The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.

In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 42A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division at stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letters RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Before section 2A

Group 1 is on disqualification. Amendment 34, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 35, 36, 3, 37, 5 and 6.

It is a pleasure to start off our deliberations on stage 3 amendments with this group, which contains three amendments of mine and some from Annie Wells and my new friend, Ross Greer. I am happy to support Mr Greer’s amendments and I look forward to hearing from Ms Wells about her amendments.

It is fair to say that my three amendments have attracted a good deal of attention. They aim to tackle the issue of dual mandates, which, as members know, is the practice of holding positions in the Commons, Lords or a council at the same time as holding positions in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is alone among the devolved legislatures in allowing that practice. It is high time that it ended.

I read the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s excellent stage 1 report, which mentioned dual mandates because the issue had come up during the committee’s evidence taking. The majority of submissions to the committee on the matter said that dual mandates should end.

During the stage 1 debate, I was clear that I would be looking at dual mandates at stage 2, and I also said that there are different views on the issue. However, I am certain that the vast majority of the public, along with most members of the Parliament, agree that we should ban so-called double jobbing.

The fact that we have not done so is an oversight that is hard to fathom. It is one of a number of legislative gaps, some of which I am attempting to fix with my member’s bill. Members will be pleased to know that my bill is due to be published tomorrow, along with screeds of accompanying documents that will keep them busy over Christmas.

I kept my word and, at stage 2, I submitted a series of amendments on dual mandates as they relate to MPs, members of the House of Lords and councillors. The minister then wrote to the committee saying that he wanted to consult on the issue but that there would likely be no legislation on it before 2026. I spoke during the stage 2 debate but tactically withdrew because, first, I was not going to win that day and, secondly, I knew that I might get another chance with a bit more thinking, discussion and persuasion, which is exactly what has happened.

We also have a certain MP to thank, who came out of the woodwork to say that he wanted to stand for this place and continue to be an MP. There may be others, too, and that spurred me into action again and told me that I was right to pursue the issue, so I lodged new amendments. That, and the furore over the said MP’s ambitions, have forced him to back down.

I am looking for the member’s view on this issue, although, obviously, if his amendments were to be agreed to, the decision would rest with ministers. Does he support the idea that the disqualification to be a member of the Parliament should apply at the point of nomination, or should it apply only if somebody is elected to this place? That would necessitate a by-election, with all the attendant costs. Which is his preference? Is it for people to be disqualified at the point of nomination or subsequent to election to the Parliament?

I encourage Mr Brown to read the amendments. They leave the details to regulations, and the minister will consult on those. It is not my intention to prevent anyone from standing for this place—I would never do that. If somebody wants to stand, let them stand and let them be elected. The details would be left to the regulations, which is clear in the amendments, as Mr Brown would see if he read them—I am sure that he has them in front of him while I am speaking.

To build on what Keith Brown has asked, what discussions did my colleague have with the minister about the expected timetable for any consultation? In my friend’s estimation, would the provisions play a part in the selection of candidates for the 2026 election?

The minister has been very clear on that. He gave a statement last week and set out his timetable, and I am sure that he will repeat that when he makes his contribution in this debate. I am not speaking for the minister—he can do that himself—but his intention is that the provisions will be in place for MPs and peers by the time of the 2026 election. I hope that that reassures my friend Mr Kerr.

The furore over said MP’s ambitions forced him to back down, and if all that has helped Audrey Nicoll, who is a lovely lady, I am delighted about that. I will not name the MP—he would probably like me to—but we all know who it is. My amendments are not about him or anyone else, but he has helped to shine a light on double jobbing, so he has done us a favour in a way, although it might not have felt that way to some.

I want to give some context to the debate on this group of amendments, so let me turn to what has gone before. I have said that Scotland is an outlier in not banning dual mandates. Let us first have a look at Northern Ireland. Dual mandates in the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly are prohibited by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014—a United Kingdom Parliament act—which provides that an MP who is elected as an MLA has eight days to resign from the House of Commons and that an MLA who is elected as an MP must resign immediately from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The act also explicitly prevents members of the legislative Assembly from becoming members of Parliament in Dublin.

The Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 prohibits councillors from being members of the Assembly, the House of Commons or the House of Lords or from being elected to any other legislature.

The banning of dual mandates in Northern Ireland followed increasing criticism of the practice in the aftermath of the 2009 MPs’ expenses scandal. That year, Sir Christopher Kelly published a report on MPs’ expenses and allowances, which recommended that the practice of holding dual mandates in the House of Commons and the devolved Parliaments should be brought to an end as soon as possible.

The Kelly report found that so-called double jobbing was most prevalent in Northern Ireland, where, in 2009, 16 out of the 18 Westminster MPs also sat in Stormont, and five of them were ministers. The report found that double jobbing was “unusually ingrained” there.

Graham Simpson has set out a very good case in relation to precedent elsewhere, but why has he limited the scope of his amendments to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and not looked at people with dual mandates in this legislature and other devolved legislatures or bodies such as the Greater London Assembly?

Mr Johnson makes a reasonable point. Perhaps that was an oversight on my part, but, for me, the main issue is people who want to sit in this Parliament while being an MP or in the House of Lords. The question of councillors is another matter, which I will come on to.

The Kelly report said:

“the Committee questions whether it is possible to sit in two ... legislatures simultaneously and do justice to both roles”.

David Cameron pledged to end dual mandates for Northern Ireland in the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto. That was framed as part of a broader objective to make devolution work and

“bring Northern Ireland back into the mainstream of UK politics.”

In Wales, dual mandates were banned under the Wales Act 2014, which ruled that any MP who is elected to the Senedd has eight days to resign from the House of Commons and that an AM who is elected as an MP must resign immediately from the Assembly. The Secretary of State for Wales justified the changes as a response to the increased workload of AMs following the devolution of powers in 2011. In a debate about Welsh Assembly elections in the House of Lords in June 2012, Baroness Morgan of Ely argued:

“it is difficult to serve two political institutions at the same time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 2012; Vol 737, c 131.]

I agree.

The Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 disqualified members of the House of Lords, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly or local authorities in Wales from being members of the Senedd, which is possibly the point that Mr Johnson was making.

Wales and Northern Ireland have legislation to prohibit double jobbing, but we do not have it here. Somehow, Scotland has escaped. It does not make sense.

Graham Simpson says that we have to put legislation in place in this Parliament. However, to really stop double jobbing by also stopping MSPs standing for Westminster, would Westminster also have to put legislation in place?

I stress to Mr Lumsden that I am not trying to prevent anyone from standing anywhere; the amendments would tackle the practice of continuing to serve in two places at the same time.

In this Parliament, there is a petition on the issue. The Electoral Reform Society Scotland wrote a submission on it, in which it said:

“we would like to see the legislation here brought into line with The Senedd ...

Having a full-time paid job in the Lords, Commons or Holyrood should be mutually exclusive, and we would advise against MSPs being allowed to hold a dual mandate. There are no clear advantages to voters or to the operation of democratic institutions and one big disadvantage—the capacity of an individual to fulfil the responsibilities of both roles.”

We have also seen support from none other than my other good friend Ivan McKee, who said:

“I think that double-jobbing—working as an MP and MSP—isn’t sustainable” .

The Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, told the Scottish Affairs Committee on 20 November this year that

“everyone sitting around this table will know how difficult it is to be a constituency MP, let alone have other responsibilities as well ... I would have thought that the Scottish Parliament may want to look at that.”

As I said, at stage 2, the Minister for Parliamentary Business said that he wanted time to consult on potential changes. That could have meant no legislation being in place until the 2031 elections—if at all. That may suit some people, but it is not acceptable to me, and we have the chance, with this bill, to act now.

Graham Simpson will of course recognise that I did not shy away from that fact. Indeed, I was explicitly clear with the committee in recognising that my preference for consultation at that stage would, if we had sought to legislate by the primary legislative route, have led to such a delay. I did not demur from or hide that fact at all.

I agree with that. I have to say, and I will probably repeat this later, that it has been a pleasure to work with the minister on this. I think that we have arrived at a sensible conclusion. If Parliament backs our joint position, that will be a good thing.

I originally lodged two stage 3 amendments dealing with MSPs who are also MPs and MSPs who are also peers. That was a belt-and-braces approach and, although those amendments would have attracted widespread support, I wanted to get the minister on board. Therefore, rather than go for the purist option, I came up with something more pragmatic.

I am asking Parliament to vote on the principle of dual mandates in relation to MPs and peers, with the details being left to regulations that the minister has agreed will be in place before the 2026 elections. I am sure that he will repeat that today. That is what amendments 34 and 35 do.

Amendment 36 says that the issue of whether councillors should be able to do both jobs can be dealt with in regulations if consultation shows that there is a case for that.

I am closing, Presiding Officer.

At the heart of the matter is the principle of whether someone should be able to serve here as well as in another legislative chamber. For me, the answer to that is no. This is not a cosy club; this is a Parliament, and we are here to serve the people. This is not a second-rate chamber to be used as a part-time hobby. This is a serious Parliament, and members should be fully focused on their work here. Being an MSP demands our full attention. It is a full-time job. We make laws for the people, and not to protect the vested interests of individuals or parties.

The amendments that I have lodged stand up for this Parliament and the standing that it should enjoy. Double jobbing should be consigned to history. David Cameron was clear that double jobbers

“haven’t got a leg to stand on.”

He legislated for Northern Ireland. Wales has legislation. We can legislate here, and we should do the right thing.

I move amendment 34.

I call Annie Wells to speak to amendment 3 and other amendments in the group.

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 am grateful to Annie Wells for giving way. Perhaps she will comment on whether she agrees with me that our constituents will be greatly confused by the idea that, given the kind of clearance that one has to go through with Disclosure Scotland to be involved in a youth club, for example, or any kind of role with children and young people, an MSP could be elected and enter this chamber without any kind of clearance at all. They might have the most lurid background or have the most unsuitable character to be an MSP, yet Annie Wells has been told that her amendments are against a convention on human rights. What about the human rights of the majority?

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.

I am grateful to Annie Wells for giving way and for raising the issue for debate. She will remember that, in the previous parliamentary session, in which we served together, I lodged amendments to previous bills on the protecting vulnerable groups scheme applying to elected members. That is still an unanswered question, and she is very eloquently putting the case for why it is an unanswered question.

The issue relates not only to grounds of sexual offence: a PVG search will always pick up things such as crimes of dishonesty, as well. In our privileged roles as members of Parliament, we sometimes deal with very vulnerable adults and, although we would seek to have safeguards to ensure that we are never alone in our constituency casework surgeries, that does not presuppose that everyone will always take those steps.

I have toyed and grappled with the amendments—amendment 37, in particular. I have one anxiety, which is that amendment 37 talks about sexual offence orders that have been disapplied. In many cases, it is absolutely right that we should know that information, but in a small number of cases the information applies to minors who, through repetition of abuse that has happened to them or through other acts that they have perpetrated as young people, have had a risk of sexual harm order or a sexual offence prevention order applied but have later had that disapplied when they attained majority, as is right, given that they would not want to have that hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives. I have some anxiety about that and ask the member to speak to that in the remainder of her remarks.

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.

I call Ross Greer to speak to amendment 5 and other amendments in the group.

I say at the outset that my contributions on future groups of amendments will be far shorter than this initial one.

I will begin where Annie Wells finished, by talking about my amendments 5 and 6, on aggravators. I lodged the amendments because I believe that democracy is under pressure across the world at the moment—not just here in Scotland and the UK. Unfortunately, attacks on people who are involved in the electoral process are rising. We saw that during the recent Irish election, including, unfortunately, an assault on my colleague, the leader of the Irish Greens, Roderic O’Gorman. We saw it yesterday when there was an attack on activists for the Social Democratic Party of Germany ahead of the election in February.

Amendments 5 and 6 would create an aggravator. For those who are issuing a sentence when an individual is found to have committed an offence, and if that offence has been committed against people who are involved in the electoral process, there would be a requirement to consider the application of the aggravator. There is no requirement to apply it. As Annie Wells said a moment ago, it would be at their discretion, but if they did apply it, they would have to state how it had varied the sentence and, if they did not apply it, they would have to give the reason for deciding not to apply it.

Amendment 5 would apply the aggravator to the category of individuals that are specified in the bill, which is the returning officers, registration officers and counting officers who are involved in administering an election. Amendment 6 would amend the Elections Act 2022, in so far as that act applies in Scotland, by applying the aggravator to the other group of people who are involved in elections—candidates, elected representatives and campaigners.

I lodged amendments 5 and 6 because I think that we need to have more, not fewer, people involved in our electoral process. Members across the chamber will recognise that all parties face challenges in recruiting more individuals, and people from more diverse backgrounds, to stand for Parliament, and that a significant part of the difficulty comes from the threats and risks that are faced by those who are involved.

I lodged amendments 5 and 6 because I believe that they are another useful tool to protect and strengthen our democracy. They are not, in and of themselves, the solution to the challenges that we face, but they are a tool that is worth having at our disposal.

I turn to the amendments on dual mandates. I thank the minister and my friend Graham Simpson for their work on them. I also thank the individual who sits elsewhere and whose recent errors of judgement have allowed us to bring the issues back for debate. The minister offered Graham Simpson and me a compromise at stage 2. In return for our not pressing our amendments, the Government offered to run a consultation on the issue, which would have meant that the rule could not be applied for 2026 but that the consultation would be conducted and that we would be able to legislate on that in the next session of Parliament. However, events since then have created the political space in which we can bring the issues back for debate now and apply them from the 2026 election onward. I am most grateful to the individual whose choices made that possible.

The Scottish Greens are glad to support amendments 34 to 36 for the simple reason that being a member of Parliament is a full-time job. The job is a huge privilege, but it is also immensely challenging, and it is the kind of challenge that requires dedication to the role—a level of dedication that I think we all recognise our constituents expect from us.

Amendment 35, in relation to the House of Lords, is something of a compromise following the amendment that I lodged at stage 2 that would have banned peers outright from this Parliament. Amendment 35, I think perfectly reasonably, includes provision that would allow someone who has a peerage to serve here for as long as they have taken a leave of absence from the Lords.

I pose to Ross Greer the question that I asked Graham Simpson, who was unable to answer it and did not seem to know the extent of his own amendments. Is it Ross Greer’s interpretation that the ban, if you like, on dual mandates should apply at the stage of nomination? He will be aware that, when returning officers receive a nomination, they can declare at that point that the person is disqualified and the nomination is not valid. I know that the amendment says that it will be decided by the minister in due course, but is it Ross Greer’s view that the election should proceed and that a by-election should then take place, with all the attendant costs, after the election? I am interested in hearing his view.

The amendments would require a consultation then development of regulations, so that question has not been answered yet. It is right that it would be answered after the consultation. My personal preference is the latter of the two options that Keith Brown mentioned. However, I recognise the concerns that the minister raised at stage 2, and it is right for the issues to be thoroughly consulted on before regulations are brought back to Parliament and Parliament as a whole makes a final judgment on the matter.

At stage 2, I focused on the Lords simply because I and the Scottish Greens see the House of Lords as an anti-democratic outrage and we think that membership there is incompatible with membership of an elected body. We do not believe that being an elected representative and being an unelected unaccountable lawmaker are compatible.

I am glad that amendment 36 was lodged in the form that it has been lodged because, unlike amendments 34 and 35, it does not prejudge the outcome. Amendments 34 and 35, quite rightly, use the word “must”. We will decide this afternoon to ban MSPs double jobbing as MPs or peers. However, we need to take separate issues into consideration when it comes to councillors. The Scottish Greens do not have an issue with the de facto situation that we have with the one-year transition period between election to this Parliament and local authority elections in the subsequent year. Given that, in that circumstance, the cost of a by-election is about four times the cost of a councillor’s salary, there is no harm in consulting on what options could be taken. I am particularly glad that amendment 36 includes provision for a transition period of, for example, a year and a week to allow for that year of overlapping mandates.

To return to my amendments on aggravators, I note that, at previous stages, some members expressed concerns about amendments in this space. I simply emphasise again the point that I made a moment ago that we want to welcome more people from more diverse backgrounds into the electoral process. That is certainly a conversation that my party has had. I have spoken to a number of women in my party whom I am trying to encourage to stand at the next election, and at the top of their list of concerns they have raised matters of safety and the risks that are posed to elected representatives. Given a number of other debates that we have had in this Parliament in recent weeks, if we want not just to strengthen our democracy but to make it more accessible to those who are currently being shut out or who feel that there are significant barriers in place, having those tools at our disposal would be most useful.

My comments on the group will not take very long at all. I put on the record the Liberal Democrats’ support for Graham Simpson’s amendments on double jobbing. The MSP’s role is a privilege, and, if it is not occupying all of someone’s waking hours and some of their sleeping hours, they are not doing it right. All our families put up with a lot. It would be very difficult to juggle the role with any other elected role, so the amendments certainly have our support.

I restate the point that I made in my intervention on Annie Wells. The question of vetting not just parliamentary candidates but council candidates is an unanswered one. We have privilege and access far beyond what we would tolerate for people in a regulated childcare position or a position of power and influence over vulnerable adults, and we should revisit that as a Parliament. Other assemblies have rudimentary vetting for their parliamentary candidates. We must not wait for something bad to happen before we address it in this place.

I will not take too much of the Parliament’s time. I think it is worth visiting the amendments in group 1 to set out the position. Many of the amendments that are being dealt with today are minor and technical, but those in group 1 address some fundamental questions that the Finance and Public Administration Committee, during the time when it was involved with the bill, and others have wrestled with.

Regarding amendments 34, 35 and 36, in the name of Graham Simpson, it is right to say that, fundamentally, we all agree that double jobbing is wrong. Anybody who has the privilege of sitting in this chamber, or the privilege of sitting on an elected body elsewhere, knows that doing so is a full-time job—or more than that—and that it takes away much of your sleep rather than just small amounts of it.

In the spirit of Christmas and the time of year, I want to say that it has been very positive to see the cross-party work on the bill. The minister has been very open to members raising errors, problems or concerns, and all the members involved in the bill, even those whose names do not appear in support of the amendments, have worked to come up with the compromise.

It is worth reiterating the importance of amendments 34 and 35, which relate to MPs and the House of Lords and are a must. However, there is an open consultation on the position in relation to councillors, and I urge members, as I did at stage 1, to contribute to that. The issue relates to the rationale for how people who choose to seek election end up in the Parliament and what their roles are. It is also for people to contribute to that environment and to make sure that the right people come to this Parliament with the right and proper support of those outside it who elect them.

With that, I offer my compliments to the member for those amendments and I confirm that Scottish Labour will support them.

I turn to Annie Wells’s two amendments in the group: amendments 3 and 37. She is aware of my concerns on the issue. In addressing those amendments at stage 3, it is right to pick up the two points in the human rights legislation that applied at stage 2. As a committee, we struggled, though we were ably assisted with evidence very late on, with what the considerations should be for the disqualification of MSPs—and, indeed, councillors—who appear on the sex offenders register. On some levels, it is a very complex area, but the committee received substantial evidence that reassured us that there are levels of protection that sometimes go unseen by members of the public, although some stories and events might call that into question. It was an area that we very much struggled with.

Amendments 3 and 37 raise concerns with me on a human rights basis. It is admirable that Annie Wells should point out her intentions for those amendments in due course. I am grateful that she intends to do that, but it is a discussion that has to happen. That discussion extends beyond the role of parties, including in this Parliament, in assessing eligibility. It falls on political parties to make those decisions and it falls on individuals to choose whether to put their names forward for those positions. Such responsibilities lie outside the statutory extent to which the bill can go, but all people, groups and parties that are involved should pay great attention to them.

I have been, as I was in committee, on swings and roundabouts over Ross Greer’s amendments 5 and 6, because that area invites our criminal legislature to look inside the elections world to determine whether an offence is aggravated. I am glad to support the amendments in the end—as, I hope, Ross Greer accepts—because we are sometimes struggling for engagement from people on the matter not because they do not desire to engage, but because they are genuinely concerned about the experience and the environment that they will fit into. Ross Greer is right to say that the amendments will not be the cure for that, but they are certainly a step towards understanding the importance that this place and the people of Scotland should give to those who put themselves forward, those who support them and those who administer the situation from the polling station to the count and beyond. We will, therefore, support amendments 5 and 6.

Unfortunately for members’ knowledge, I will return to speak on other amendments. However, for the moment, Presiding Officer, I am grateful for your time.

I will keep my comments as short as possible. I am pleased that amendments 34, 35 and 36 appear to have cross-party support.

Before Mr Simpson approached the minister and reached agreement with him, he and I were in discussion because we both fundamentally agree that double jobbing does not work. An MSP takes on a huge amount of work, including answering all of our constituents’ questions and dealing with the business that we have in this Parliament. It is beyond my comprehension that somebody could also take a role in another Parliament and do both roles well. Therefore, I am pleased that the minister will bring forward regulation before the election in 2026.

Mr Brown has asked various questions on when people think that that requirement should take effect. I believe that members should have to stand down from the first role when they are elected to the second role. At that stage, they should have to make a choice about whether they serve in one Parliament or the other. I do not think that it is right to ask them to stand down before that stage.

The amendments are clear that the issue is about membership of this Parliament rather than any process before that membership exists.

I think that that is the case, and it is for the minister to answer that when he comes to it.

On amendment 36 and councils, I struggled with that issue while we were discussing it, before agreement had been reached, because there is, at the moment, only a small gap between the time when members who are councillors are elected to this Parliament and the time when they have to stand down. We know all too readily, at the moment, that the costs are high of carrying out a council election at short notice, when the member has been in post for perhaps just a short while. Therefore, I am not swayed on the issue of councils, but I am swayed when it comes to serving either in this Parliament or in Westminster. We can do only one of those jobs for our constituents. That is why I support amendments 34, 35 and 36, and I am delighted that the Parliament will support them as well.

I will be very brief as well. First, I welcome Graham Simpson’s voice in this campaign against dual mandates and will support all three of his amendments. I am not sure why his voice has not been heard before now. I have only fairly recently heard Graham Simpson talk about dual mandates and the evils therein. I am not sure what could have prevented him from speaking up before. [ Interruption .] I will not mention any names, because I think that it is wrong to concentrate on individuals in this discussion. We should be making law because it is best for everybody—particularly the electorate and the people of Scotland—and we have to bear that in mind.

I will explain why I believe that it is better to have the requirement at the point of nomination. Edward Mountain just said that he supports the idea that the requirement should be on election to Parliament, but he then railed against the cost of needless council by-elections, which cost, on average, around £70,000. People sometimes stand for election and then stand down immediately afterwards because they are disqualified from being council candidates. In this Parliament, depending on what the regulations were, we would face a rapid by-election after a general set of elections in which somebody was elected who was a member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that would cost substantially more than £70,000.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will finish this point first.

More important than that cost is the issue of treating the electorate with contempt. We do not want to continue to alienate and disengage from the electorate. We do not want to have a by-election within the space of a few weeks after a general set of elections, when the electorate has already gone through all the arguments at that general set of elections.

It has been agreed that the Scottish Government will carry out a consultation in relation to council elections, to find out what is appropriate. Does Mr Brown accept that, rather than he and I arguing about council elections and when somebody should step down, carrying out that consultation will probably drive the best answer?

I agree with Mr Mountain, and I will be interested to see the results of the consultation.

The last point that I will make is that, whatever we agree in this Parliament, individual parties in this Parliament can take action themselves.

In 2020, my party decided that we would have no dual mandates, so that nobody who was an MP would stand for election to this Parliament. We did that ahead of this legislation. Therefore, unlike Graham Simpson, we have been against dual mandates for some time. However, whatever legislation is passed in this Parliament, it will remain the case that individual parties will be able to make rules for themselves.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will finish this point before I give way to Mr Kerr.

As we all know, people can stand for a political party only if they have the mark of that party at the point of nomination. That is the way that parties can exert their influence.

I seek a point of information from Keith Brown. He has described the situation that existed in 2020, when Joanna Cherry was famously denied the opportunity to stand for the Scottish Parliament. What is the current position of the Scottish National Party on such situations—for example, in relation to Stephen Flynn?

Joanna Cherry was not denied the opportunity. Another MP stood down, stood for election to this Parliament and won that election and is now a member of the Scottish Cabinet. I believe that that is the way to do things.

The member asked about the current position of the SNP. We passed that measure for a set of elections in 2021 and we will look at it again for 2026. I am simply pointing out that every party in the chamber can do the same thing.

I plead that we should not take the electorate for granted. We know what the turnouts are like in local by-elections right now. For example, the turnout on the day for one by-election in Glasgow was around 6 per cent, not including postal votes. We have to start paying attention to the fact that the electorate is turning away from elections, and having needless elections when interest has waned because we have just had a set of general elections is not the way to do that. Let us wait to see what the consultation says, but let us also be aware that parties can take their own actions in this area.

I thank everyone who has engaged on the bill. The three members with amendments in this group have sought to be collegiate on these issues, and on others in the bill. I hope that they feel that they can say the same of me. We have been able to discuss views and, in some cases, come to an agreement. That shows that advance dialogue and discussion can be constructive throughout the passage of all legislation.

I appreciate the fact that we have had the opportunity to have a thorough and full debate on this group of amendments. They relate to important issues, so it is good that we have done so. For those who, based on the debate so far, are concerned that today’s stage 3 proceedings will be particularly lengthy, I say that I suspect that this group of amendments will probably take us the longest to debate, despite it being the first group.

Let me begin with Graham Simpson’s amendments in relation to dual mandates. On Saturday just past, my party’s national executive committee took a decision to put in place, as part of its selection rules, a prohibition on anyone seeking to hold elected office in the Scottish Parliament while simultaneously remaining elected to the House of Commons. That was the position that the national executive committee took at the 2021 election, and it is the position that it has taken for the forthcoming election. I support that position. I very much agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton about the privilege of being elected to the Scottish Parliament, although I am a little concerned that some of his sleeping hours are preoccupied with thoughts of working in that regard. I hope that he gets a little rest and relaxation over the Christmas period.

However, the position that my party has taken—this speaks to the point that Keith Brown just made—is a reminder that, under the current law, any party has always been able to determine for itself its position on dual mandates for MSPs.

As he mentioned, at stage 2, Graham Simpson lodged a range of amendments to place in primary legislation a legal prohibition on the holding of dual mandates for MPs, peers and councillors. Ross Greer lodged another amendment that focused specifically on peers. I was clear with Mr Simpson, Mr Greer and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee that, although I strongly believe that there is merit in addressing the issue, including through full prohibition in the bill, given that there had been no consultation or evidence gathering on the matter—it was discussed at stage 1 but, I would say, respectfully, not in great detail—those amendments were not the appropriate manner in which to legislate for such provisions. I was grateful to Mr Simpson and to Mr Greer for not moving their amendments at stage 2, given the nature of my concerns.

At stage 2, I committed to carrying out a public consultation in 2025, so that an informed decision on the details of how we could prohibit dual mandates could be reached. However, I was clear with the committee that any changes arising out of such a consultation would realistically not be in place until after the 2031 election, given the time that is required for the process of primary legislation. I was therefore grateful that Graham Simpson came upon a solution that would enable me to satisfy my genuine concern about the need for consultation and engagement before prohibiting dual mandates while still enabling us to meet his ambition to do so in time for the 2026 election.

The forthcoming consultation is very wide when it comes to the overlap of time, the process and the matter of identification. I hope that the minister can confirm my understanding that the Government is open to listening to all sides in the consultation so that we can come up with regulations that I hope—if the bill is passed—will match the requirements of the amendments in this group.

Mr Whitfield speaks to the very point of why I believe that consultation is important. There are different perspectives on the matter. There might be broad agreement on the principle, but it is not just a principle that we are agreeing on when passing legislation. We are making the law and, in doing so, it is incumbent on each of us, in discharging the privilege that we have in being elected here, to ensure that the law is as good as it possibly can be.

I was very pleased to engage constructively with Mr Simpson to bring forward a proposal for Parliament to consider today. As Graham Simpson outlined, amendments 34 and 35 require ministers to lay regulations before the Parliament to prohibit MSPs from being able to serve simultaneously as either an MP or a peer.

This will hopefully satisfy Stephen Kerr’s inquiry. Should Parliament agree to the amendments and then pass the bill, I am committed to ensuring that, by autumn 2025, regulations are laid as informed by the consultation, which I have committed to publish, and that those regulations are in place well ahead of, and effective by, the Scottish Parliament election that is scheduled for May 2026.

Amendment 36 includes similar delegated powers in relation to dual mandates for councillors but, unlike the powers in amendments 34 and 35, the powers in amendment 36 are discretionary. That acknowledges the distinct nature of councillor roles and, candidly, it reflects what I detect to be a broader range of opinion in the chamber on the matter and allows the public consultation to guide us in deciding whether action is required or not. I will report back to the Parliament after the consultation is concluded and will give an indication of the next steps thereafter.

Regarding amendment 36, does the minister think that there could be another way forward whereby someone who is an MSP and a councillor would take only one salary? I know that a lot of councillors who become MSPs give up their councillor salary, although they do not have to. Could there be a way of forcing them to do that?

Quite possibly there could be, although I do not know whether that would be through the provisions in the bill. I suspect there might be other means by which we could consider that. Whether or not we determine that there should be a legal prohibition on MSPs being able to be councillors simultaneously, I would be more than willing to consider the matter in dialogue with any member who wishes to explore it with me.

In case this is not yet clear, I encourage the Parliament to support the amendments that we are discussing. I consider that to be an appropriate conclusion to the deliberations that we have had on the matter. They ensure that the issue of dual mandates can be considered properly, and regulations informed fully, and that changes can still take place ahead of the 2026 election.

Mr Simpson’s indication that he has now introduced his own bill to the Parliament serves as a reminder that any one of our number can seek to produce proposed legislation of the type that we are debating today that addresses issues of eligibility to hold elected office as a member of the Scottish Parliament. In that regard, I am sure that I speak for us all in looking forward to Daniel Johnson’s member’s bill prohibiting dual mandates for MSPs and those elected to the Senedd, the Northern Ireland Assembly or indeed the London Assembly. As he will of course know, section 16 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, as amended in 2020, bars MSPs from membership of the Senedd.

Just testing.

Mr Johnson says that he was just testing me; I hope that I have risen to the occasion.

I genuinely look forward to engaging imminently with Mr Simpson on his forthcoming bill.

I turn to amendments 3 and 37, in the name of Annie Wells. I understand what she is trying to do. Any person would recognise the disconcertion and concern that a person might feel in the circumstances that she has described. That would be a very understandable human instinct. As we discussed at stage 2, however, I believe that there are insurmountable issues with Ms Wells’s amendments—issues that Ms Wells is aware of, as she withdrew amendments at stage 2, acknowledging that they did not meet the requirements of article 3 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights. That remains the case.

There are significant ECHR compliance concerns with amendments 3 and 37, which I have outlined to Ms Wells in person and in correspondence. Amendment 3 engages article 3 of protocol 1, the right to stand for election to the legislature, and both amendments concern article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. Neither amendment would, I recognise, bar a person from office, but both would have the effect of publicising an expired restriction or order. That would be the case no matter how much time had elapsed since the restriction or order was in place.

It is the Government’s view that the amendments, no matter how well intentioned and no matter how much sympathy there might be in relation to the point that Ms Wells is driving at, are incompatible with the convention and, as such, are outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

An amendment that is passed that is incompatible with convention and outwith competence is not law. I do not need to remind members of the concerns that the bill would be risked as a consequence of passing such amendments. I am sure that Ms Wells’s intention is not to risk the bill, and I am sure that she will also recognise that I am keen to avoid such an eventuality. It is also unclear how amendments 3 and 37 would interact with the detailed law on spent convictions, which is contained in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

However, I can say—and it is important to place this on the record, because I understand the nature of the concerns—that improved safeguards are already embedded in the bill that we debate today as a consequence of amendments that were brought forward at stage 2, which the convener of the committee, Mr Whitfield, mentioned. If the bill is passed today, we will see a substantial change in relation to ensuring that anyone who is subject to a relevant notification requirement or sexual harm or risk order will be prevented from being an MSP or a councillor. I believe that that will provide a change in legislation and, I hope, some reassurance in strengthening safety and public perception. Amendments 3 and 37 go a little too far in terms of compliance, so I am grateful to Ms Wells for indicating that she will not move those amendments.

Ross Greer’s amendments 5 and 6 cover disqualification orders under the bill and the Elections Act 2022. Those orders seek to bar people from office when they are convicted of a crime involving hostility towards elected representatives, campaigners and electoral workers. I have a great deal of sympathy with Mr Greer’s suggestion that any offence involving abuse in an electoral context should also carry a sentencing aggravation. The Electoral Commission’s report on the last UK Parliament general election spelled out the concerning increase in unacceptable abuse that candidates and campaigners face. It is also the case that we already provide additional protection for certain groups, such as emergency workers, by setting out statutory sentencing aggravations.

Mr Greer lodged similar amendments at stage 2. At that stage, I was not fully persuaded of their merit, but, having reflected further on them, and following my engaging with a range of relevant stakeholders, who have not raised concerns at the proposition, I am happy to say that the Government supports Mr Greer’s amendments in this group, and I urge Parliament to vote for them.

Members will note that we are approaching the first time limit and that we have a further group still to debate. As a consequence, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 30 minutes. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move such a motion.

On the basis of a commitment to try to make up some of that time, I move,

That, under rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for groups 1 and 2 be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn.]

Motion agreed to.

I call Graham Simpson to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 34.

I will press my amendment, and I wind up simply by thanking everyone who has taken part in what has been a very good debate. That includes my good friend Keith Brown, who made a very interesting point. I respectfully disagree with it, but it is right that he made it. That kind of issue can be looked at when we do the consultation.

I urge the minister to be as collegiate as he has been so far when he looks at the regulations. I am sure that that will be the case, and with that, I will sit down.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 36 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

After section 2B

Amendments 3 and 37 not moved.

Section 3—Scottish disqualification orders

Amendment 5 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

After section 11

Amendment 6 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

After section 13

Group 2 is on joint party candidates. Amendment 7, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is grouped with amendments 9 and 8.

It must be Christmas, because everyone is praising one another for the full and engaged conversations that they have had. I am no different, and I thank the minister for the conversations that we had last week. I also reiterate my apologies, as my three amendments in this group do something that may not be entirely apparent at first glance, and they should rightly have been lodged at stage 2. I attempted to lodge them then, but unfortunately the drafting was not right at that stage. Nonetheless, these amendments seek to do something quite important.

There is much discussion in this place about members changing parties and whether they are a member of a party. It may have escaped some members’ notice that 11 of us in the chamber are actually members of two parties: both the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Co-operative Party. That is part of a long-standing tradition in our politics. The Co-operative Party was founded in 1917, and in 1927 it formed an electoral alliance with the Labour Party. Ever since then, it has been standing joint candidates in elections at the UK level and the Scottish level.

I will stop my Labour Party history there—I am not entirely sure that it is a way of winning votes for my amendments, and I am also mindful that Richard Leonard is sitting at the back of the chamber and might well correct me. However, my point is this: political parties are an important part of our electoral system, and the way that they work and interact with one another is also important. Much of the criticism from outside this place is about parties being insular, and therefore the possibility of parties working in tandem, and in conjunction and co-operation, with one another is important.

The relationship between the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party—which is fundamentally what these three amendments are about; there is no point in dressing it up in any other way—is a useful one. Amendment 7 is about enabling candidates to give a joint description between two political parties and—importantly—extending that to local government elections. The subsequent amendments are about the recognition of third parties, and recognising the co-operation that exists between two parties, for the purposes of organisation and election expenses.

I recognise that the latter two amendments in particular are perhaps complex—I am sure that the minister will address that—and I will bear that in mind as the debate proceeds, along with the comments that the minister makes. However, there is an important point of principle here. Each and every one of the parties that are represented in the chamber has either been formed from relationships with other parties or has existing relationships. The Conservative Party merged with the National Liberal Party after the second world war; the Liberal Democrats were formed out of an alliance—as members may remember—between the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party; the SNP was formed from a merger of the National Party of Scotland and the Scottish Party; and the Scottish Greens demerged from the UK Green Party in the 1980s and have a relationship with the UK’s other green parties, and Mr Greer alluded earlier to the relationship that the Scottish Greens have with their sister parties in other parts of the world. Therefore, we can see that there is a precedent for such relationships in each of our parties. That is an important part of our democracy and it is important to recognise the relationships that parties have with other parties.

It is also important because the relationships that parties have with third parties can be exceptionally sensitive. None of us wants to see our politics emulate that of the United States, where there are third-party organisations and super political action committees that apparently exist completely outwith the organisations of individual parties.

Therefore, we need to proceed very carefully. I have concerns, and I have voiced them to the minister directly, about the Executive’s ability to designate organisations as being third parties or not being third parties. There is a broader point of principle to which, as we think about the way that our democracy works and the way that elections to the Parliament work, we should give deeper consideration.

Will the member give way?

I was about to draw my remarks to a close, but I am happy to give way.

I would like to ask Daniel Johnson a direct question, as he has not made himself clear. Are amendments 9 and 8 an attempt to give the Co-operative Party a third-party status that would allow the Labour Party to have a financial advantage when it comes to the activities of the Co-operative Party? That is what it looks and sounds like. I would be grateful if he could be absolutely clear. He mentioned that the amendments are technical but I think that the chamber deserves to hear the ramifications of what the amendments would do, particularly in relation to his own party and any possible advantage that it might gain from them.

The member is quite correct to raise the issue, although I would say that what I am seeking through the amendments is the opposite of what he has said.

There is an important point of principle about the recognition of activity. The amendments, in a sense, would be disadvantageous, because they would mean that the resources and activities of a third party should be included in the electoral returns of candidates who are standing as Labour Party and Co-operative Party members. The purpose is to ensure that a full account is provided and that there is no possibility of activity and, importantly, expenditure not being included. It is about proper accounting of expenditure and activity that takes place when candidates are standing on behalf of two parties, not just a single party. [ Interruption .]

Stephen Kerr looks exceptionally worried—he need not be. I am trying to ensure that things are above board and proper. I doubt that my amendments will go through, so I do not think that he need worry too much.

I think that the member’s concern reflects a broader point. However, future consideration should be given to the issue. My amendments are about making sure that the activities of the Co-operative Party are fully acknowledged and accounted for when Labour Party and Co-operative Party candidates are standing for this place.

I move amendment 7.

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

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

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

As a student of history, if for no other reason, I have enjoyed Mr Johnson’s contribution to this group of amendments. His amendments raise a number of complex points that neither he nor anyone else raised at any point during the bill’s passage, either at stage 1 or at stage 2.

I recognise the point that he made about some of the challenges that he faced in getting the amendments drafted for stage 2. Although I was grateful to him for the time that he gave me to discuss the amendments last week, I am afraid that I cannot support them, and I will set out why.

In the first instance, I acknowledge that amendment 7 seeks to apply the existing position of Scottish Parliament elections and local elections. However, that change can be achieved by existing secondary legislation powers. Indeed, the amendment itself clearly refers to existing secondary legislation. As a general rule, it is not particularly good practice to amend secondary legislation via primary legislation, not least when any such changes could otherwise be made using the secondary legislation process. I therefore suggest that Mr Johnson not press amendment 7 today. Instead, I will discuss the matter further with him, along with the merits of the change featuring in the conduct order that will be prepared ahead of the 2027 local government elections. That will permit consultation with interested parties such as the Electoral Commission.

Amendments 8 and 9 are significantly more complex, as they delve into rules that are set out in the UK-wide Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I recognise that Mr Johnson said that he was unable to lodge amendments in this area at stage 2 because of drafting issues. I am afraid that I also have some concerns about the drafting here.

Mr Johnson has explained to me that he is concerned that changes that were made in the UK Elections Act 2022 might have, in his view, resulted in unintended consequences. Given when that act was passed, those concerns could have been discussed long before amendments were lodged at stage 3.

On Mr Kerr’s point, as Mr Johnson said in his response, the concern that Mr Kerr raises does not seem to have been Mr Johnson’s intent. However, where there is a joint party candidate, the proposed amendments seem to allow one or both of the registered parties to be a registered third party, meaning that they would therefore gain access to third-party campaign spending limits in addition to the normal party spending limits. A third party that is not eligible to become a recognised third party is subject to a £700 limit. That does not seem to be fair, as a point of principle, notwithstanding long-standing arrangements between the Labour Party and the Co-operative Party. Why should registered parties that are fielding a joint candidate at a Scottish Parliament election be permitted to incur significantly more expenditure than a candidate who is taking the more normal route of standing for one party?

I am also concerned that such a change could open the door to possible abuse of the system of regulation on spending by a host of phantom joint candidacies. Indeed, we have been in discussion with the Electoral Commission, which has highlighted the risk that the proposed amendment might create an uneven playing field among parties that might be contesting a Scottish Parliament election by permitting parties that are involved in fielding joint candidates access to additional spending over and above the limits that are set out in schedule 9 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

In addition—this speaks to the fundamental concern—the complexity of the rules on campaign finance mean that Mr Johnson’s amendments 8 and 9 are outwith legislative competence. Although the Scottish Parliament can make changes to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in respect of Scottish Parliament elections, there is a reservation in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 that applies if a Scottish Parliament election is held in the 12 months prior to a UK general election. We cannot make changes to the rules in parts 5 and 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in that situation.

Because amendments 8 and 9 do not take that point into account, they could impact on a Scottish Parliament election that was held in such a timeframe. That means that the Government considers amendments 8 and 9 to be outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament, and I have highlighted that point directly to Mr Johnson.

As I said earlier, when speaking to the previous group of amendments, an amendment that is passed that is outwith competence is not law. Section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 allows law officers to refer a bill to the Supreme Court for determination of whether it is within the legislative competence of the Parliament, and that would happen before the bill gets royal assent. Therefore, agreeing to amendments 8 and 9 could jeopardise the whole bill.

As Mr Johnson and other members might imagine, and as with Annie Wells’s amendments 3 and 37 in the previous group, which she did not move, I cannot agree to something that would imperil the bill. I therefore urge Mr Johnson not to press his amendments today, but, if he does, I urge all members to vote against them.

Let me be clear: my intention was to get full recognition and proper accounting in relation to joint party status. I certainly would not want anyone to think that any of my amendments were intended for any reason other than that and to ensure the recognition of the long-standing relationship that the Co-operative Party has had with the Labour Party.

I agree with the minister that, given that my amendments arose out of my concerns regarding the Elections Act 2022, there was time to have discussed the amendments earlier. I somewhat fell victim to the fact that people brought the issue to me at a late stage, but I take the minister’s point.

Most importantly, given that the minister has undertaken to look at addressing the descriptions through secondary legislation, I will withdraw amendment 7. Further, I fully acknowledge the issues that have been set out regarding amendments 8 and 9, and I will not press them either.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 14

Amendments 9 and 8 not moved.

After section 27

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The next group is on ballot papers. Amendment 10, in the name of Ross Greer, is the only amendment in the group.

I thank Kenneth Gibson for his support, and I also thank the minister and the bill team for their support. Amendment 10 is a simple amendment that would require a review to be carried out of how candidates and parties are ordered on ballot papers. Members will be familiar with the question of ballot randomisation, which results from the pretty strong evidence of advantage for candidates who are at the top of the ballot paper. Because of the way in which we and many other countries order our ballot papers, that means candidates whose names start with letters at the top of the alphabet, some of whom are staring me down in the chamber as I say this.

There is quite comprehensive evidence on the issue. A thorough study from Denmark’s 2015 municipal elections shows an average advantage of 4 per cent in vote share for candidates who are at the top of the ballot paper. We have not had the same kind of rigorous study here in Scotland, and I think that one would be useful, but there are plenty of others worldwide that show a similar effect.

This is about the principle of fairness but also the perception of fairness, which I think we can all acknowledge is almost as important as the principle of fairness itself. Elections need to look fair to have public confidence. Amendment 10 simply mandates a review, with no specific outcome in mind. Various suggestions have been made, such as randomisation of ballot papers or having two different ballot papers, so that, on half the ballots in a ward, the names would be printed from A to Z and, on the other half, they would go from Z to A. There is a range of options, and I acknowledge that there are accessibility issues to consider.

Ministers already have the power to vary ballot paper order, so the amendment simply requires them to undertake a review and consider what the options might be. I lodged the amendment because the bill is about strengthening our democracy and I think that, in a small but significant way, amendment 10, the review and its outcomes would do so.

I move amendment 10.

I thank Ross Greer for lodging amendment 10. Over the years, I have raised on a number of occasions the issue of how the alphabetic order of candidates impacts on election outcomes when two or more people from the same party contest the same council ward under the single transferable vote system. I am therefore delighted to speak to Ross Greer’s amendment.

There has been some research. John Curtice did research on the issue and, more recently, the researcher Kevin Boyle worked with Michael Shanks, among others. The impact of one’s surname in STV elections is undeniable. It has been present at every single local authority election since the introduction of STV. In the 2022 election, in wards where parties fielded two candidates, those with surnames higher up the ballot paper received more first preference votes than their lower-placed colleagues an astonishing 83 per cent of the time. In previous STV elections, the figure has been between 80 and 85 per cent.

On the rare occasions when a party fields three candidates, the poor soul who is lowest down the ballot tops the poll among party colleagues a mere 1 per cent of the time. When a lower-ranked candidate prevails over a higher-ranked colleague, most of the time that is only through incumbency.

The effect is so widely known that parties spend time, money and effort developing strategies to work around it. Those generally focus on encouraging more supporters to vote for the candidate whose surname is lower on the ballot in most of the ward to offset the advantage that a higher-ranked candidate has. That is known as the ward management strategy, as every person in the chamber knows.

Female candidates have been known to use their maiden name or their married name based on alphabetical order. The issue can skew selection contests, too. A candidate named Gibson is more likely to want William Wallace as a running mate than Alasdair Allan. I even know of a councillor who recently changed his surname to start with an A.

Will the member concede that his theory has not been put to the test recently, as I have not recently stood on the list?

Well, indeed.

The only dissenting voice against the reality of this effect came from a 2019 Electoral Commission study, which fundamentally misunderstood the problem. The hopelessly flawed study asked research participants to find and vote for a specific fictitious candidate on the ballot paper. That ignored the fact that many people have a preferred party, rather than a preferred candidate, and that the problem is primarily about the distribution of votes within parties.

Candidates should be judged on a number of attributes: integrity, competence, accountability and work ethic, to name but a few. Instead, a candidate’s surname is the primary advantage or disadvantage against their party colleagues. That is fundamentally unfair and undemocratic.

The Scottish Government previously said that the problem is not as big as many people make it out to be and that it is down to those who are involved in the political process to ensure that the public are aware of how the system works. I have two points to make on that. First, those who are higher up the ballot paper beat their party colleagues between 80 and 85 per cent of the time. If that figure is not high enough to be a problem, what figure would be—90 per cent, 95 per cent or 100 per cent?

Secondly, we have had 18 years of parties supposedly educating the public about STV. What can be said or tried that has not already been said or tried? If the case is as the Scottish Government has previously stated it to be, why does the Scottish National Party, as well as other parties, have a vote management strategy in council wards, including, I suspect, in the minister’s Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency?

The SNP adopted randomisation of ballots for internal elections donkeys years ago. Why did we do that if it was not to tackle a real issue, even among party members? At some point, we need to face up to the reality of the system as voters interact with it, not how we wish that they did. Randomisation would nullify the issue with alphabetical order, thereby ensuring that election outcomes were fairer and more democratic and reflected voters’ genuine preferences, and ending the ludicrous in-built bias in the layout of ballot papers.

I feel some responsibility for the problem. When I moved a motion at the SNP conference in 1995 that said that STV should be our method of election for local authority elections and others, I did not realise that parties would often be too cowardly to put up more than one candidate in many wards—they put up two at most—because they always play safe rather than giving voters a real choice. I did not realise that it would be such an issue, but it is, and we must address it.

Amendment 10 calls only for a review, which the Scottish ministers have been reluctant to agree to for reasons that I have never quite fathomed. However, I hope that Mr Hepburn will tell us today how the system can be changed now. Robson rotation—a simplified version of which is used in Tasmania—is the gold standard.

I again thank Kevin Boyle and John Curtice for their research, and, most of all, I thank Ross Greer for lodging amendment 10. I worry that, if the issue is not addressed, the systemic bias that is inherent in the current system will drag on, with the force of inertia meaning that the current system prevails in the next local council elections in 2027. I hope that that will not be the case. In the meantime, let us make a start, so I urge members to support amendment 10 in the name of Ross Greer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I suspect that the next two speakers will have some sympathy with the plight of William Wallace. I call Sue Webber, to be followed by Martin Whitfield.

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

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

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

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

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

As the final W in the debate, following Sue Webber, who came after Ross Greer and Kenneth Gibson, I will talk in support of amendment 10.

Of all the items that came up during our consideration of the bill—both objectively and, more so, subjectively among members across the chamber—the one that came up most often was the question of the order of candidates on ballot papers. It is a heart-lived and close challenge, particularly for those who have been unsuccessful.

It is right to echo Kenneth Gibson’s submission that there is very strong evidence to show that where a candidate appears on the ballot paper plays into the results of the election.

There are accessibility issues. Sue Webber was right to point out that the Government, on a number of occasions, has rightly pointed out the challenge in that regard. However, it is not insurmountable. I thank Ross Greer for phrasing amendment 10 in such a way that it will require a review to be carried out. In doing so, while we might not quite get to the solution, we can maybe put to bed some of the views that people have that are incorrectly held. More importantly, we can find out what the experiences of those with accessibility issues are, and about the effect of alphabeticisation of the ballot papers.

Let me begin by offering Ross Greer reassurance that, as someone with a surname that is firmly planted in the middle of the alphabet, I do not intend to stare him down as I make my remarks.

I say to Mr Gibson that it is important that I make the following point: I represent the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency. My Kilsyth constituents rightly get upset when they are forgotten about. It is right to say that, in my constituency, we operate a voter management strategy. That allows me to place on record the result in the Cumbernauld North ward, where Councillor Alan Masterton got 30.5 per cent of the vote in contrast to Danish Ashraf’s 19.7 per cent of the vote. It can be done.

Nonetheless, it is clear that many members have concerns that using alphabetical order to list names on ballot papers can have an unfair impact. Many have raised that issue over some period of time, almost exclusively in respect of local government elections.

At stage 2, we had a very healthy discussion about the merits of randomisation as an alternative approach. That was raised as an option by the Government in its consultation on electoral reform in 2017. I hear Kenny Gibson’s point that no one other than the Electoral Commission has raised concerns about randomisation.

However, I highlighted at stage 2 the evidence received from disabled people’s organisations, at the point when we undertook our consultation in 2017, that a switch to randomisation might have an adverse impact on voters with accessibility needs. Notwithstanding the genuine and sincere concerns that members have expressed about the impact of alphabetical listing of candidate names on any ballot paper—concerns that I recognise and understand—we must also hear the equally genuine and sincere concerns of those disabled people’s organisations as we consider the way forward.

At stage 2, I stressed that I was keen to engage with Ross Greer on a possible way forward, and I am pleased that we will be able to work together on amendment 10. I very much hope that the study that it requires the Government to take forward, should we agree to the amendment and pass the bill, will result in full and proper consideration of the issue. The study is designed to ensure that any change, should one be identified as being necessary, could be made in time for the 2032 local government elections. That seems most appropriate, as the local government STV system attracts the most comments about the impact of the alphabetical list order.

On that basis, I encourage members to support amendment 10.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 10.

I will press amendment 10.

I thank Kevin Boyle and John Curtice for the research work that they did on the issue. I echo Kenneth Gibson’s frustrations about the Electoral Commission’s 2019 study, which was an opportunity to do something in Scotland that was as thorough as the Danish 2015 study that I mentioned, as well as various other international studies. Sadly, it was a missed opportunity to do so.

I am glad that Sue Webber covered accessibility issues. We are trying to balance not mutually exclusive outcomes but outcomes in which there is an element of tension. The proposed review is therefore the right way forward.

As the minister highlighted, Scotland’s use of STV, which is a perfectly good system for our local elections, appears to increase the challenges that are created by the alphabetical order of ballot papers, so it is incumbent on us to look at the matter primarily with a focus on local elections.

On the minister’s example of Cumbernauld North and Councillors Masterton and Ashraf, I suggest that Councillor Masterton’s years of excellent service as an incumbent councillor in that ward probably did him no harm whatsoever.

We should let the record show that Councillor Ashraf was also an incumbent.

I of course recognise both councillors’ incumbency. Having known Councillor Ashraf before, I should definitely put that on the record. However, having known Councillor Masterton for much longer, I suggest that his incumbency certainly helped.

That goes back to Kenneth Gibson’s point about the evidence on the order of party candidates when parties field more than one candidate and the fact that it is possible to match up where candidates are or are not incumbents based on the relative vote share that they get across their party’s candidates. The evidence base is clear, and it appears that there is clear consensus across the chamber on the issue.

I thank the minister and the bill team for their work on amendment 10, which I press.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Section 27A—Nomination of candidate in local government elections: home address form

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The next group is minor and technical amendments. Amendment 11, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 12 to 16.

The amendments are, as the grouping title suggests, extremely minor. They only tidy up issues and do not make changes to any policy. They concern non-Government amendments that were lodged by Ross Greer at stage 2, which I supported and which added sections 27A and 27B to the bill. One change will allow candidates at local government elections to choose to display their ward of residence on the ballot paper. The other will permit election agents to request that their publicly available address be a correspondence address rather than their home address. Those changes were already being considered by the Scottish Government as part of a package of regulations that we will take forward next year, but I was happy to see them added to the bill at stage 2.

Amendments 11 and 12 will insert Scottish statutory instrument references into sections 27A and 27B to reflect best drafting practice. There are no policy implications to those amendments.

Amendments 13 to 16 will make changes to section 27B, replacing the word “regulation” with “article” throughout the section. The amendments reflect the fact that the secondary legislation measures that are being amended are orders rather than regulations.

I move amendment 11.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Section 27B—Election agent and sub-agent in Scottish Parliament elections: public notice of home address

Amendments 12 to 16 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

Section 28—Pilot schemes under the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Group 5 is on pilots and electronic voting. Amendment 17, in the name of Ross Greer, is the only amendment in the group.

Section 28 is a very welcome section of the bill. It empowers the use of pilots to boost democratic engagement. However, there is always a risk when we change the arrangements for something as fundamental as how we vote and how we elect those who govern, whether locally or nationally. Electronic voting has been debated before in the Parliament but possibly only in members’ business debates and in a couple of committee sessions.

Many of us are concerned about electronic voting for a range of reasons. Any voting system must be secure, anonymous and verifiable, but electronic voting can only guarantee two out of those three outcomes. There is an element of mutual exclusivity when we try to resolve all three through an electronic system.

Through amendment 17, I do not seek to ban electronic voting, which is a much wider debate. I am trying to require that that debate takes place even before a pilot on using electronic voting proceeds. It would simply put a check on the system.

If a pilot of electronic voting is proposed, given the unique concerns about that and the fact that any pilot would still be for a real election, the amendment would require that proposal to come before Parliament for approval, giving an opportunity for effective scrutiny.

Amendment 17 is simple and requires that any electronic voting pilot be approved by Parliament, through a statutory instrument, before being put into place.

I move amendment 17.

I appreciate Ross Greer’s point of principle, which is that any pilot of electronic voting would represent a significant development. I recognise that there are security concerns about any move to electronic voting and that there are many bad actors who might relish the opportunity to seek to disrupt or adversely influence democratic elections.

I can certainly assure you, Presiding Officer, Mr Greer and other members that the Government has no plans for electronic voting, aside from possible changes targeted at meeting the needs of voters with accessibility requirements.

At stage 2, Mr Greer lodged an amendment that would have captured a far broader range of initiatives that might be piloted, including some relatively minor innovations. He was clear that his concern related specifically to electronic voting and I am pleased to have worked with him since then on amendment 17, which will ensure that parliamentary approval is given for any electoral innovation pilot that involves electronic voting. I am therefore happy to support amendment 17.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 17.

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 17.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Section 45—Boundaries Scotland: changing date of next review of local government wards and number of councillors

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Group 6 is on boundaries. Amendment 18, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 19 and 20.

Members will be glad to hear that I am almost done.

Amendments 18 to 20 continue some work that I began at stage 2. I again thank the minister and the bill team for their co-operation. The core of the amendments in the group is a simple proposal that any boundary reviews be carried out at least 18 months before an election. That recognises that the public, and especially political parties and candidates, need time to prepare and that, in particular, parties need time to select candidates for the relevant electoral areas.

Amendment 18 clarifies that the amendment agreed to at stage 2 applies to local elections and therefore is a clarification, rather than any substantive change. Amendment 19 brings the overall review cycle into sync, given the changes that have already been agreed to. Amendment 20 applies the 18-month limit to any change of boundaries affecting elections to this Parliament.

I am pleased to have been able to work with Ross Greer on amendments 18 to 20. Having electoral boundaries confirmed 18 months before elections is a sensible change and one that I was interested in pursuing before Mr Greer lodged his amendments on the issue at stage 2.

As we discussed then, I supported the intention behind Mr Greer’s amendments but could not support them because they would have made what I recognise was an unintentional change to the timeframe for reviewing boundaries for the 2027 local government elections. Realistically, any such change to the timeframe in which Boundaries Scotland must finalise proposals for ward boundaries can be applied only to the 2032 local government elections and beyond. I have been pleased to work with Ross Greer on framing amendments 18 to 20, which achieve that end and will give greater certainty to constituents, administrators and candidates for both local government and parliamentary elections.

Having brought a proposition to establish an 18-month lead-in period for local government ward boundary changes, I took the view that it would also be sensible to do that for proposals for constituency and regional boundary changes for parliamentary elections. I am grateful that Mr Greer has also lodged an amendment to achieve that.

It also seems to me to be helpful to update Parliament by saying that I have written to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee to outline plans to establish an independent review to consider boundaries legislation and processes. That review will be tasked with making recommendations about how a system of automatic approval for electoral boundary changes could work in Scotland, which is something that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has taken a great interest in. The review will take account of experience elsewhere in the UK and will look at international best practice. It will report next year so that Parliament can consider its recommendations. In the meantime, I ask members to support Ross Greer’s amendments 18, 19 and 20.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 18.

I am grateful to the minister for his support and have nothing more to add. I press amendment 18.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendment 19 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

After section 45

Amendment 20 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 47—Constitution of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Group 7 is on the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. Amendment 21, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, is grouped with amendments 22 to 33.

The amendments in group 7, which is the final group, further modify the new constitution that the bill introduces for the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. Changes that were made at stage 2 will see the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body assume oversight of the EMB. The amendments in the group largely make further technical refinements following discussions with the EMB and SPCB officials.

Amendments 21 and 22 remove the word “draft” from the provisions that require a strategic plan that sets out the EMB’s priorities over the next five-year period, in order to avoid any ambiguity about the status of the plan while it is being considered.

Changes that were made at stage 2 expanded the pool of potential board members for the EMB to include serving or former returning officers and electoral registration officers from England and Wales. Amendment 23 makes a small expansion by including returning officers for local elections and acting returning officers from England and Wales. I must be clear that the bill will in no way require returning officers or electoral registration officers from other parts of the UK to be appointed as members of the EMB. Instead, the bill seeks to expand the possible pool of candidates. Paragraph 2(5) of the new schedule that sets out the EMB’s constitution will ensure that the membership as a whole still has Scottish experience.

Amendment 24 makes it clear that the convener holds office on such terms and conditions as the SPCB may determine, and amendment 25 provides that SPCB approval is needed for the convener to set the terms and conditions for the other board members.

Amendment 26 provides that the appointment period of any deputy convener must be approved by the SPCB.

Amendments 27, 28, 31 and 32 modify the rules on remuneration and pensions of the EMB convener and other board members and staff. The changes will ensure consistency with other legislation whereby bodies report to the SPCB.

Amendment 29 clarifies that, although the board may obtain advice, assistance or any other service from qualified persons, any payment will be subject to approval by the SPCB.

Amendment 30 will allow the SPCB to issue directions to the EMB on the sharing of premises, staff, services or other resources with any other public body or office-holder.

Amendment 33 removes provisions that would require the SPCB to indemnify the entire EMB. That is consistent with the bill making the EMB a corporate body.

I thank the EMB and SPCB officials for their help with the changes. The EMB has been highly successful in supporting the smooth running of elections in Scotland, and the changes that are made by the bill will consolidate its independence and build on its strengths.

I move amendment 21.

I echo the minister’s thanks to the Electoral Management Board for Scotland for its contribution throughout our consideration of the bill and for its suggestions and recommendations.

In some ways, the amendments in group 7 take us further than those in any other group, because they will move us from having people with expertise in elections voluntarily gathering together to assist us to a system with a corporate body that can enter contracts. That body will pay for the services, rather than the system relying on a returning officer’s or ERO’s credit card, although in some cases it has been less complex than that.

The journey from the suggestion of the Electoral Management Board having a legal identity, which came from the consultation, to where we are today has been challenging at times. I compliment the minister and Government officials on the lengths that they have gone to in recognising possible areas of concern in the relationship that the EMB will have with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body as, in essence, the EMB’s overseer for the purposes of audit and finance.

I confirm that we will support all the amendments in the group. I take the opportunity to thank again not only the Electoral Management Board but the returning officers and electoral registration officers for their assistance.

I concur with Mr Whitfield’s remarks about the EMB moving from being a voluntary body to being a corporate entity. I consider that to represent a significant improvement in its governance and accountability, which will, importantly, be to this Parliament and not to the Government.

I very much appreciate Mr Whitfield’s remarks on the activity and effort of Scottish Government officials, Parliament officials and those who are involved in the EMB, who have all worked incredibly hard to get us to this point. I am similarly grateful for their efforts.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendments 22 to 33 moved—[Jamie Hepburn]—and agreed to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

That ends stage 3 consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.