Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022

Official Report 1016KB pdf

---

Elections Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-03009, in the name of George Adam, on the United Kingdom Elections Bill. I ask members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible.

15:41  

In 11 years, I have never once had a problem with my card until now—honestly.

The UK Elections Bill is highly complex and highly controversial. I am pleased that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee agrees with my assessment that legislative consent should not be granted.

The bill will have a profound impact on voters and electoral administrators in Scotland, not just in relation to holding UK general elections here but by putting pressure on us to act in a similar way. It is therefore important for the Scottish Parliament to have the opportunity to discuss it.

I am strongly opposed to several of the bill’s proposals for reserved elections. In particular, it is apparent to many people across the political spectrum that voter identification for UK general elections would disenfranchise a substantial number of people. I agree with Ruth Davidson—that is not something that members will often hear me say—on her description of the proposal as

“trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”.

I will not read the full quote, because, as you know, Presiding Officer, I do not believe in using bad language in the chamber, and Ms Davidson is very strong in her disagreement with the proposal.

Where is the need for such an expensive and disruptive change? What happened to promoting participation by our most vulnerable citizens? As the UK Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded, the evidence base

“simply is not good enough.”

The committee rightly called for a pause to allow “further research and consultation”.

Does George Adam agree that the proposals have been supported by the Electoral Commission and other bodies, and that they are designed not to disenfranchise voters?

The voter ID policy will, in effect, create another barrier for individuals going to a polling station. We would have completely different scenarios for devolved elections and elections for Westminster. Furthermore, the Tories should not be talking about the Electoral Commission, because part of the problem is that they have already ridden roughshod over it.

I am concerned by the bill’s proposal to require applications for postal votes for reserved elections to be renewed after three years. That is another example of people being disenfranchised. It would mean an end to voters being able to make one application for a postal vote for all elections. It represents a significant loss to many voters—our constituents. By unilaterally setting the period at three years for reserved elections, the UK Government is, in effect, pressuring us all to follow suit to avoid confusion for voters. That could be said about every single other aspect of the bill.

We should be proud of what devolution has already achieved in elections policy. For example, we have extended votes to foreign nationals and to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have developed the role of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which was vital in co-ordinating last May’s successful election.

We should not be obliged to adapt our law to whatever the UK Government considers to be appropriate, especially where there is no evidence base or compelling argument for a change. That is especially so in relation to the proposals from UK ministers to issue a statement directing the Electoral Commission’s work in overseeing elections. That seems to risk interference with the commission’s independence.

Indeed, as Louise Edwards, director of regulation at the commission, said to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee,

“The strategy and policy statement would put one political party—in essence, it would be one political party—in a privileged position of influence above all others and above all its political competitors. That is the point at which it would impact on confidence and on the integrity of elections, because it would impact on our independence.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 18 November 2021; c 11.]

That is the director of regulation at the commission saying how difficult—impossible, in fact—the commission’s position will be made by this power grab by the UK Government.

Our legislative consent memorandum rejected the proposal that UK ministers should able to include devolved elections within the terms of the statement. It is a reflection of the lack of respect for devolution that runs through the bill that there would have been a simple requirement only to consult Scottish and Welsh ministers in relation to devolved elections. Our views could have been entirely ignored and there would have been no role at all for any of us in this building or for this Parliament.

Even with consent refused, any statement in relation to reserved elections could feed through to the commission’s handling of devolved votes. My Welsh counterpart and I therefore suggested placing a duty on UK ministers to consult us in relation to the statement in its entirety. Even that simple concession was rejected out of hand. I would be happy to hear what Mr Kerr has to say about that simple concession.

Will the minister confirm that the Electoral Commission actually endorses the measures in the bill? That is a statement of fact.

That is a massive overstatement. The commission has endorsed some of those things. As the member has already made clear from a sedentary position, he knows all about alternative facts.

My final major concern is that the bill casually seeks to replace our existing legislation on digital imprints. We were the first part of the UK to require an imprint to identify the source of electronic election material. By taking an extremely broad view of the internet service reservation—a view that we continue to contest—the UK Government is effectively trampling over a law already made by this Parliament.

The bill includes a number of changes, for example on undue influence and intimidation, where I can see merit in having something similar in Scotland. But, as I explained to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, there is no need to rush. The first major devolved election after the UK bill becomes law will be held in 2026. We should take time to assess the proposals and consult during this year on the best way forward. For me, that would ensure the opportunity for full consultation with stakeholders to find the best way for us here in Scotland to take our elections forward and it would allow us to have our own legislation at a later date, in time for our Scottish elections.

It is clear to me that this Parliament should consider its own legislation on these issues. We should not accept unsatisfactory and troubling reforms made at Westminster simply as a matter of administrative convenience. We should be very aware of some of the threats that the bill makes to the Electoral Commission.

I look forward to hearing members’ views on the bill from across the chamber.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees not to consent to the UK Elections Bill, as it is for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on electoral law in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections; notes that the Scottish Government intends to consult on a number of electoral reforms later in 2022 with a view to bringing forward legislation; expresses its concern that proposals in the UK Elections Bill in relation to reserved elections risk disenfranchising voters, and threatening the independence of the Electoral Commission; notes that the proposal to require voter identification could infringe the human rights of people without a form of identification; supports the agreement of the Scottish Parliament Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to the Scottish Government’s position that legislative consent is required in relation to digital imprints in devolved elections, and opposes the moves by the UK Government to effectively replace existing Scottish legislation on digital imprints by applying an unacceptably broad interpretation of the internet services reservation.

15:49  

My goodness, the minister is scraping the bottom of the barrel if he is creating a constitutional issue about a digital imprint. The reality is that this is a reserved bill. It is about issues reserved to the UK Parliament.

If the minister feels as strongly about this as he clearly does, he should be addressing his issues to his members who attend the Parliament at Westminster.

The bill that we are debating is about strengthening British democracy. Like many colleagues across the chamber, I have stood in many elections, and what I have learned over the years is that, regardless of the political context in which an election is fought, listening to the thoughts and concerns of voters is at the heart of every British election. That is ultimately because democracy is about politicians being accountable to people, and the people shaping the political direction of the country.

On Mr Kerr’s key theme of listening to the electorate, is it not the case that, if there was respect for the process of devolution, the UK Government would, while I was having discussions with it and my Welsh counterpart, have respected and listened to us and possibly given some ground on some of the many issues that we have problems with?

Very often, in our discussions, the minister reminds me of his past profession as a salesperson. I greatly respect that, because I was also a salesperson. I think that he is underselling his ability to influence UK ministers by engaging with them. I think that he is being very presumptuous in the conclusions that he has arrived at as a result of the discussions that he has had.

I return to my theme: listening to the voice of our constituents. That voice is most effectively heard through the ballot box, which is why the UK Government has a duty to ensure that UK-wide elections continue to be free and fair, and that is what the bill does.

The area that has received the most coverage—and the most attention from the minister this afternoon—is the plan to introduce voter ID to tackle election fraud, but that is not the only purpose of the bill.

Can the minister tell me, out of 59 million electors in the UK in 2019, how many convicted cases of voter personation there were?

I am very grateful that the member considers me to be ministerial material, given that he addressed me as the minister. I look forward to the day when that will be a reality. In answer to his question, there were examples of voter personation in this very city at the last Scottish parliamentary election.

Such is the sacred way in which we should view the right of a citizen to exercise their vote that protecting it in this way seems a very good idea to me. I am really at a loss to understand how any democratic politician could object to the idea that we protect those badges of citizenship—namely the vote and, of course, the passport, which is another issue.

In my speech, I mentioned Ruth Davidson and her description of the idea of voter ID. Does the member agree with the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who is now in the House of Lords? She said that the provisions on voter ID are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

Mr Kerr, I can give you some time back for the interventions.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Extraordinarily—this will be news to members of the Scottish nationalist party—it is possible in the Conservative Party for us to have honest differences of view. That is something that never happens in the SNP, because it is simply not allowed. SNP members have to think what everybody is told by the hierarchy or the high command of the nationalist Government. That is not how the Conservative Party is, and I am very proud of that fact.

There are so many positive aspects of the bill, including regulations on voter ID, improvements to accessibility for disabled voters and the empowering of British citizens who live overseas. However, all the areas that are devolved will remain devolved. I really do not know why the minister is getting so excited. It is my belief that the changes that the UK Government is proposing for UK general elections will strengthen British democracy.

In 2014, in a report entitled “Electoral fraud in the UK: Final report and recommendations”, the Electoral Commission concluded:

“based on the evidence we gathered during the review ... this risk”—

it was referring to the introduction of voter ID—

“can be managed and ... it is therefore right to make this change, for the sake of the benefits it will bring in terms of improving the security of the system.”

It noted:

“A similar requirement already exists in Northern Ireland, where ID to vote has been required since 2002, as well as in many other countries.”

That includes many other European countries. I would have thought that that alone would have sold the benefits to the SNP, which will follow anything that it thinks is being done in other European countries.

The Labour Party introduced voter ID requirements for Northern Ireland and, far from that dissuading people from voting in the 2003 general election, there was a higher turnout in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom. On that issue, Labour is scraping the barrel as well.

I am having so much fun that I have lost track of how much time I have left.

I can give you another minute, Mr Kerr.

There is lots more that I could say, but I am not going to be able to say it. In all honesty, I say to the members of the Scottish Parliament that the bill is reserved and deals with reserved matters about UK general elections. There is no power grab from the UK Government. The only power grab that we witness in the Parliament is in the antics of the SNP, which gradually draws all power to itself and dispenses it on the basis of grace and favour. That is not the way that a democracy works.

That is why I fully support the measures that are contained in the bill that is before the UK Parliament—which, I repeat, will strengthen, and increase the security of, our democracy, which is one of the oldest and most successful in the world, in one of the most successful unions between countries in the history of the world.

I move amendment S6M-03009.2, to leave out from “not to” to end and insert:

“that the relevant provisions of the UK Elections Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 5 July 2021, relating to various election improvements and modernisations, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.”

I call Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment S6M-03009.1—for around five minutes, Mr Bibby.

15:56  

That was a valiant effort from Stephen Kerr.

The word “disgrace” is often overused in politics, but there is no other word to describe the bill and the motivations behind it. I am afraid that it represents a Trumpian attempt to rig democracy in favour of the Conservative Party, which is desperately trying to cling on to power.

Stephen Kerr has said that the bill will strengthen our democracy, but it is an attack on fundamental democratic freedoms that is aimed at stifling opposition and deterring participation in the democratic process. Tory MSPs would not defend the indefensible in relation to Boris Johnson’s parties at Downing Street; Mr Kerr should not be defending the indefensible now.

I have been very public about my views on the first subject that Neil Bibby mentioned. I have broadcast them to pretty much the entire United Kingdom.

What is “Trumpian” about facilitating things so that all disabled people have a right to vote according to their needs? [Interruption.] What is Trumpian about reducing undue influence and political finance and notional expenditure in this country? What is Trumpian about disqualifying people who intimidate candidates—

That is enough, Mr Kerr.

It is Trumpian to suggest that there is wide-scale voter ID fraud in this country, when there is not. I asked Mr Kerr how many convictions there were for voter personation in the 2019 general election. The answer is one—out of 59 million electors. It is Trumpian to suggest that there is wide-scale voter fraud, when that was the number of convictions in 2019.

Presiding Officer, you are literally more likely to get struck by lightning three times than to be convicted for voter fraud in this country.

Will the member give way?

No. I think that we have had enough.

The bill is not about tackling voter fraud but about voter suppression. Voter fraud is a red herring—it is a non-problem.

I will add to Mr Bibby’s assertion. According to David Davis, 88 allegations of in-person voter fraud were made between 2015 and 2019, out of 153 million votes. That includes three separate general elections. I do not think that there is a problem of voter ID fraud.

I completely agree. The bill is about voter suppression, not tackling voter fraud.

For millions of people across the UK, voting is about to become a lot more difficult. About one quarter of voters have neither a passport nor a driving licence—in many cases, because they simply cannot afford one. They will either have to spend money that they do not have on applying for one, or know to apply for a voter ID card in advance.

Early trials in some areas led to hundreds of voters being turned away from polling stations. That should tell us to stop because, as the campaign group Hands Off Our Vote has said, when those moves are rolled out, millions of people risk being locked out of our democracy.

It cannot be just a coincidence that those who are most likely to fall foul of the new laws are, overwhelmingly, groups that are unlikely to vote Conservative. Cynically and brazenly, the bill will hit the young, people on low incomes and those from the most marginalised communities. The Electoral Reform Society has said that the plans could lead to

“disenfranchisement on a massive scale.”

Stephen Kerr talked about the impact on people with disabilities. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has told the Scottish Parliament that photo ID requirements would

“disproportionately and negatively affect blind and partially sighted people”.

We should be encouraging people to vote and to engage in democracy and public life.

I am confused about your position. Was not it your Government that introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland? Are you talking down Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish voters?

Speak through the chair, please, Ms Hamilton.

The context in Northern Ireland was completely different. That was part of the peace process in 2002.

The Conservatives normally talk about wasting taxpayers’ money, but people have rightly pointed out that voter ID measures are a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. A Cabinet Office assessment reveals that it will cost £120 million over 10 years. At the same time as the UK Government cannot find the money for a pay rise for nurses, or to fund services to tackle actual crime, it wants to spend £120 million on an unnecessary and undesirable voter ID scheme. The priority should be to spend money on public services.

The bill threatens the integrity of our democracy by allowing foreign political donations to flood our political system. The Conservatives are opening the back door to big-money donations from abroad, with overseas donors now being legally able to bankroll campaigns from offshore tax havens.

The bill will also, astonishingly, politicise the Electoral Commission, which is our independent democratic watchdog. That is an unprecedented move. The bill makes provisions for a power to

“designate a Strategy and Policy Statement”

for the Electoral Commission that will be drafted by the Government. The Electoral Commission is an independent overseer of our democracy; it is not for partisan ministers to direct its priorities; we have heard what the commission has told Parliament.

The bill is an attack on free and fair campaigning. Not only will it deter people from voting, it will, as the Labour amendment notes,

“undermine the ability of civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to engage and campaign in Scotland’s and the UK’s democracy”.

It infringes on the rights of working people to organise politically, and it represents a deliberate attempt to silence the trade unions that have a historical relationship with the Labour Party.

Remarkably, the bill gives the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to amend or remove the types of organisations that are allowed to campaign in elections across the UK. That is completely at odds with having a level playing field and with having free and fair elections.

Those issues are just the tip of the iceberg. The bill is shameful and shameless and is straight out of the United States Republican Party playbook. That is an apt comparison, because surely that country, above all others, has in recent years taught us most about the dangers of complacency in relation to the fundamentals of democracy.

You need to conclude, Mr Bibby.

For people who might be tempted to say that we opponents of the bill are exaggerating or being hysterical, and that democracy in this country is safe and secure, I invite them to look across the Atlantic Ocean to see what happens when a political party starts to undermine the rules of the game and to abuse its power in order to try to rig democracy.

I move amendment S6M-03009.1, to insert at end:

“; believes that the Bill will undermine the ability of civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to engage and campaign in Scotland’s and the UK’s democracy, and regards the Bill as a costly and dangerous attempt by the UK Conservative administration to manipulate democracy in its favour.”

I am afraid that what time we had available has been exhausted, so interventions will need to be accommodated in speeches.

16:03  

I rise to support the Government motion and the Labour amendment, and to oppose the UK Government’s Elections Bill, and I will tell you for why, Presiding Officer.

Mary Wollstonecraft, one of the most influential political thinkers that our islands have produced, famously argued for universal suffrage because of the simple fact that it gives us power over ourselves. Democracy gives each and every one of us power over our lives, our communities and our country. For that reason, it must be protected at all costs. That is why Liberal Democrats across the United Kingdom are horrified by the implications of the Elections Bill for our country.

At the last general election, more than 2.5 million Scots turned out to vote. They did so to send politicians to represent their interests in a Parliament that houses the representatives and ideas of our four nations. That practice is being put in great jeopardy by the bill.

The particularly startling measure that I will focus on first is voter identification. It is being introduced despite, as we have heard several times, there being manifestly low levels of voter fraud: there were only six cases at the last general election.

A driving licence costs £34 to obtain, a passport will set you back £75 and people will come up against additional accessibility barriers. International research has shown that photo ID requirements disadvantage marginalised groups. Graham Simpson today asked a topical question about the difficulties that people have had in obtaining bus passes due to photo ID requirements. Those are precisely the groups that, historically, have been continually marginalised and pushed away from the democratic process. It could cost up to £18 million to place further exclusions on our democratic system.

We have heard a lot about Republican politics in America, and rightly so. The inspirational Stacey Abrams said of Republican politics:

“Voter suppression works its might by first tripping and causing to stumble the unwanted voter, then by convincing those who see the obstacle course to forfeit the race without even starting to run.”

We have to call the approach what it is: it is nothing less than voter suppression.

At the heart of Liberal ideology is the belief in unfettered free speech and democracy. That is why my colleagues in Westminster have been tirelessly fighting to expand the reach of democracy—not to restrict it, as the bill will do. They have voted against the bill at every turn.

Alongside that, Liberals in Westminster have fought campaigns to broaden the scope of proportional representation, to defend the Electoral Commission and to preserve the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

The main focus of the debate is, quite rightly, the Orwellian nature of the bill. However, we should also look at the inner workings of our democracy in Scotland. After all, no institution is perfect. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have for a while noted with concern that there is no process at Holyrood for the recall of an elected representative when that is appropriate. I take a moment to reiterate our call for the introduction of a recall system here. Moreover, my party has campaigned for a new contempt of Parliament rule, to ensure that Holyrood has the final say in the business of this Parliament.

Democracy, once it has been introduced in a country, does not become a permanent feature; it is an active process that requires continual growth, enfranchisement and protection. That is why Scottish Liberal Democrats stress the need to strengthen the links between local government and Holyrood, so that democratically elected councils can properly implement the decisions that their local communities elect them to take.

Democracy should never be taken for granted. People around the world, particularly women and members of marginalised groups, have fought and died for it, and continue to do so. As the bill makes blisteringly clear, we still have a fight for our democracy on our hands. Although the bill might not have a direct impact on this Parliament and this building, it will directly impact on our constituents and the votes that they cast in the next general election.

The UK Elections Bill represents an existential threat to our democratic system. We need to offer solidarity to, and to work hard with, our neighbours across the United Kingdom to ensure that our democratic institutions, here and in the rest of the UK, remain uninhibited and far reaching. That is the cornerstone of our society.

Before we move to the open debate, I remind all members who want to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons.

Bob Doris joins us remotely.

16:07  

Let me start where there is agreement. Various aspects of devolved competence on elections might need revision, including clarification in law of what constitutes undue influence on voters, notional expenditure in relation to the application of the rules on campaign expenditure at devolved elections, regulation of expenditure for political purposes and disqualification of offenders from holding elected office. The Scottish Government and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am deputy convener, agree on that.

The UK Government sought consent to address those matters within a Westminster bill that is, in other areas, highly controversial and should be rejected.

The majority position of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is that reforms should be agreed and implemented by Scotland’s Parliament, and consulted on by the Scottish Government, with a view to introducing Scottish legislation that takes account of that consultation. The committee agrees that the Scottish Government should not recommend legislative consent.

A dark shadow looms over the UK Elections Bill. That shadow is the intention to bring in photographic voter ID for voters in UK elections. I acknowledge that, under the current constitutional arrangements, that is wholly a matter for the UK Government. However, the ramifications for voters in Scottish elections might be significant and cannot be ignored by Scotland’s Parliament.

A policy to bring in voter ID suggests that electoral fraud is widespread in UK elections. However, research has shown that only 0.7 per cent of poll workers were concerned that there might have been electoral fraud at their polling stations—indeed, the issue was often confusion rather than actual fraud.

The case for reform has not been made and the result of voter ID pilots leads me to believe that a consequence—intentional or otherwise—of the approach would be voter suppression. Dr Alistair Clark, who is a reader in politics at Newcastle University, identified evidence from the pilots that showed that, in some areas, more than 30 per cent of voters who went to vote but were turned away did not return with their ID: they did not come back. In the pilots, 52.4 per cent of poll workers reported turning voters away because they did not have appropriate identification. More than 23 per cent of poll workers encountered people who came to the polling station but decided simply not to vote because they did not want to comply with voter ID verification requirements.

Voter ID for UK elections will be a barrier to groups that already experience barriers to voting and are least likely to vote in the first place. I will mention just four such groups: many disabled people, people from black and minority ethnic groups, younger voters and voters from our most deprived communities. The introduction of voter ID will be wholly counterproductive to our efforts to encourage people who do not vote to do so, and to encourage those who are not even registered to vote—many of whom are our most excluded citizens—to take the first step in engaging with the democratic process.

There should be no doubt that the bill will have an impact on devolved elections. It will cause unwelcome confusion and will alienate many voters. Many voters might be deterred from registering to vote and from casting their vote in devolved elections. The UK Government’s voter ID reforms have a whiff of voter disenfranchisement—deliberate or otherwise—about them. Our Parliament should have no association with a bill that is designed to deliver such disenfranchisement, so I support the Scottish Government’s rejection of the bill.

16:11  

Contrary to a lot of the nonsense that we have heard in the chamber over the past half an hour, this debate is about a fairly modest piece of Westminster legislation—the Elections Bill—which is being utilised by the SNP to, once again, make a grievance out of everything that happens in the House of Commons.

The bill proposes a number of sensible improvements and modifications to the law around elections. It is curious that the Scottish Government, in refusing to give legislative consent, is objecting to changes relating to digital imprints. All that the bill does is propose a new UK-wide approach. I really struggle to see why the Scottish Government thinks that the whole bill should be defeated on the basis that there should be a distinct Scottish approach on digital imprints, given that we fight elections on a UK basis.

The issue of digital imprints is really just a fig leaf for the Scottish Government’s objection to other issues that are properly reserved to Westminster. For example, the bill will change the law for overseas voters by removing the arbitrary 15-year limit on voting rights. It will allow expatriate British citizens who live elsewhere to vote in British parliamentary elections as long as they retain their citizenship. All that that does is bring Britain into line with other countries including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, India and the United States. Indeed, out of the 115 countries in the world that allow overseas voting, two thirds allow all their citizens who live overseas to vote. All that the bill does is bring Great Britain into line with mainstream democratic practice.

As we have heard, it is fair to say that the most contentious part of the bill is the need for identification to be produced at polling stations. One of the great positives of living in the United Kingdom is that, apart from in wartime, we have never had a requirement for citizens to prove their identity, so we can all walk down the street knowing that we do not have to carry identification to prove who we are. We cannot be stopped by agents of the state and asked to prove our identity. I think that, as a country, we are unique in Europe in allowing that freedom, which should rightly be cherished.

However, there are a range of transactions in which we, as citizens, are asked to prove our identity. It has always struck me as anomalous that we can exercise our right to vote for our political representatives and to elect a Government—which is one of the most important responsibilities and privileges that we have as citizens—without being asked to prove our identity at all. Currently, any person can turn up at a polling station, claim to be a particular individual and be handed a ballot paper, which they can then complete without any checks whatsoever as to their identity.

This is a very pleasant fiction that Murdo Fraser is casting about our democracy, but is he not aware that, if someone does not have their polling card, they will be required to produce ID at a polling station and that there are means of identifying who is voting and who is not?

That is absolute nonsense. I have attended many polling stations over the years, with and without polling cards, and not once have I been asked to produce ID. Indeed, I have seen many other people simply turn up, give their name and address and be handed a voting slip. The risk to the person who might intend to vote fraudulently is very small, because it involves only the possibility that the polling clerk might personally know the person whose name is given and realise that the person in front of them is not entitled to receive their ballot paper. Therefore, asking people to prove their identity at polling stations seems an entirely sensible and reasonable provision to help to avoid fraud.

Earlier, Neil Bibby raised the issue of the scale of fraud in voting. The problem is that we have no idea what the scale of fraud is, and it is almost impossible to calculate what the scale of fraud might be. It is highly unlikely that an individual who has not voted in an election will take the time to check the marked register afterwards to see whether a vote has been cast in their name, and an individual or any political group might quite easily find out who on the voting register might be away or indisposed at the time of an election, or who might never vote, and try to fraudulently exercise those individuals’ votes in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election.

Could you bring your remarks to a close, please?

When voter ID requirements were introduced in Northern Ireland, in 2013, there was no negative impact on the turnout for elections there.

There is nothing at all wrong with this bill. We are simply witnessing yet another grievance from the SNP Government.

I remind members that we do not have any time in hand. Therefore, if members accept interventions, which is entirely up to them, they must accommodate that time in their own speeches.

16:16  

When we think of the cornerstones of democracy, a few things come to mind. In the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the concept is projected in the statement:

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”

In a free and fair society, it is the will of the people that prevails, and it is the will of the people that the UK Elections Bill seeks to undermine.

In September 2021, a report that was published by the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights raised concerns about the introduction of voter ID. The committee stated:

“The Government must explain why they have concluded that a voter ID requirement at polling stations is necessary and proportionate given (i) the low number of reported cases of fraud at polling stations, (ii) the even lower number of convictions and cautions; (iii) the potential for the requirement to discriminate against certain groups; and (iv) the lack of any clear measures to combat potential discrimination faced by those groups, including disabled people and older people.”

I, too, am eagerly awaiting that explanation, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument that the proposals are, in fact, necessary and proportionate.

In a small number of pilots that were carried out at local elections in 2018 and 2019, more than 1,000 people were turned away for not having the right ID and subsequently did not come back.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am afraid that I do not have time. I am going to plough through.

It does not take much to imagine how those numbers would soar if we were to scale up that approach in a local election. In fact, the Electoral Reform Society, citing the UK Government’s own statistics, says that 38 per cent of Asian voters, 31 per cent of people with mixed ethnicity and 48 per cent of black citizens do not currently hold any form of photo ID. Research that was carried out by the Cabinet Office found that it was also more common for respondents with disabilities to say that a requirement for photo ID would make them less likely to vote.

The information that I have given should be enough on its own to ensure that any person who is even remotely interested in preserving democracy and democratic integrity should denounce this bill for what it is: a tool of voter suppression that is guaranteed to affect the most marginalised communities in our society and, perhaps, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, the most bizarre case yet of Trumpian mimicry by the Conservatives.

I share the concerns that have been expressed by my friend in the Welsh Senedd, Rhys ab Owen. We have issued a joint statement setting out those concerns, and we would like to thank the #HandsOffOurVote campaign for its support in this area.

We have seen examples of measures to increase electoral participation such as extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds as well as to foreign nationals. Scotland has also introduced a fairer electoral system for local elections via the adoption of the single transferable vote. However, the Elections Bill signifies that the Tories would prefer to move in the opposite direction and force increased use of the already problematic first-past-the-post system, threaten the independence of the Electoral Commission and disenfranchise even more voters along the way.

In conclusion, one thing is clear in all of this: Westminster is not working for anyone right now. Amidst the shambolic display of disdain for the electorate that is currently being evidenced, the UK Government’s insistence on pursuing an authoritarian and hostile agenda poses the greatest risk of all to our most basic freedoms. As the human rights activist Loung Ung declared:

“Voting is not only our right—it is our power.”

We cannot let that power slip through our fingers.

16:21  

Today’s debate is crucial in showing that the Parliament does not support the UK Government’s proposed changes to make elections less accessible and, quite simply, less fair. I hope that, today, the parties in this Parliament will—with one notable exception—unite and agree with the views that have already been supported by parliamentarians in the Welsh Parliament, who debated the issue last week. With the exception of the Welsh Tories, the parties in Wales united to condemn the UK Elections Bill and make it clear that no legitimate voter should be turned away from the ballot box. I hope that that view is supported by everybody across the chamber—apart from, sadly, the Scottish Tories, who continue to take their orders from the Johnson Government.

There is a deep hypocrisy in the Scottish Tory party today. It is supporting backward moves to introduce voter ID, and the real aim of that is to rig elections.

The UK Government’s bill is nothing short of a shameful attempt to undermine democracy and further alienate those who are most difficult to reach to engage in our country’s politics. Surely anyone who believes in the basic principles of democracy could not support moves that will make it more difficult for people to vote. It is a sad state of affairs that highlights how low politics has sunk in this country that we are having to debate the question of moves that equate to voter suppression.

I find it shocking that the Tories have come here today and have basically told the Scottish Parliament that it should simply listen to what it is told by the UK Parliament. It is clear that the Tory party has no respect for the people of Scotland or the views of its elected Parliament. Perhaps that is why the Tories are also bringing forward the voter ID rules—they simply do not trust democracy.

Murdo Fraser rose—

I am sorry—I have four minutes.

That said, perhaps the Tories should listen to the view of one of their colleagues from the UK Parliament. David Davis MP said that voter ID is

“an illiberal solution in pursuit of a non-existent problem”

and

“yet another unnecessary ID card approach from the government”.

I agree with David Davis on that—and there is more. Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative Attorney General, has said:

“these new rules threaten to create a two tier electorate and discourage participation by the least advantaged.”

The Tories might also want to listen to the view of the Electoral Reform Society, which has said that the UK Government’s plans to spend millions of pounds on banning people who do not have ID from voting are nothing more than an “expensive distraction”.

Data from the Electoral Commission demonstrates that, in 2019, only one individual was convicted for using someone else’s vote at a polling station. On top of that, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has previously warned that voter ID requirements will have a disproportionate impact on older people, people with disabilities and those from ethnic minority communities.

I fully believe that all elections should be open and accessible and that measures should not be in place to disenfranchise groups of voters. In this country, we have a long-standing history of democracy. I will not support moves by the Tories to undermine our democracy for their own political gain, and I warn them that the people of Scotland will not support such moves when they realise what is intended.

16:25  

I am delighted to speak in the debate. I was fortunate to be a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee when it considered the bill in detail.

The UK Elections Bill is first and foremost an attack on democracy by the UK Government—the UK Tory Government whose own Scottish party wants to change its own Prime Minister because it does not think that he has the moral authority to lead the UK. Belief in our democratic processes is of key importance to the governance of a healthy democracy.

In my short speech, I will focus on what I see as the main issue. There is no need for legislation on voter ID. Surely the need for any legislation should be evidence based, so let us look at that. Cases of voter fraud are almost non-existent, with just one conviction—that is one—and one caution being dealt out for personation offences at elections that were held in 2019.

Is the bill a tactic by Tories to secure their vote while shutting out citizens—particularly marginalised groups—from contributing to our democracy? Age UK has said that 500,000 older citizens would not vote if the scheme was introduced, and similar fears of disenfranchisement have been expressed by black, Asian and minority ethnic groups and disability groups.

It is estimated that between 2 and 4 per cent of the UK population do not have ID that would be suitable for the voting requirements under the bill, which represents 2.1 million people. Black and ethnic minority voters will be hugely affected by the plans; 48 per cent of black people in the UK do not hold a form of photo ID.

The bill is a serious threat to our efforts to build an open, inclusive and diverse democracy. At its heart, our democracy should make the voting process as easy as possible, but voter ID fundamentally makes the process harder.

In evidence sessions, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard from various groups about accessibility issues. Numerous disability advocacy groups spoke strongly against the principle of voter ID and talked about how it would impact on disabled voters, who already find the process difficult. Other evidence was about the need to focus on how we reach areas that have a high level of deprivation.

We need to undertake and support initiatives that encourage people to vote. That is not just a personal view of mine. On 13 December last year, the UK Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said:

“The introduction of the voter ID requirement will remove an element of the trust inherent in the current system between state and individual, and make it more difficult to vote. We are concerned that the evidence to support the voter ID requirement simply is not good enough.”

This Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee noted:

“There was significant concern among Committee members that there could be up to 150,000-200,000 voters in Scotland”

alone

“without the forms of identification that the Bill proposes would be required ... to cast a vote. The Committee is concerned that this will mainly affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds or disabled people and could act as an additional barrier to those voters.”

Proposed changes on voter ID and postal votes for reserved elections will also cause widespread confusion for Scottish voters. There is a danger that inconsistency between reserved and devolved elections on voter ID rules might impose even greater stress, confusion and cost on voters. Further confusion will be caused by the need for postal voters in UK Parliament elections to reapply every three years, whereas the requirement to reapply is only every five years in Scotland. The Scottish Government could face pressure to align the devolved voting system to match the reserved system, which would represent indirect interference in devolved elections by the UK Government.

Today, the whole Scottish Parliament—except the Tories—is against the bill. The move to voter ID is counterproductive and a barrier to a vibrant democracy and it should be resisted.

16:28  

Elections are one of the cornerstones of our democracy. None of us would be here in this place without them. They are not the only thing that matters for this Parliament or any other Parliament, but that is not what we are here to discuss. We are talking about the UK Elections Bill, which, as others have said, is complex and controversial and is certainly not something that we can or should support.

This piece of flagship Tory legislation will introduce voter ID in general elections, grant British citizens who live overseas the right to vote and make a number of other changes to the way in which elections are run. It runs utterly counter to the direction of travel of Scottish legislation on electoral reform. Here, we are working to make the Scottish franchise as inclusive as possible and enabling as many people as possible to exercise their right to have a say in how they are governed. At Westminster, the Conservatives want to exclude more people from having a say in who runs the country in which they live.

I have serious equalities and human rights concerns about the bill. Most significantly, the voter ID requirements for UK Parliament elections will apply in Scotland. As Neil Bibby clearly stated, approved forms of photo ID currently all carry a cost. That is restrictive, not enabling. Yes, a free electoral identity card will be available on application from local electoral registration offices, but that is another hurdle to participation for many people—mostly those who are already vulnerable or marginalised and excluded from voting.

We know that, already, people who are eligible to vote are not always able to exercise their right because of current registration processes, so why put another barrier in the way? One answer to that is, perhaps, that the UK Government knows that the people who will be excluded because of those measures are unlikely to vote for the Conservatives. It is voter suppression, as we have heard.

We have also heard that electoral fraud is very low in the UK. There were only 164 cases, with one conviction, in the 2019 general election. With such low rates, it is unclear what else the driver might be.

Earlier, George Adam quoted Ruth Davidson. I will use more of that quotation. Last year, she said:

“I think it’s total bollocks and I think it’s trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”.

I extend my solidarity to polling station staff who will, if the measure is introduced, have to deal with checking voter ID documents. That is not a job that many of us would relish, I am sure.

I am of the view that people who live here should have a say about how they are governed, which is in line with our commitment to a residence-based franchise, rather than a citizenship-based franchise. Why should people who have chosen to leave the UK and make their lives elsewhere continue to have more say in what happens here than those who live and work in the country?

Members have highlighted several other concerns with the bill, such as postal vote changes and digital imprint changes, so my last point relates to the independence of the Electoral Commission. To quote the commission’s own words on the bill:

“The existence of an independent regulator is fundamental to maintaining confidence in our electoral system. This is particularly important when the laws that govern elections are made by a small subset of the parties that stand in elections. The Commission’s independence must be clear for voters and campaigners to see. As currently drafted, the provisions in Part 3 are not consistent with the Electoral Commission operating as an independent regulator.”

We cannot endorse the bill. We must stand firm in the face of a UK Government that is determined to ignore us, our Parliament and our wishes. We must withhold legislative consent.

I call Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by Stephanie Callaghan. Given the fact that the debate has been truncated, Stephanie Callaghan will be the last speaker in the open debate.

16:33  

Without a doubt, we need to build more confidence among the electorate that elections are carried out with the highest levels of transparency and are safeguarded against voter fraud. I disagree with Labour’s point. I disagree with Neil Bibby on the point that there was only one incident of voter fraud. I say to him that that is one incident too many.

The Elections Bill puts voters at the heart—[Interruption.] I am not sure why members find that funny. It is about safeguarding against electoral fraud.

The Elections Bill puts voters at the heart of Britain’s democracy by supporting them to make free and informed choices at elections. We all know that. I cannot see why the SNP would object to bringing the UK into line with other countries that do the same. An important part of that is ensuring that electoral services—be they registering to vote, applying for an absent vote or applying for a voter card—are as convenient and accessible as possible.

Rachael Hamilton talks about stamping out electoral fraud. How many cases of electoral fraud should we stamp out by disenfranchising many dozens more people who will be inhibited, deterred or stopped from registering to vote because of some of the barriers to access that her party intends to introduce?

What alternative methods does Alex Cole-Hamilton suggest to stamp out voter fraud in, for example, Edinburgh North and Leith? To address his point, the UK Government is committed to increasing participation in democracy and empowering all those who are eligible to vote to do so in a secure, efficient and effective way.

In the short time that I have today, I will briefly touch on voter identification and fraud prevention. On voter ID, back in 2016, Sir Eric Pickles undertook an independent review of electoral fraud. His final report includes recommendations about how the Government can prevent such crimes in the UK, one of which was the introduction of photo ID. If we look at the statistics, we see that around 98 per cent of people who are eligible to vote hold some form of photo ID, which is a stat that the SNP and Labour cannot deny.

As we all know, voters in Northern Ireland already provide an approved piece of photo ID before receiving a ballot paper, a measure that was first introduced by the Labour Government in 2003. The Electoral Commission has said:

“Since the introduction of photo ID in Northern Ireland there have been no reported cases of personation. Voters’ confidence that elections are well-run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations.”

As my colleague Stephen Kerr said, the requirement is not unusual, and many other countries across Europe already implement a similar policy. Therefore, I am surprised that the SNP is not jumping on the European Union bandwagon. The majority of EU countries require voters to produce ID at the polling station, which is a point on which the SNP must surely reflect.

With regard to the concerns of a few members in the chamber about individuals who currently do not hold a photo ID, it has been established that the bill provides that the cost of obtaining an ID will be covered, and the bill amends the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow for that. Therefore, to prevent people without photo ID from losing their right to vote, local authorities will provide that photo ID.

We must also address the significant concern of voting fraud, with postal voting fraud remaining a greater concern to voters than polling station fraud. The Electoral Commission’s winter tracker is an annual UK-wide survey that is designed to provide an overview of public sentiment towards the process of voting and democracy in the UK. Overall, more than 90 per cent of those surveyed thought that polling stations were very or fairly safe from voter fraud. However, the equivalent figure for postal voting was just 68 per cent, and 21 per cent thought that postal voting was not safe from fraud. That is a significant point.

I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer. Do I have extra time?

You should probably bring your remarks to a close, Ms Hamilton.

To conclude, the bill is about giving confidence to the electorate that fraud is being kept to a minimum. I support the amendment in my party’s name.

16:38  

I add my thanks to my colleague George Adam for securing this important Scottish Government debate.

Despite the stark divide between my politics and those of the Conservative Party, I have always thought that we share a universal bond when it comes to upholding the fundamental right to vote. However, with the passage of the UK Elections Bill through the House of Commons, even that last bastion of consensus has been irrevocably undermined.

Across the world, throughout the modern age, people have fought, and even died, for the right to vote. As a young student in Hamilton, I door knocked on local streets to persuade people to register to vote. I am truly saddened by the attempt to reverse many years of hard-fought democratic progress. Such progress was demonstrated here in Scotland when we extended the election franchise to 16 and 17-years-olds and to refugees. The UK Elections BiIl undermines Scotland’s progress of democracy by seeking to suppress votes and reduce the franchise to address a problem that, as many others have said, does not really exist.

As other members have pointed out, in 2019, there was only one conviction and one caution relating to proven voter fraud, but the bill risks disenfranchising millions of voters, including people with disabilities and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as younger and older voters. It is nothing short of disgusting.

Many such points have been repeated, but they are very important, such as Age UK stating that 500,000 older citizens would not vote or the fact that up to 2.1 million people are without suitable ID. It is shameful that the digitally excluded, the vulnerable and many of those who are already living on the very edges of our society should be marginalised further. Yes, some things need attention when it comes to conducting UK elections, but one of those things should not be to exclude voters.

If the Tories were truly serious about wanting to improve our voting system, why do they not look at ways to ensure that the 9 million people who are currently missing from the electoral roll in the UK are brought into the democratic process? If they wish to protect our democracy, why do they not propose banning anonymous political party donations and investigating dark money? Why not implement the findings of the 2020 Russia report?

It is noted in the motion, and it has been mentioned many times, that the bill would give UK ministers new powers over the work of the Electoral Commission, risking the independence of the election watchdog at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low. That is far from okay, for all the reasons that others have mentioned.

As with others, my concerns about the bill are heightened by the wider legislative agenda that the UK Government is pursuing. Its agenda is on a collision course with a whole series of democratic freedoms, from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill to proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems as though the Tories are attempting a full frontal assault on our democracy while we are distracted by the hypocrisy and lies that are coming from all the partying in Downing Street. However, that is not going unnoticed.

The UK Elections Bill is horrific. It is a serious attack on our democratic traditions. I fully support the Scottish Government’s motion and the Labour amendment. It saddens me that any member in this chamber should wish the Scottish Parliament to consent to such flawed legislation. The constituents we represent, particularly those who are directly impacted by the discredited Elections Bill, are counting on us to protect their voting rights and they are counting on us to resist this retrograde legislation. We in this chamber should not let them down.

16:42  

It is a pleasure to close for Labour and, with my other hat on, as the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. It is a great pleasure to follow Stephanie Callaghan’s speech. I reiterate her point about the risk of marginalising further those who exist at the edge of our society—the very people who need this place, the very people who need Westminster and the very people who are at risk of being excluded.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s motion, particularly the confirmation that a consultation on electoral reforms will start at the end of this year, which I hope will see legislation come before this place towards the end of the parliamentary session.

I am grateful to my committee for its report on the LCM for the Elections Bill. Given the nature of this debate, I urge everyone within and outwith the Parliament to read the report, because it deals in detail with a complex piece of legislation that, at times, strays across the devolved authorities but also deals with reserved matters.

I would like to deal with two aspects of that. The first relates to the introduction of a strategy and policy statement and the Electoral Commission’s duty in that regard. Representatives of the commission who came before the committee talked about the risk that that poses not only to the genuine independence of the commission, but—this is perhaps more frightening—to the view that those outwith might hold as to the independence of the commission. It is vital that the organisation that monitors and oversees elections sits outwith the political parties and the Executive, in order to reassure people who might be disappointed with an election result that it was fair.

One aspect of the strategy and policy statement relates to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and, indeed, on the make-up of that Westminster committee. This is a tiny, nerdy point, but I find the fact that there is an attempt to alter the make-up of that committee extremely concerning. The change is hidden in the bill, and to a number of people who have looked at it, including those from whom the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard evidence, it is of great concern.

The other aspect relates to the consultative nature of bodies in Scotland. The Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020

“transferred financial responsibility from Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.”

There is a question about how relevantly and frequently the SPCB is consulted, and my personal view is that it is important that the SPCB has a role in that, because of its overriding role with regard to the financial aspects of Scottish elections.

The second point that I want to raise, in the short time that I have, relates to digital imprints—the phrases that are stamped on electronic advertising, comments and quotes to point out where they originate from. The bill proposes that the imprint should exist at all times, rather than just during election periods. That is dealt with in the committee’s report, which I urge people to read, but there is a serious question about why that matter is included in the bill. The power to take something down from the internet is reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but the power to deal with imprints is devolved. There is, indeed, Scottish legislation to deal with imprints in election periods. It would be beneficial for people at Westminster to look with more clarity at what is, and is not, devolved.

Finally, as we have heard from the deputy convener, the committee was in agreement with the proposal. However, some members of the committee dissented from the agreement. That information is contained in the report, and I urge people to read it. On the substance of what we have heard today, the bill is an appalling piece of legislation and it needs to be looked at again.

16:46  

At the heart of the debate is the matter of our electoral democracy and of ensuring that we not only maintain its integrity but look at ways in which we can continually enhance it. That is important—the bill is about making improvements. In my view, the bill does that in a number of ways, some of which have already been outlined.

The bill puts voters at the heart of our democracy by supporting them to make free and informed choices at elections. That will strengthen the delivery of UK Parliament general elections. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the SNP has decided to oppose the bill and refuse consent. We are used to its manufacturing artificial rows with the UK Government and its opposing legislative consent, but some of the arguments that have been made against the bill are tenuous, to say the least. I hope to address some of them.

I believe that the provisions to introduce voter identification will reduce voter fraud. As many members have said, occurrences of voter fraud are rare, but they are hard to detect, they do exist and they are dangerous. A low conviction rate does not indicate the absence of a problem. That statement should not be controversial in this Parliament. We have seen instances of voter fraud—for example, in the recent Scottish parliamentary election in the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. That is in large part due to the fact that the existing test of giving your name and address at the polling station is inadequate and antiquated.

Far from seeking to disenfranchise voters, as some people have argued, the changes that the bill will bring in are commonplace in many countries around the world. We have heard many expressions today, including “Trumpian”, “Orwellian”, “voter suppression”, “rigging elections”, “power grab” and “attack on democracy”. Frankly, those expressions demean the members who used them. The bill removes restrictions on people’s ability to act as a companion to a disabled voter at a polling station; it requires local returning officers to provide support for a wider range of needs; and, as Murdo Fraser said, it brings in rules about overseas voting, bringing the UK into line with international practice. To describe it as disenfranchisement is absurd.

On voter ID, according to IFF Research, around 98 per cent of the adult population have access to an eligible form of ID. Among young people, who were mentioned by Neil Bibby, 99 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds have access to ID. And the bill will require local authorities to provide photo ID free of charge. It states:

“No charge may be made for the issue of an electoral identity document.”

Everyone who is able to vote will, of course, still be able to vote under the provisions of the bill.

In 2018 and 2019, the Government undertook pilot studies on the issue, which showed thousands of voters getting turned away, so Donald Cameron’s assertion does not stand up to scrutiny.

