 The next item of business is a debate on motion 77721, in the name of George Adam on electoral reform consultation. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons. I call on George Adam Minister to speak to and to move the motion around 13 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I can also thank you for being a wee bit quicker than normal that I got my cardio workout for the day as I made it to the chamber in time for today's debate. Minister, you will know that it's follow-on business? Follow-on business? Indeed, indeed, hands the reason I came down at such haste to make sure I was here. But today's debate, Presiding Officer, on Scottish Government's proposal to modernise elections in Scotland is an important one. And not just because of the impact it may have on the Scottish Parliament itself. In recent years, this chamber has made many significant changes in relation to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish local government elections. That includes extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds and to all-form nationals with leave to remain who live in Scotland. An act that has protected the rights of EU nationals in our elections despite Brexit. We have also ensured the safe running of the 2021 Scottish Parliament election during the pandemic and moved from four to five-year term. I believe that there is scope to consider further important improvements to electoral law. The Government's electoral reform consultation, which runs until 15 March, highlights several areas for discussion. Those include how we can increase active participation in elections by underrepresented groups, for example young people and foreign nationals. We also seek to deliver an undertaking between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party set out in the shared policy programme to encourage more people to register to vote, to stand as candidates and to remove the barriers some people experience so they can vote independently. We are committed to improving accessibility in elections. Removing or reducing barriers where they exist in order to ensure that all of our citizens have the opportunity to exercise their fundamental democratic right to vote independently and in secret. Some proposals will spark more debate than others. The purpose of the consultation is to gather views from as many people and organisations as possible. Our intention is to bring forward legislation ahead of next scheduled Scottish Parliament election. I will now outline some of the detail in the consultation. On accessibility, the existing law specifies a tactile voting device intended to support voters with sight loss. For reserved elections, the UK Parliament has recently modified the requirement to allow a wider range of support to be provided by returning officers. That is to be informed by the electoral commission guidance to ensure suitable support is always available. I am clear from what I have heard and seen, both in my time as an MSP and in this ministerial role, that there is a need to improve. I wish to go further in ways in which we assist disabled people so that all voters can be confident in casting their votes independently and in secret. We are working closely with key stakeholders such as RNIB Scotland and others to explore solutions to support people in exercising their rights to vote. On candidacy, the consultation explores the idea that everyone with voting rights should also be able to stand for election. In 2020, voting and candidacy rights were extended to foreign nationals, residents of Scotland, with indefinite leave to remain in the UK. There are now two main groups of people who can vote in the Scottish Parliament and local government elections but who cannot stand as candidates. Those are 16 and 17-year-olds and foreign nationals with time limited leave to remain. The consultation therefore seeks views on whether 16 and 17-year-olds and foreign nationals with limited leave to remain living in Scotland should be able to stand and devolve the elections. There are always a range of views whenever age limits are discussed. The extension of voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds is considered by most to have been a success. That is certainly my own strong view. The University of Edinburgh published research just last month, highlighting how that extension of voting rights has resulted in a long-term increase in turnout among young people. For anyone with an interest in protecting and enhancing a functioning, vibrant democracy and engagement in politics, that is surely something to celebrate. I am very pleased that we have lots of time for interventions this afternoon, I presume. When the minister addresses the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, does he accept that there is a difference between 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote and 16 and 17-year-olds being able to stand, for example, for a Scottish Parliament? Does he agree that there is a difference? Does he also agree that perhaps the focus of 16 and 17-year-olds will be on education? What I do believe is that 16 and 17-year-olds or anyone who has the opportunity to vote should, at the same time, at least discuss whether they have the right to have representation and be a member of a council or local government. As I said in my speech, there is always a debate that is quite passionate and people have opinions in both sides of what way to go forward. My own belief is that this would be an idea for 16 and 17-year-olds to be a candidate and possibly change the vibrancy of this place. One thing that we would have to take into account should someone ever be elected as a 16 or 17-year-old is that we would have the mechanisms on here to support said individual because it would be a culture shock for us and a culture shock for them as well should that become the case. At the end of the day, I look forward to seeing what Mr Kerr has to say when he submits to the consultation on this issue. It will be interesting to see what everyone else has to say on that as well. What is undeniable is that the decision to extend candidacy rights to 16 and 17-year-olds would be a powerful expression of the confidence and respect that this Parliament has towards young people. The purpose of this consultation is to seek views and especially to welcome and invite debate on this issue. The consultation also raises a couple of questions on voting rights. I am proud that our franchise is based around those who choose to make their life in Scotland. It is one of the most generous sets of voting rights in the world, with people from any country with a legal right to live in Scotland potentially eligible to vote. Excluding short-term visitors, asylum seekers are now the main group of foreign nationals aged 16 or over living in Scotland without voting rights. The consultation paper therefore asks about the issue of voting rights for asylum seekers. It also seeks views in relation to a small group of people detained on mental health grounds in the context of conduct contrary to criminal law. The question here is whether any change is needed following the recent extension of voting rights to prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. A number of other issues in relation to standing for election are discussed, including the publication of the addresses of candidates who act as their own election agent at local government elections. The provision of free post mailings for candidates instead of elections also considers a number of points in relation to the administration of elections. There are some quite technical questions on the scheduling of elections and the scope for polls to be postponed in the event of exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic. That stems from the direct experience and election planning over the last few years and is intended as an opportunity to future proof our system. On electoral commission, it covers arrangements for parliamentary oversight of the commission's activities in relation to devolved elections. Although funding for those activities is provided by this Parliament, it is Westminster that currently performs most of the oversight on devolved elections. The consultation therefore explores a greater role for the Scottish Parliament in that. On Boundaries Scotland, the approval process for boundary recommendations is covered, including seeking views in most appropriate role for the Scottish Parliament in their consideration. As we all know, returning officers play a vital role in ensuring the smooth running of elections. Since 2011, they have been assisted by the electoral management board for Scotland. That has proved to be a significant success with advice, support and directions issued by the convener, proving invaluable during the pandemic. The consultation reflects on the role and the structure of the EMB and seeks views on options for developing its role. It is an interesting point that the Welsh Government has recently consulted on the creation of an EMB in Wales and has directly drawn on the positive experience of here in Scotland. Finally, I want to address the impact of the UK Elections Act 2022 in Scotland. Exactly one year ago today, this Parliament refused consent for application of that act to areas within devolved competence. I said then, and there were some aspects that need further consideration, that the consultation explores those points. On some issues, I am sympathetic to the adoption of certain elections act measures. Those include changes in relation to campaign finance, on due influence and intimidation of candidates. I would, however, very much welcome the views of consultees and those of colleagues here in the chamber. I am sure that we had those discussions when I went to committee previously discussing those issues. On voter ID, I remain strongly opposed to developments made for the UK general elections. Voter ID risks significant voter confusion and has not been brought forward in response to any clear identified problem. Few accepted the rationale set out by the UK Government or approved of its plans. While voter ID does not apply to devolved elections, it will add additional responsibility for returning officers and polling staff in Scotland at UK parliamentary elections. I consider that that underlines the need to avoid elections to the UK Parliament being held at the same time as a devolved poll. We also have a different electoral system and franchises to consider. As a result, the consultation proposes a presumption against a devolved election being held on the same day of an election to the UK Parliament in the same area. The electoral reform consultation covers several fundamental, technical and wide-ranging matters. I hope that the members have found my outline today helpful and useful. I look forward to the debate and move the motion in my name. The Scottish Government's electoral reform consultation document is a very wide-ranging and detailed and important document, and we welcome the opportunity to give our thoughts at this early stage. We will be supporting the Scottish Government's motion today. In many ways, we expect elections and voting to remain sometimes completely unchanged, so fundamental are they to our democracy. We are so used to them happening, particularly given our own involvement as elected politicians in the process. However, electoral policy is, of course, like other areas of policy. It doesn't stand still. It changes as society changes and different challenges and opportunities present to themselves. Rather than the processes of this Parliament, nothing should be set in aspect and preserved for all time without ever considering whether change or reform is needed. In that respect, it is important to note that the consultation that we are debating will inform future legislation. As such, it is vitally important that we do hear from as many people and organisations as possible. I hope that the Government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that. Those benches look forward to reviewing the consultation responses when they are published in due course, and our approach in a number of areas will be guided by those replies. We also await the explicit position of the Scottish Government when it eventually produces draft legislation. However, it is appropriate, I think, to give some initial and provisional views on the consultation proposals. In fact, there are several proposals within the consultation that we on those benches would, in all likelihood, support, including the disqualification of candidacy for intimidatory or abusive behaviour, improving the accessibility of voting that the minister spoke about and, in fact, the implementation of the law commission's recommendations of the restating of undue influence on voters. While more detail is needed on all of those, there are undoubtedly important areas to review and legislate upon. There are, however, some measures that we do have legitimate concerns about, and I go into those now in some more detail. The main proposal to extend candidacy rights for elections in Scotland to 16 and 17-year-olds and to foreign nationals residents in Scotland with limited rights are among those areas of concern, where we have serious anxieties about those proposals. On extending candidacy rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, the consultation document itself raises issues around the impact that long-working hours and travelling to Edinburgh for