Chamber and committees

The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) (Scotland) Bill followed a consultation that was launched by the Scottish Government in late 2022. The consultation focused on administration and governance, election scheduling, candidates, voting, and campaigning and finance.

It was through that consultation that many initial productive exchanges were had between MSPs and stakeholders. For instance, the plans to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to become councillors and MSPs were dropped after widespread opposition and concerns became clear.

The bill is now being welcomed, either in whole or in part, by a host of organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society in Scotland. In January, the society’s senior director, Mr Willie Sullivan, even described the bill as a tidying-up of Scotland’s electoral system.

That kind of support for the bill reflects the common desire to have an electoral system that is continually updated to meet the current and future needs of voters. My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I agree that laws on electoral issues are not static, and we have continually supported the bill’s aim of creating a more efficient and transparent electoral system. Given that the 2026 Holyrood elections are just around the corner, those aims could not be more relevant to us as MSPs and to the public.

I support the aims of the bill, but it is worth looking at exactly what it sets out to change in order to make an updated Scottish electoral system a reality. Its provisions cut across various areas of electoral law and would, for example, grant the Electoral Management Board for Scotland its own separate legal personality as a corporate body.

Other changes include expanding the group of people who can propose an electoral pilot scheme to improve democratic engagement.

Further provisions would allow the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament to propose an election date that is either four weeks earlier or eight weeks later than it would typically be held.

Notably, the Electoral Commission will be subject to changed requirements to present five-year plans. Those plans would detail the commission’s intentions alongside requirements for resources pertaining to devolved functions in Scotland.

I am certain that colleagues from across the chamber will join me in welcoming the progress that has been made since the bill’s introduction. Although I acknowledge the progress that has been made so far, which is an encouraging sign of things to come, I have concerns about the bill—and I am not alone. Although it supports parts of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland has also expressed reservations about the practical challenges of some of its provisions. Its concerns focus on proposals to allow non-citizens living in Scotland with limited leave to remain to run for public office.

I do not believe that people who have been subject to a sex offender notification requirement should ever be allowed to hold public office, regardless of the level of that office. The bill does not go far enough in ensuring that. That is why I lodged amendments at stages 2 and 3. My stage 3 amendments would have required any candidate to declare in the nomination papers whether they had ever been subject to a sexual harm order, risk order or notification requirement. I absolutely understand and take on board the minister’s concerns that that requirement would be in breach of the European convention on human rights.

However, personally, I think that this is a missed opportunity. It is unfortunate for anyone who agrees with me—I can safely say that that is quite a lot of people I have spoken to—that the bill fails to—

The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) (Scotland) Bill followed a consultation that was launched by the Scottish Government in late 2022. The consultation focused on administration and governance, election scheduling, candidates, voting, and campaigning and finance.

It was through that consultation that many initial productive exchanges were had between MSPs and stakeholders. For instance, the plans to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to become councillors and MSPs were dropped after widespread opposition and concerns became clear.

The bill is now being welcomed, either in whole or in part, by a host of organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society in Scotland. In January, the society’s senior director, Mr Willie Sullivan, even described the bill as a tidying-up of Scotland’s electoral system.

That kind of support for the bill reflects the common desire to have an electoral system that is continually updated to meet the current and future needs of voters. My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I agree that laws on electoral issues are not static, and we have continually supported the bill’s aim of creating a more efficient and transparent electoral system. Given that the 2026 Holyrood elections are just around the corner, those aims could not be more relevant to us as MSPs and to the public.

I support the aims of the bill, but it is worth looking at exactly what it sets out to change in order to make an updated Scottish electoral system a reality. Its provisions cut across various areas of electoral law and would, for example, grant the Electoral Management Board for Scotland its own separate legal personality as a corporate body.

Other changes include expanding the group of people who can propose an electoral pilot scheme to improve democratic engagement.

Further provisions would allow the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament to propose an election date that is either four weeks earlier or eight weeks later than it would typically be held.

Notably, the Electoral Commission will be subject to changed requirements to present five-year plans. Those plans would detail the commission’s intentions alongside requirements for resources pertaining to devolved functions in Scotland.

I am certain that colleagues from across the chamber will join me in welcoming the progress that has been made since the bill’s introduction. Although I acknowledge the progress that has been made so far, which is an encouraging sign of things to come, I have concerns about the bill—and I am not alone. Although it supports parts of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland has also expressed reservations about the practical challenges of some of its provisions. Its concerns focus on proposals to allow non-citizens living in Scotland with limited leave to remain to run for public office.

I do not believe that people who have been subject to a sex offender notification requirement should ever be allowed to hold public office, regardless of the level of that office. The bill does not go far enough in ensuring that. That is why I lodged amendments at stages 2 and 3. My stage 3 amendments would have required any candidate to declare in the nomination papers whether they had ever been subject to a sexual harm order, risk order or notification requirement. I absolutely understand and take on board the minister’s concerns that that requirement would be in breach of the European convention on human rights.

However, personally, I think that this is a missed opportunity. It is unfortunate for anyone who agrees with me—I can safely say that that is quite a lot of people I have spoken to—that the bill fails to—

I probably will not go on for 15 minutes, so we will be okay.

I thank the minister and his advisers for working with me and communicating with us on my amendments.

As members know, at stage 2, I lodged amendments that aimed to prohibit from standing for this Parliament or local government all sex offenders, including those who are no longer subject to the sex offender notification requirement, a sexual risk order or a sexual harm prevention order. I withdrew the amendments because of concerns that they might not comply with article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, which concerns the right to stand for election.

My amendments at stage 3—amendments 3 and 37—are an attempt at compromise, and would require those who were previously subject to the sex offender notification requirement but who are no longer under that requirement to disclose that information on nomination papers for Scottish Parliament or local government elections. However, disappointingly, I have again been informed by the minister that my amendments might fall foul of the ECHR and the competence of the Scottish Parliament. I absolutely do not want to jeopardise—

I thank Stephen Kerr for his intervention. That is the reason why I lodged the amendments. I was looking at what the issue meant for victims of sexual violence and sexual crimes or what it meant for parents and grandparents of children at school, where perhaps a member goes to visit the school and we do not know their background. I understand it when people say that someone has served their sentence or had their punishment after a crime has been done, but that is a different step, and it is a step too far.

The debate is a valuable opportunity to talk about standards in public life. As Mr Kerr has alluded to, we are all in a position of power in our capacity as members of the Scottish Parliament, and it is important that we do not abuse that power. I would therefore not be comfortable if someone was elected to this Parliament who was a former sex offender. I absolutely respect the need to comply with our international legal obligations, but I am dismayed that they prohibit us from enacting commonsense policies.

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. However, the voices of the victims of sexual offences have not been heard throughout the bill’s passage. I welcome the minister’s response, and I know that we all share the same concerns. However, the issue was how we could get that requirement into the legislation, and there just was not a way to do it—I appreciate that.

The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill has been several years in the making, from the extensive consultation on electoral reform that was launched by the Scottish Government in 2022 to the point that we have reached today. We are much closer to changing our electoral system for the better and to making it fit for the future. Admittedly, although the bill is not exhaustive with regard to its aims, as is demonstrated by the concerns that I have just highlighted, its provisions broadly achieve its aims, and steps in the right direction are being taken towards more comprehensive changes.

Moreover, the Scottish Government is expected to introduce electoral reform regulations next year, with the intention to have proposals ready for implementation in time for the next Holyrood election. I will work constructively with colleagues from across the chamber when the time comes, and I very much look forward to examining the regulations carefully with the same goal in mind, which is to create a more transparent and smoothly run Scotland, wherever in the country people go to the polls to choose their representatives. That is the right thing to do.

Yes, absolutely.

I understand where the member is coming from but, with respect, I say that I am looking at the matter from the victim’s point of view. If I was to get through my door, from someone who had committed a sexual offence against me or a member of my family, a leaflet on their seeking election to stand here and make law for us, I would feel very uncomfortable. Most people whom I speak to would feel very uncomfortable about that, too. That is my reason for lodging amendments 3 and 37, which I will not move.

Regarding my colleague Graham Simpson’s amendments 34, 35 and 36, I said at stage 2 that the changes to dual mandates should be consulted on, so I note and welcome the Government’s announcement of its intention to consult on such changes in the new year. I will support Graham Simpson’s amendments.

Ross Greer’s amendments 5 and 6 stipulate that when a court finds that an offence that is aggravated by hostility towards a returning officer, registration officer or counting officer has occurred, the court must state whether a different sentence would have been handed out without that aggravator. The changes seem to be sensible and are most welcome.

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in advance of the winter months. (S6O-04068)

I thank the minister for that response. John McKenzie, Scottish secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, has recently warned that the service is in a deadly cycle of decline, with the number of engines being cut, and funding so bad that some stations do not even have running water. Can the minister reassure our brave firefighters that the Scottish National Party Government will not perpetuate that deadly cycle of decline?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My system crashed. I would have voted yes.