Official Report 508KB pdf
Our fifth agenda item is our first stage 1 evidence session on the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill. We will hear from stakeholders with an interest in the bill. I welcome Robert Nicol, president of the Scottish Assessors Association, and Chris Highcock, secretary of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and depute returning officer at the City of Edinburgh Council. Thank you for joining us. Do you wish to make any opening remarks?
I do not have anything specific to say on the bill at this point. I am happy to wait for questions or to say more about the board and our work, if that would be helpful.
You introduced me as the president of the Scottish Assessors Association, and you might wonder what that has to do with elections. I am also the electoral returning officer for Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and Inverclyde, and most assessors in Scotland are also EROs, so I am representing them.
Thank you for the clarification.
What are your views on the effect of maintaining the current legal position? Is that sustainable, and, if not, is the change proposed in the bill the best way to resolve that?
In effect, the bill brings the approach to the Scottish local government elections in line with the approach that has been applied to the Scottish Parliament elections, and it is about the candidacy rights of a certain set of individuals. It will not particularly make a difference to how returning officers deal with candidates. It is the responsibility of returning officers to accept a nomination paper at face value. We do not have powers to undertake any investigation into or research on the qualification of candidates. It is clear, in law and precedent, that the returning officer takes the nomination papers at face value. If the papers have been properly filled in, they are accepted, and it is for the candidates to determine whether they are qualified to stand. The bill will change the qualification requirements for local government elections, bringing them into line with the approach that applied to the Scottish Parliament elections that we had in May.
The approach could stay as it is, but that just means that a different set of people are qualified to stand. As I said, it will not alter what we do; it will just allow a different set of people to put themselves forward and be content that they are qualified.
This group of people are already entitled to be registered, so there is no change in that regard.
I am slightly bemused, but perhaps I did not understand you correctly. Are you saying that no checks at all are applied and that it is up to the individual to make sure that they are eligible?
Yes.
Wow.
When returning officers receive nomination papers for candidates for any election, those are accepted at face value. It is for the candidates, taking legal advice if necessary, to determine and satisfy themselves that they are qualified to stand and not disqualified.
Has anybody ever complained about somebody’s qualification to stand, and are you the arbiter of that?
The arbiter would be the courts. As long as the nomination papers are appropriately filled in, the returning officers take it to be a valid nomination.
From what you are saying, absolutely anybody could put their name forward and, although they might not be eligible, because no check is made, they could be elected. Thereafter, their election could be challenged only in the courts.
They would be guilty of an offence if they put false information on nomination papers.
I confess to being surprised, convener.
I do not think that you are alone in that. It is helpful to have the situation outlined.
In 2021, there were an estimated 397,000 non-British nationals in Scotland, 165,000 of whom were non-European Union citizens. Do you have any idea what the current figures are?
I do not.
I am keen to look at the impact of the change. Do you know how many of those people might have limited leave to remain in the UK?
I do not but, as I said, for the purposes of the bill, that would not affect the work of returning officers.
Therefore, whatever we decide, it does not matter, because you are not checking.
We take the nomination papers at face value.
I understand that now, and that is helpful, because I had thought that you checked nomination papers when we submitted them.
Given that the proposed rule applied in the recent Scottish Parliament elections, what insights can you give us about the impact of allowing those with limited leave to remain to stand? None, I assume, because you did not check—you did not know who they were.
We rely on the candidates to make sure that they are satisfied that they are qualified to stand and not disqualified.
As a candidate, let me say candidly that I would take greater comfort from your checking all candidates, but that is a personal view.
Returning officers would need powers to carry out investigations to confirm addresses, citizenship, names and other personal details. We do not have the powers to do that.
Let me muse for a minute. If somebody had limited leave to remain, and, for whatever reason, that was not extended and they needed to leave the country, but they were elected to office, what would that mean in practical terms? Would there be a by-election, or would they be able to remain in post but not attend any meeting of the council or the Parliament, because they would be out of the country?
If they became disqualified, there would be a by-election, because the seat would be vacant.
Would that apply to the Parliament as well as councils?
If they were disqualified, there would be a vacancy, so there would be a by-election.
That is helpful.
Under what circumstances could someone become disqualified?
Who are you referring to?
Councillors who have been elected but whose leave to remain has expired. Would they become disqualified when their leave to remain lapsed?
Yes. If their qualification was no longer applicable, they would be disqualified.
Are there any mitigations to prevent hostile foreign actors from standing for election? I presume not, given that no checks are done on the paperwork.
We check that the paperwork is accurate and complete, but we do not check the identity, address or qualifications of a candidate.
So the potential is there for someone with hostile intentions to put themselves forward for elected office.
The potential is there for anyone who satisfies themselves that they are qualified to put themselves forward and stand for election.
Okay. That seems troublesome.
Mr Simpson, we are taking evidence on quite a narrow bill to change the law specifically to ensure that Commonwealth citizens with a limited right to remain can stand in local government elections, as they currently can in Scottish Parliament elections.
Yes, and I group potentially hostile Commonwealth citizens within that. Hence my question.
Okay, that is fine. Thank you.
Steven Bonnar, do you have any questions?
Not on that topic in particular. However, I am thinking about whether, under the introduction of voter identification, it would be an option to check the ID at that stage and make sure that someone is eligible to stand. Alternatively, should the onus be on the political parties to conduct checks before someone is put forward for election?
That is a policy issue for Government to determine. We will apply the rules as they are written in the legislation. That issue has certainly been debated broadly across the UK, and the UK Government is considering whether there is a need to verify the identity of people who stand in UK elections.
If that was to be the case, it would potentially introduce significant additional work to the nomination process, which is already quite onerous and time consuming. In Scotland, there are 1,227 councillors, and thousands of nominations are to be taken ahead of 6 May next year. If we were to check the qualifications to stand of all of those, that would add a significant additional burden of administration and cost to the work of delivering the elections. At the moment, that is transferred to the individuals, who commit an offence if they give false information, which would be dealt with by the courts.
Does it surprise you that the politicians round the table are surprised that those checks are not already in place? We take great care in filling out the nomination papers and making sure that all the addresses and other required items of information are accurate, because we understand the importance of that. Does it surprise you that we are surprised that no checks and balances take place?
The nomination papers include an extract of the law. When people sign those nomination papers, they are giving their consent that they are qualified, making a solemn statement that they are not disqualified and accepting that they will be committing an offence if they have given false information on those papers. It is for the people signing the papers to read them and make sure that they understand what they are signing.
I have a few quick questions. It is always important to understand why we are here. My understanding is that the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, in which I was not involved, changed the law in two ways. First, Scottish Parliament elections under the Scotland Act 1998 were changed to allow those with limited leave to remain to stand. However, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 was not changed, which is why the bill is in front of us. Is that correct?
Yes. It closes a gap that was created at that point.
Quite a lot of work goes into bringing bills through the Parliament. Why was that issue not picked up initially? Were you involved in the 2025 act?
I was not involved in the creation of that act. The Scottish Government introduced it, as is explained in the explanatory notes, I think.
So why do you think that that was not picked up—or can you not say?
I cannot say. That is an issue for those who drafted it.
Okay. We can come on to that in future.
Did we learn anything from the recent Scottish Parliament election about how many people with limited leave to remain chose to stand?
We do not know. People do not list their immigration status on nomination papers, so we cannot analyse that.
So there is nothing. Because you are not doing the research, we do not have any of that data.
That detail is not provided anywhere, so there is nothing to research.
Tim Eagle:Fine. Thank you.
09:45
I will finish with a question about uncertainty for voters if representatives cannot finish their term of office due to their status, and the impact that that might have on public confidence in the voting system. I ask that of Robert Nicol—and, Robert, if you would like to add anything on previous questions from colleagues, please do so.
We are all keen, I think, to ensure that all voters have confidence in the whole electoral process, at every level of democracy, from parish councils to the UK Parliament. Anything that dents that dents it at all levels. That is worth bearing in mind.
An elected member at any level can become disqualified for a number of reasons and not just through their immigration status. That might have been more prominent recently, but a variety of things could happen that mean that someone is no longer eligible to carry on in elected office. Focusing on one possible aspect is not necessarily productive. We are looking at maintaining the integrity of and confidence in the system as a whole, at all levels.
I agree. There are lots of reasons why someone might be disqualified and, when someone is elected, there is always a degree of uncertainty as to whether they will see out their term.
I revert to my first question, which was about consistency across elections. Will you sum up on that as well?
It is very important that there is consistency across all elections in the rules that apply. That assists the candidates as well as those of us who are administering the elections, but it also assists the voter if there is an understanding that the rules are consistent across all electoral events that are being administered.
What those rules are is for Parliament to determine. It is our job to apply them as they stand.
That is helpful.
Since there are no further questions from the committee, I thank you both for joining us. Your comments will help the committee in preparing a report to the Parliament in a few weeks on whether to approve the general principles of the bill. If we have any further questions, we may follow up in writing, if that is okay.
I briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
09:48
Meeting suspended.
09:58
On resuming—
Previous
Subordinate Legislation