Chamber and committees

You will recall that some of the evidence that we heard at committee was that, at some point, we have to say no to some of the many interest groups being included. Their representation cannot be limitless; we cannot include everybody.

You rightly point out that the stage 1 report is critical of the bill and recommends a suite of changes and amendments that are coming. Like you, I am a bit concerned about where the new-found division has come from.

I will, Presiding Officer.

I hope that the SNP will reflect on the committee’s critical conclusions and come back with meaningful plans that will deliver the changes that Scottish education desperately needs.

I welcome the fact that Ross Greer has reintroduced the amendment, which, importantly, now includes the requirement for a consultation first.

As someone who has a surname beginning with a W, I whole-heartedly agree with what Mr Gibson has outlined and understand the arguments for randomised ballots. When I first stood as a candidate in the Pentland Hills ward for the City of Edinburgh Council, I was one of two candidates. The other candidate for the Conservative Party had a surname that began with a B, whereas my surname began with a W. I found out after the election that, if I had gone back far enough in my family tree, I could have called myself Anderson, but there we go.

I am glad that we are looking at the issue, and I am concerned with ensuring that we make the change following robust consultation. One of the first things that I received from Mr Hepburn when I rejoined the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in October was a letter addressing accessibility and other issues during elections, and a pack that contained a trial tactile voting device.

I have genuine concerns about how randomisation would work alongside something like that. How, for example, would a voter with a visual impairment prepare themselves to vote with no knowledge as to the order in which candidates may or may not appear on a ballot paper? The same conclusions may be just as relevant for voters with other impairments and disabilities. Randomisation would make things more complex, confusing and unfamiliar for such people as they cast their votes.

I understand all the evidence that Mr Gibson has outlined, but the unintended consequences of our desire to make things equal for those with a surname beginning with W deserve much more detailed consultation and scrutiny.

Mr Johnson has almost answered the questions that I have on amendments 9 and 8. He has spoken about historic alliances that have come about from various parties across the chamber, but the difference is that the rest of us are all sitting here as members of only one party.

I still interpret amendments 9 and 8 as giving the Labour Party and those who are Co-operative Party members an unfair advantage over others sitting in the chamber. Despite what he said to Mr Stephen Kerr about third-party expenditure being included to ensure proper accounting, I still have concerns and the amendments are a challenge for me.

Mr Johnson called them useful amendments, but I am also concerned that they might not be quite as useful for Parliament as they are for the members who sit with the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party.

Scottish Conservatives understand that electoral policy does not stand still and that the bill will update the law in time for the 2026 Holyrood election. Electoral reform that improves the running of Scottish elections and, at the same time, makes our democracy more transparent is very welcome, and I thank the minister for working closely with us throughout stages 2 and 3.

Although my colleague Annie Wells’s amendments were not pressed to a vote, it was important to debate the issues that she presented to the chamber. Earlier, Martin Whitfield acknowledged the challenges with balancing various rights. I do not believe that sex offenders should ever be allowed to hold public office, regardless of the level, so I hope that, at some point, the Government will take the bold step of reviewing that complex issue, because I do not believe that it can be ignored.

I will briefly touch on the amendments that focused on dual mandates, whether they involve councillors, MSPs, MPs or members of the House of Lords. I am quite relieved that the proposals will first have to go to consultation in order for us to gain a better understanding of the unintended consequences that they might have, and that some of them may progress no further than that. Martin Whitfield mentioned some of the pragmatic elements in relation to costs and having elections that are run concurrently, given the different electoral methods—and the instances of different incorrect instructions that have happened in the past.

I certainly hope that any consultation will be open and fair, and that views will be accepted without any prejudged conclusions. I had a dual mandate for a period of 12 months: I was a councillor for the Pentland Hills ward in Edinburgh while I was a regional MSP for Lothian. It was a genuine privilege to do both, and I believe that there was not a second during that period when I let down any of my constituents, either as a councillor or as an MSP. I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton that that is perhaps because it was not hundreds and hundred of miles away, but just up the hill.

I do not think that I would ever have become an MSP had I not been a councillor first. My involvement in local government was a great place to gain experience and cut my political teeth while letting me stay heavily involved in my local community and learn more about what other opportunities in politics exist, such as being an MSP or an MP. If that was no longer possible, I know that this Parliament would suffer from missing out on a diverse range of potential MSPs.

A lot has been made of elected representatives double jobbing and taking double pay while they do dual roles. As an Edinburgh councillor, the payroll system made it quite straightforward for me to arrange for my councillor salary to go directly to two nominated charities in the Pentland Hills ward, without the money ever coming to me or my bank account. It was an honour to support those two charities for the period of 12 months, and I know from feedback that the money was spent locally and directly supported families and individuals in need.

The minister highlighted some of Bob Doris’s amendments that spoke to the high rates of spoiled ballots, and Martin Whitfield spoke about some of the animations that we all see. We also heard Ross Greer’s ideas about compulsory registration—or, rather, automatic registration, to get the terminology right.

So much of what we have heard today was also discussed before this afternoon. As Mr Greer pointed out, maximising participation will enhance the trust that people have in politicians. We all need that to be restored quickly.

With the Scottish Government introducing further electoral reform legislation next year, in readiness for implementation in time for the next Holyrood election, we will work constructively with colleagues from across the chamber when the time comes, as we have done so far.

The minister spoke of the many planned consultations. I hope that they will be managed to ensure that there is successful engagement and that the public does not get consultationitis. It is, after all, in all our interests to create a more transparent and smoothly run Scotland in which people across the country go to the polls to choose their elected representatives.

The minister called this Parliament’s bill. To conclude, I formally state that the Scottish Conservatives will support the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.

It does not own the buses.

Bus passengers in Edinburgh face longer journeys under the council’s plans to cut speed limits from 60mph to 20mph. The proposed changes are expected to cost £850,000 and would affect 66 roads in Edinburgh. Lothian Buses has raised concerns that the slower traffic will affect journey times for passengers, adding to the misery that commuters face across our capital. Only 18 fines for breaching the 20mph speed limit in Edinburgh have been issued since 2020-21. Without enforcement, it is nothing more than an expensive box-ticking exercise. Does the cabinet secretary agree that introducing more 20mph limits will increase congestion and journey times and do nothing to encourage people to use public transport?

Edinburgh’s population has grown over the past decade, along with complexities in policing the capital. However, that population growth has not been matched by a rise in divisional resources for Police Scotland, which has floated at around 1,100 officers in Edinburgh for most of this year. Maintaining numbers is not enough for the city.

I witnessed the pressures first hand when I went out with officers from Wester Hailes police station in south-west Edinburgh, and the strain became evident to all in the firework-related violence that we saw last month.

What action will the cabinet secretary take to ensure that Edinburgh has policing resources that are fit for a capital and match its growing population? [Interruption.]

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I also pay tribute to the hundreds of people who have been injured and have lost their lives on the A96, and to the emergency workers who are left picking up the pieces.

Communities that use the A96 will rightly feel betrayed by the cabinet secretary’s response today. The Scottish National Party is once again kicking a decision on the A96 further down the road, despite committing to dualling it in 2011, 13 years ago. In the general election campaign, and less than three hours ago, the First Minister said that he was committed to dualling the A96. However, the cabinet secretary, instead of fulfilling those promises to communities on the A96, is betraying them.

The cabinet secretary admits in her statement that the SNP Government will break its promise and that the A96 will not be dualled by 2030. Worse still, the door has been left open to rowing back on that promise entirely. That would be unacceptable to communities that rely on that road. Will the cabinet secretary jettison the so-called refined approach and finally keep the SNP’s promise to dual the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness?