debate—I am pleased to have played a role in stimulating some sort of debate—has disturbed part of the consensus. What I said was intended not as a polemic but simply to introduce a bit of contrary thought to the process.
The point that I was going to make to Mr Crawford when he courteously refused my request to intervene was that, while I accept the consistency of what he is arguing for, I do not know the answer to the question whether, if we are giving young people of 16 and 17 the vote, we should let them buy alcohol. Do we give them firearms licences? Do we allow them to drive motor cars? No one has clarified those aspects to me. Perhaps that debate is for another day.
One important area that time constraints meant that I could not dwell on in my opening speech is the right of our armed forces personnel to exercise their vote. In fairness, I accept that the Deputy First Minister has listened to concerns that emerged at the committee and I know that she is working with her Westminster counterparts to facilitate every possibility that armed forces personnel outwith Scotland can exercise their vote on such an important issue.
A related anxiety is about ensuring that 16 and 17-year-olds who are abroad with their armed forces parents are given the same opportunity. I know that the Scottish Government is investigating that. If there is an update on that, I would very much appreciate hearing about it.
The process that the bill envisages involves the need for information, the encouragement to vote and then, on the day of voting, access to appropriate facilities. I was struck by the briefing that we received yesterday from the NUS Scotland. It made some excellent points and pointed out that
“It is vital that comprehensive efforts are made to educate young people who will be eligible to vote at the time of the referendum about how to register, and ensure they have the information and tools needed to take part in this historic vote”.
That is absolutely right.
The NUS also makes the interesting point that it would support
“the unbiased promotion of referendum participation in schools and colleges”.
I agree, provided that such promotion is unbiased. It goes on to say that it
“would like to see polling places open on college and university campuses for the referendum.”
I have a great deal of sympathy with that, because the referendum will take place at what could be a critical transitional point for some students. The Electoral Commission also picked up that issue in its briefing.
Another aspect that I will dwell on is whether there could be a useful tandem between the NUS and the Electoral Commission. A lot of the Electoral Commission’s briefing involves cross-references, and some themes are repeated by the NUS and the Electoral Commission. Such a tandem might be helpful.
The Electoral Commission’s briefing talked about what it was doing to improve awareness among 15 to 17-year-olds. It is very encouraging that it says that it has been
“working with educational bodies including the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland ... Education Scotland and School Leaders Scotland”.
Could that extend to the NUS? Could the Electoral Commission enter into discussion with the NUS about a fruitful conjoined set of proposals to increase information to voters, to heighten awareness of what is necessary to register to vote and to facilitate people’s ability on polling day to cast their vote on such an important occasion?
16:24
I echo the comments of Annabelle Ewing and others in support of the clerks and all who have worked on the bill to get it to the stage at which it will be passed shortly by Parliament. I also support Annabelle Ewing’s comments about Bruce Crawford, who has competently and ably chaired the committee and kept all of us rowdy MSPs under control, which is a challenge at times.
As Patricia Ferguson, Patrick Harvie and others have said, we are passing a significant piece of legislation. The bill is part of the process as we move towards the referendum in September 2014. It will extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, which I know will excite many young people throughout Scotland; it will undoubtedly encourage them to participate in the referendum. I am sure that people on both sides of the debate agree that we hope that, post the referendum—whatever the result—the young people who participated in it will be more motivated to take part in the political process in the future. The quality of the young people who gave evidence to the committee reinforces the view of the many who support the extension of the franchise.
Annabel Goldie raised important points about awareness raising and the role of schools. When I talk to young people who are coming up to the age of 16 and who will vote in the referendum, I find that they are very excited about the prospect. To an extent, they also find it quite daunting, in that they have a big decision to make. There is a quest for more information, not just about the process but about the politics on the two sides of the argument. It is important that we raise awareness and that provision is made for information to be supplied in schools. That process should be properly controlled and the information should be appropriately balanced.
As others have said, the legislative process has been accelerated. I am not often a great fan of that, but I acknowledge that it was necessary in this case. As the Deputy First Minister pointed out, the annual canvass will start in the autumn. Never has a canvass been so important; we must ensure that not just 16 and 17-year-olds but as many people as possible are registered to take part in this important vote on the future of Scotland. It is important that the correct processes are put in place. Electoral registration officers have an extremely important role to play in making available the right forms and information.
It was interesting that Annabel Goldie mentioned the NUS briefing. Students will present a big issue, because many will leave home for the first time in around September 2014 and might do so without registering for postal votes. Therefore, the process of proxy vote registration and rolling registration is important. We must ensure that those young people are aware of the options that are available to them if they move to a college or university that is some distance away from where they currently live, because we want as many people as possible to be registered to vote.
A concern that many people had about the bill related to data protection issues and the potential for data to be published on young people who have not reached the age of 16. However, the committee has done a robust job of checking the processes. People can be reassured by the final product that the Government has produced and the feed-in that the committee has had, which will ensure that young people are properly looked after as far as data protection is concerned.
I do not want to rerun the debate on prisoners voting, although I say to Alison McInnes that it was an important debate to have. There has undoubtedly been a lot of discussion of the issue, and I welcome—[Interruption.] Were you advising me to wind up, Presiding Officer?
I was advising the cabinet secretary of how long she might have to speak. You have another 30 seconds or thereby.
Okay—30 seconds or thereabouts.
To sum up, I reassure the Deputy First Minister that we support the bill and its provisions in relation to prisoners voting. I would like to see more information on the legal arguments, but we will vote strongly for the bill at 20 minutes to 5, as we recognise that it is an important step in the process leading to the referendum in 2014.
16:30
I thank all members who have taken part in the debate.
I begin by highlighting a few issues of process that have been raised. Patricia Ferguson rightly acknowledged that the bill has progressed through an expedited process; that fact underlines my expression of gratitude to all those who have played their part in developing and improving the bill on such a challenging timescale.
Patricia Ferguson was also right to say that the bill has improved during the process. The Government listened to the representations and suggestions that were made. We always do so, but in the context of this bill I was particularly mindful of our shared responsibility not just to extend the franchise to young people, but to protect their data and safety. That has not been an easy balance to strike, but in my view the bill gets it right. I agree with James Kelly’s statement that the committee helped in no small measure to achieve the balance in the bill that I hope we will pass today.
I will not rehash the debate on prisoner voting, which I am sure Alison McInnes, who has fought a worthy battle on the issue, will understand. However, I will make one point. Alison McInnes said that the right to vote is a fundamental right, but I argue that liberty is, too. When a judge decides that a person deserves to be in prison, that person loses that fundamental right to liberty; it is also right that they lose the right to vote.
We have heard what is becoming a familiar refrain from Labour, which—to sum it up—is, “Publish your legal advice.” I say politely—while not, I hope, breaking the consensus that we are enjoying today—that that argument is diversionary, and is also becoming a bit tired. In addition, a former minister who makes such an argument ignores the long-standing convention in that regard, of which former ministers are as aware as we are.
Will Nicola Sturgeon take an intervention?
I was going to move on to a consensual point, but I will take the intervention.
I do not want to break the consensus either, but I make the point to the Deputy First Minister that the reason why we are so keen to find out a bit more about legal advice that may have been obtained on the issue is that we know that there are cases that are waiting to go to court, and we want to ensure that the Government is on the right track. We are sure that the ECHR covers the issue, but we want to know that the Government has done the homework that goes along with that. That is all.
The Government always does its homework, and on this issue—perhaps more than on many others—the legal position is clear. A legal challenge would be very unlikely to succeed.
It sounded at times as if Labour’s argument was intended to create an artificial point of difference between it and the Government. However, I welcome James Kelly’s statement in summing up—I think that I am quoting him directly—that the SNP Government is right. I welcome that approach, and I hope to hear much more of it in future debates.
Annabel Goldie raised the issue of individual voter registration. The draft Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2013 confirms that individual electoral registration will not commence in Scotland until after the referendum. The draft order is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny and is likely to be laid in July, and we understand that it will be made towards the end of the year. I hope that that gives Annabel Goldie the assurance that she seeks.
Annabel Goldie also—along with Patricia Ferguson—raised the issue of the children of service voters. The bill contains arrangements for services personnel that are identical to those for local government and Scottish Parliament elections. As is the case for other polls, however, there is no provision for eligible children of services personnel to make a services declaration.
The committee asked the Government to look specifically at the options for those young people. We have done so, and I reported back to the committee on 4 June. We have spoken to the Electoral Commission, the UK Government and registration officers, and I have sent a fairly detailed note to the committee that sets out that although the numbers that we have been able to obtain are not conclusive, they indicate strongly that the issue is likely to apply to—if any—only a very small number of young people.
The broad conclusion that we have reached is that a new route could be created to registration of young voters, which would create an additional category that would apply to young people who are in that situation. However, we are also of the view that that is a substantial change to the registration process and that we are required to give it detailed and careful consideration. Service declarations do not form part of the annual canvass, so the issue can be dealt with on a longer timetable to allow progression of the bill in time for October. We have therefore not proposed changes at this stage, but we will give the issue further consideration over the summer and will report back to the committee. In the meantime, I will welcome any views that the committee is able to offer as we take forward consideration of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill.
I want to devote the rest of my remarks to the centrepiece of the bill, which is, of course, the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have heard some excellent and very eloquent speeches during the debate from Bruce Crawford, Annabelle Ewing, Stuart McMillan, Patrick Harvie and others. I believe, as I know many people across the chamber do, in votes for 16-year-olds for all elections. I look forward to the day when this Parliament can legislate to achieve that—something that will be one of the many gains of Scotland’s becoming independent. However, in the meantime, it is right that we extend the franchise when we can. I believe that it is absolutely right that we extend the franchise for the independence referendum.
Politics can occasionally be cynical, and in what has been a very good debate we perhaps heard some of that cynicism in Annabel Goldie’s suggestion that the move to extend the franchise is a ploy by the Scottish Government to exploit what she described as the “wide-eyed innocence” of the young. However, I hope very much that she and I are both living proof that wide-eyed innocence is not the sole preserve of the young. My serious point is that in the same speech Annabel Goldie also speculated that young people would not vote for independence. I simply and politely suggest that she cannot have it both ways. The point that I want to make is this: young people, like everyone else, will make up their own minds on how to vote in the referendum. Patrick Harvie was absolutely right: they are as diverse as any other age group and as able to make up their minds as any other age group.
The point of principle is that regardless of how 16 and 17-year-olds vote as individuals, it is absolutely right that, as a group that has the right to marry and to raise children, they also have the right to vote in the referendum to shape the future of our country. I am very proud that this Parliament will afford them that right when we come to vote in a few moments.
We will all spend a great deal of time and energy trying to persuade young people and everybody else to vote the way we want them to vote, but I am very confident that for young people who are on their own personal journey to independence, the argument that Scotland should take responsibility for its own decisions, which will allow us to build a country that is wealthier and fairer—a country that, as Winnie Ewing so famously said, would speak with its own voice in the world—will have enormous appeal to young people and to the population generally. It is the argument that I believe will win the day.
It gives me great pleasure now to ask that members support the motion and approve the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill.