I understand where we are with all this, convener. It is an important issue. At the outset, we said that we needed to be sensitive to members and to understand how the scheme would work in practice, and it is now working in practice. That is giving us an insight into the complexities that require to be managed when someone is in circumstances in which they need to use the scheme.

Like Bob, I think that we should be realistic about what we are trying to achieve. We are not trying to put up barriers or to set areas where we think that the scheme should not be used. At the same time, we need to be sensitive to what is required not just for the Parliament but for the member.

As Bob said, the scheme should provide the opportunity to not have to rush back to do things and continually think, “Is this going to happen?” Having someone who you know and trust to give you that support takes some of the pressure off. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to alleviate the pressure on the member so that not only can their work be done, but they can have the confidence of knowing that they are supported with regard to voting and the practical side of things, and that that is being done on their behalf. That is what I wanted out of this whole process, and that has been achieved.

Those are sensible suggestions, convener.

At stage 3, we have groupings of amendments, so it might be advantageous to announce something at the beginning or end of each group to the effect that proxy voting will take place. That would cover all the votes in the group, which might alleviate the timescale issue. Such a suggestion could be thought about.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate, which, at its core, is about making our democracy fairer, more inclusive and more transparent. The Government’s consultation touches on a number of different areas of electoral law and proposes several possible changes.

How candidates are treated when they are on the election campaign trail has always been an issue, but it has become more prominent in recent years. As MSPs, we know personally how divisive political campaigns can, and have, become. Many of us have personally experienced harassment or intimidation at some point during our political careers. Even for people who are fortunate enough not to have encountered that type of behaviour, we know that it is far too common in elections for all levels of government.

It is therefore right that we consult on whether the provisions of part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 should be replicated for elections that are held in Scotland. That would ensure that anyone charged with certain offences, including hostile behaviour towards candidates, campaigners or elected politicians, would be disqualified from holding any elected office of their own.

It is important to consider whether additional sanctions for those who intimidate candidates or elected politicians would be effective in encouraging more people to stand for election. I hope that the responses to the consultation will make it clear whether that is likely to be the case.

Perhaps the most significant single change proposed in the consultation is to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to stand in Scottish elections. Our amendment speaks about safeguards for young people being at the heart of the proposals. It is clear that there needs to be a balanced approach to the issue. We have heard about the enthusiasm that such individuals have for the electoral process, but we also have to take on board how volatile things could be for some of that process. Balances and checks need to be in place to ensure that they are safeguarded.

It is right to be open about our system of democracy, but we must also ensure that participation is possible. In the case of 16 and 17-year-olds, wellbeing must be considered. For example, I have spoken about the potential harassment and intimidation that candidates might encounter in all types of elections. When the target of such intimidating behaviour could be a 16-year-old candidate, is it fair to ask whether they should be allowed to be put in that position? Is it fair to put them, their families and their compatriots and friends at risk? Someone who is young and active has the enthusiasm for it all and is normally surrounded by individuals who give them that enthusiasm. We do not want that to be removed.

The minister makes a valid point. We have an interest in the process, but so do the constituents who live within those boundaries. Communities do not like being ripped apart or being added to areas with which they feel no affiliation. Public trust is very important to the whole process.

The consultation touches on many aspects of our democracy, and it is not possible to do justice to all of them in one debate. We have seen that by the amount of time that we have had to speak today.

In conclusion, wherever there is an opportunity for positive reform to our electoral practices, Conservative members stand ready to listen constructively. We await the Government’s final proposals in this area, and we hope that transparency, fairness and the safeguarding of young people’s wellbeing will be at the heart of the reforms.

There have been discussions at party level about what could be put in place. Those should be expanded during the consultation. We should also get views from 16 and 17-year-olds because, if there is to be a consensus, it is important to take on board their feelings and views. The consultation provides an opportunity to widen the scope and talk through what might be possible.

Given the risks that the proposals might pose to young people’s wellbeing, it is essential to have a full impact assessment that can be discussed. I suggest that we do that.

Improving voter engagement more generally should be a key aim of the consultation. The proposal to extend existing mail-out rules to local elections, which would allow each candidate to send one freepost letter or leaflet to their potential voters, is one way in which engagement could be improved. We know that voter engagement tends to be lower in local elections, and that is reflected clearly when we look at turnout statistics. The previous two Scottish local elections achieved turnouts of 46.9 per cent and 44.8 per cent. That compares with 55.8 per cent and 63.5 per cent for the previous two Scottish Parliament elections. Addressing such disparities will take time, and they will not be solved by any single measure. Allowing wide engagement from all council candidates is the most effective measure. It is important that the Government considers views on that carefully.

The public have a huge interest in the rules regarding electoral boundaries. It will be important to ensure that any changes in that area not only are transparent and fair but are seen to be so by the public. We have all seen the accusations of gerrymandering that accompany changes to electoral boundaries. It is therefore clear that the issue is of great interest to the public, and it was quite important that the Scottish Elections Reform Act 2020 removed ministerial discretion from the boundary reform proposals that were made at that stage. That led to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee having a greater role in the boundary reform process in 2021, when it rejected two proposed reforms to local government boundaries.

MSPs still have the final say on reforms to their own constituencies and regions, with all the potential conflict of interest claims that that might create.

Of course.

Willie Rennie makes a valid point and I thank him for his intervention, but safeguards need to be in place. We would have to ensure that there were safeguards. He talks about education. There should be safeguards for individuals in an education establishment. If there is a breakdown at present and people are at risk, that seems to be where it has happened. We would need to ensure that safeguards existed and that they were advanced and endorsed by us and organisations that represent and support 16 and 17-year-olds.

Remuneration is very important. Before I came to the Parliament, I had the privilege of being a councillor for 18 years and, during that time, remuneration was a massive issue. I believe that the issue prevents younger and female candidates from coming forward. The remuneration that councillors receive is not enough to allow them to carry out other roles and responsibilities if being a councillor is the only thing that they can do. The role of councillor does not take up a short time; it can be even more lengthy than the job that we do here.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent study conducted by the Scottish Retail Consortium, which found that one in six shops are lying empty in Scotland. (S6T-01146)

The Scottish Retail Consortium and industry bodies have asked that rates relief for small businesses match the 75 per cent that is being offered by the United Kingdom Government. Is that likely to become a reality for the struggling sector?