I do not accept that at all. To describe this as disenfranchisement is ridiculous. Those are the facts, and Neil Bibby should not be content to scaremonger through what he has suggested.

There is no little irony in the position of members on the SNP benches. They are so enthusiastic about vaccination passports, in which we show not just our ID but personal medical information, yet so unenthusiastic about voter ID. Perhaps they should reflect on that.

There are other measures in the bill that deserve mention. There are new measures to crack down on intimidation tactics that are used against campaigners and candidates at election time. I am sure that all members in the chamber and people elsewhere will have heard stories about or have had experience of that. That impacts everyone—activists of all political stripes. It is right that action is taken not only to deter people who might carry out acts of intimidation but to ensure that they are unable to be part of our important democratic process.

I want to address the concern about the independence of the Electoral Commission that was raised in Martin Whitfield’s speech, which was a rare glimmer of light in a rather depressing debate. We believe that the Electoral Commission plays an important and impartial role in overseeing our democratic process, and the bill seeks to increase the commission’s accountability to Parliament—as is already the case for other Government bodies—rather than to decrease it.

Will Donald Cameron give way?

I do not have time. I have three seconds left.

The strategy and policy statement will be produced in consultation with not only the commission but the devolved Administrations, and it will be approved by the Parliament.

This bill will enhance our democracy and ensure that elections are more robust. On voter ID, it will bring us into line with many other countries that already require people to present ID in order to reduce fraud. On improving the accountability of the commission, the bill will ensure that it receives a similar level of scrutiny to that of other public bodies. It seeks to deter people who wish to attack our democracy, and it is a proportionate attempt to address various issues that have been left unchanged for far too long.

16:52  

Where to start, Presiding Officer, with everything that we have heard in the chamber today?

I have known Donald Cameron since he entered Parliament in 2016. He is a decent person, but he has to understand that it is not only SNP members and the Scottish Government who are saying these things; it is the whole chamber, across the parties—everyone bar the Conservatives. If someone was to take a cold, hard look at the issue, they would have to ask why, in the times in which we live, every single political party bar the Conservatives was agreed on the issue. It is logical to say that the bill is an attack on devolution and on what we have all stood for over all these years.

Let us all remember that it is for the Scottish Parliament to decide how we address devolved elections. If something comes out from our consultation on Scottish Parliament elections, which we will undertake later on this year, we will look at that for future election bills.

Will the minister give way?

I have a few points to make before I go any further.

The issue of voter ID has—rightly—taken up the vast bulk of the debate, because the bill will result in a type of voter suppression, as Neil Bibby said. Someone who had voted at the same polling station for 30 years would turn up there for Scottish Parliament and local elections to find a completely different process from that of a Westminster election held at the same polling station. Let us not forget that the UK Government has still not told us when the UK election would be—it might be close in time to one of ours.

On voter ID, let us talk about intimidation and suppression.

There would have been an issue on 6 May 2021, when there was an Airdrie and Shotts Westminster parliamentary by-election on the same day as the Scottish Parliament election. Voters would have needed ID for one election but not for the other.

Mr Bibby illustrates my point. That situation would cause total confusion for the electorate and even more difficulty for the administrators who would have to deal with it.

The UK Government is bringing in the might of the United Kingdom civil service to create a voter ID system in response to three people being tried in 2019, of whom only one was convicted—three were charged, and one was convicted. That seems a lot of bother to go to for one individual. That individual might be sitting at home, watching this debate and saying, “Job done! I have managed to spend millions of pounds of UK money.”

Although the bill is limited to UK elections, as I said, it risks causing chaos in devolved by-elections.

Let me get some myth busters across. On engagement with UK ministers, I acknowledge that UK Government ministers have kept us informed during the development of the bill, but setting out what they intend to do without any room for debate is not collaboration in any shape or form. The UK Government has a take-it-or-leave-it approach. The barely stated message is that the devolved Parliaments should adopt the changes to avoid voter confusion and administrative challenges. That is not what I believe negotiation to be.

On working across the UK, I am not opposed to developing common election approaches across the UK, where that will bring benefits for voters and the administrators. There was constructive work between the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments as part of preparations to hold elections safely last year.

I have had several helpful discussions with the Welsh minister responsible for elections policy. We agree on the bill. It is the UK Government that is creating difference and divergence and that is unilaterally making radical changes to electoral law and pressuring all of us to follow suit.

Will the minister accept an intervention on that point?

Yes. I was just about to talk about Mr Kerr.

What is radical about a digital imprint? The minister has lost all sense of proportion by working himself up into a rage about a digital imprint.

With his hyperbole and overstated points, Mr Kerr once again behaves as if he is at Westminster. We take a more common, normal approach in the Scottish Parliament.

Stephen Kerr told us in his opening speech to listen to the electorate. He also said that I was understating my ability to sell our position to the UK Government. The problem for Mr Kerr is that no one is listening to him, and they will not change their minds. He still has not said whether he agrees with Ruth Davidson, who said that this is an attempt to solve a problem that is not actually there.

Mr Bibby made a passionate speech—as we are competitors in Paisley, it is not often that either of us has said that about the other. He said that voter ID is voter suppression.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has members from both houses of the UK Parliament, said:

“Elections must be both secure and accessible ... Any discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to vote would fall foul of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights if there was no objective and reasonable justification for the measures imposed. Introducing a voter ID requirement would be a breach of article 14 as read with article 3 of protocol 1 unless it is both necessary and proportionate.”

Even Westminster committees have severe reservations about voter ID.

As I said, the SNP and Labour take the same position on this. I have worked with my Welsh colleague Mick Antoniw MS, the Welsh Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution. In a debate in the Senedd last week that was very similar to this one, he said:

“I have previously expressed my grave concerns about provisions in the UK Government’s Elections Bill which are a shameless attempt at voter suppression. Through the requirement for voter ID, the Conservative Party is brazenly seeking to limit participation in elections and to change the law for partisan advantage.”—[Record of Proceedings, Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament, 26 January 2022]

The Conservatives have managed to unite—with the exception of themselves—not just this Parliament, but the Welsh Parliament, where it has been said that the bill is an absolute attack on those who want to go out to vote. If the Conservative Party was being reasonable and showing common sense, it would surely say to us that it would look at the matter again.

Alex Cole-Hamilton explained much of the threat—

I ask the minister to conclude, please.

—that the bill represents to our democracy, given the provisions on voter ID.

This has been a good debate. It has shown that this Parliament has a voice and that it is shouting towards Westminster that we do not want anything to do with the UK Elections Bill. When it comes to changing votes for our elections, it will be this Parliament—this place—that decides.