parliamentary sittings could have, as well as the potential impact on education, a point made by my colleague Stephen Kerr. I'm sure that we all wish to protect young people from other issues, and most notably intimidation and hate speech that we know those involved in the political process all too often experience. It's worth noting what the UK Parliament's Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2017. It reported that a significant proportion of candidates at the 2017 general election experienced harassment, abuse and intimidation. There has been persistent, vile and shocking abuse, threatened violence, including sexual violence and damage to property, added to which there are the considerable dangers of online abuse, which social media companies themselves remain slow to tackle in my view. I was very sorry, and I see her in the chamber, very desperately sorry to read this weekend of the abuse that our colleague and my fellow Highlands and Islands MSP Emerotic received that she described in the Scotsman, and I can only agree with her that yes, of course. I'm grateful to the member for his comments, of course, but I do wonder because I, of course, made the decision to stand weighing up the pros and the cons and understanding having seen the harassment that others had faced. Isn't that our choice, and isn't that the choice of young people to make for themselves, not for us to make for them? I understand the point that she makes, but I think that we do have a responsibility to consider the wider, general societal impacts that decisions that we make and legislation that we might bring forward on candidacy can affect 16 and 17-year-olds as a cohort, and I think that we do have a responsibility to consider it. I hear what you're saying, and I know that he's genuinely in his concerns, but I put this forward just as suggested in the context of 16 and 17-year-olds why we couldn't, if you like, dip our toe in the water with that age group in the context of local government elections and election to local councils, because that would address his point about travelling to Edinburgh and long sitting hours. Donald Cameron. I'm slightly nervous, if I'm being honest, and I'm grateful for the intervention of using local elections as some kind of testing bed for this. I think that we just have to be courageous enough to debate the issues and to consult, and particularly to consult with 16 and 17-year-olds about this. I'm grateful to Donald Cameron for giving way. Just on the point that Graham Day raised, Donald Cameron will be aware that Highland Council recently had a full council meeting that lasted the entire day, so I don't think that we should get into the perception that somehow local government does less hours than we do here. I speak as a former councillor and an MP and an MSP, and in fact the council meetings can last far longer than our debates here in the Scottish Parliament. Donald Cameron. I thank Douglas Ross for that intervention, and he's absolutely right about what transpires in council chambers, as well as what transpires here. Issues of harassment are, in fact, very important to take into account, particularly given the enhanced focus that we rightly place on promoting better mental health and wellbeing. That's why we have included this point in our amendment. The safeguarding of young people must be at the heart of any proposal. We believe that any new measures that affect candidacy and voting rights should also be subject to a full impact assessment, also included in our amendment, which I hope Garners supports. Minister, I'm thankful for taking the intervention. In that point, I probably should have said that you're in my speech as well. We're quite happy to accept your amendment because we do take on board some of the issues and challenges with younger candidates in particular. I think that, as I said in my speech, we have to make sure that it would be a safer environment as possible for them. I'm very grateful for that clarification and for the support. On the second issue of extending candidacy rights to those with limited leave to remain in the UK to hold elected office, I think that there are again serious and legitimate questions over what happens, because it does relate to time limited individuals. There are questions over what happens if their leave to remain comes to an end during that person's term of office for whatever reason and the consequences of that through resignation and subsequent by-elections. Moving on to chapter 2 of the consultation, this poses a question around the extension of voting rights to individuals detained on mental health grounds related to criminal justice. I believe personally that this is a potentially very dangerous proposal. Again, as the consultation itself explains, this could include people who have been found guilty in a court of law, and I'm quoting from the consultation, in a court of law of serious offences which may have resulted in lengthy jail sentences if they had not been committed for treatment under the criminal procedure of Scotland in 1995. As a party, we remain robustly opposed to the extension of voting rights to prisoners for very well documented reasons, and we would need very compelling reasons indeed for there to be some kind of different treatment for those individuals detained on mental health grounds relating to criminal justice. Chapter 2 of the consultation also addresses voter identification, and as the minister himself has said, we debated the legislative consent motion about a year ago. We support voter identification in terms of reducing voter fraud. Although voter fraud is occasions, occurrences of that are unfortunately rare, they do occur and a low conviction rate does not indicate the absence of a problem. I thank the member for giving way. I'm sorry, I slightly delayed intervention. Just on the point of prisoners and voting rights, would the member acknowledge that a cohort of any prison population is not convicted? Absolutely, but that doesn't alter the point that I made. Presiding Officer, I'm looking at the clock and wondering if the time... If you have more to say, Mr Cameron, please. Thank you. Something that I rarely say. Always have more to say. Anyway, we believe that far from disenfranchising voters, the 2022 UK Act brought in changes that are commonplace in many countries around the world. Voter identification has been backed by the Electoral Commission and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which says that without it it is a security issue. In addition, anyone without a form of identification will be able to apply for a new free voter card. An Electoral Commission will also be delivering, I believe, national communications campaigns for voter identification purposes. Chapter 3 and 5 posed more technical questions around the scheduling of elections, campaign finance rules and the administration and governance around elections. We await the findings of the consultation in that respect and will take a view on those in due course. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, can I urge everyone with an interest to respond to the consultation? I would sincerely ask the Scottish Government to think very carefully about the specific proposals to extend candidacy to 16 and 17-year-olds and foreign nationals with limited rights to remain, as well as to think carefully about extending voting rights to individuals detained on mental health grounds relating to criminal justice. Those benches will always support proposals that enhance our democracy and improve the legitimacy of our processes. With that, Presiding Officer, can I close and ask for support for our amendment? This is a little bit of heaven for Liberal Democrats. We love nothing more than debating a good bit of electoral reform, so I might need much more than six minutes with all that I've got to get off my chest. In 1994, I toured the United States of America on a United States information agency-funded visit to the midterm elections. It was the time of Newt Gingrich for those who remember, and he was at his prime with his contract with America. That was before the Tea Party and before Donald Trump and all those various other incarnations. We visited Jacksonville, in Florida, where there have been recently boundary changes for the US Congress. I do like a good electoral map. I went to the back of the office and discovered that there wasn't just one map for this district, but there were many maps for this district, and it covered several different walls. I discovered that this was because it was 400 miles long and, in some cases, only one mile wide. It was because there had been some electoral reform. The Republicans had engineered this district to connect all the communities with a majority of black people so that they could concentrate the predominantly Democrat voting population into one district. Leaving the Republicans to win the neighbouring districts that used to be Democrat. That was my first experience of gerrymandering, and I hadn't realised how extreme it could get. Does Willie Rennie also accept that Florida contains other warnings for us when we seek to tamper without due consideration and thoughtfulness with our electoral process in terms of hanging chads and electronic voting machines and everything that comes with that? The member forgot about pregnant chads as well. There were various forms of different chads. Of course that caused an enormous challenge for that presidential election and did really threaten what you might call the premier democracy in the world. We also had our own experience back in 2007 when we combined for the first time the council elections with the Scottish Parliament elections on a new voting system. I still recall seeing number 2s, 1s and 5s in all the different boxes in the different ballot papers in all the wrong places. That really caused problems for the legitimacy of those elections at that point. We have learned a number of lessons, so we need to be careful when we make reforms. America was subject to political interference in its electoral system. We have a more independent system, but that does not stop politicians setting the rules and the policy, which others may describe as interference too. Willie Rennie will agree with me that we will all have to look at that with a level of maturity in order to stay away from the potential gerrymandering that he speaks of. Wether we can get maturity is one question, but we should certainly have a degree of independence and rigor around about the system. There has been—that will be the first time, the member says, from a sedentary position. The Conservatives have changed the rules about the size of constituencies, and that was quite controversial at the Westminster Parliament. Many argue that it will disenfranchise voters in more urban populations, which happen to be non-conservative voters in those areas. Of course, the recent voter ID changes. Some say that they are designed to discourage voters who are less likely to have a passport or some formal identification, which should be a disappointment, because we should be encouraging as many people as possible to vote. I think that the spurious claim that there is somehow massive fraud in the electoral system or there could be massive fraud is indeed spurious. I support votes at 16. I did support it when it was proposed for this Parliament and for council elections, but equally those on the other side of the debate have argued that it was some cynical ploy in order to improve and increase the numbers of people who do not vote conservative within the voting population. The point that I am making is that there are accusations about political interference when we should be aiming for independence, and that is why the minister is right. We need to approach those things with a certain degree of objectivity to avoid those accusations to make sure that we maintain the credibility of the whole system. The proposed changes in the Scottish Government's consultation are pretty limited in scope. Nevertheless, I think that some of them are very welcome. I was particularly attracted to the degree of anonymity that is proposed around a correspondence address for council candidates. I do not think that it is really fair, particularly for vulnerable people, to have their home address published on the ballot paper or some headquarters in some faraway location. I think that there should be some correspondence address that allows them to show that they are local without revealing their family home, particularly during a period of political threats and intimidation. I think that we need to have that anonymity. It is the 36-year-old that I worry about rather than the 16-year-olds. We should be encouraging 16 and 17-year-olds to play an active role in public life. I think that they have shown themselves particularly well through the votes in the Scottish Parliament and the council elections. The engagement has been tremendous. We really need to settle in this country. When are people old enough to make decisions about their lives and the lives of other people? We need to get that clear. To be honest, it is all over the place. Sometimes it is 18, sometimes it is 16. I have heard recently that it should be 25 in some circumstances. I do not think that it is sensible to have such a wide variety of different ages. I think that we need to have some settling around this. I know that it is not easy because we have different factors to consider in different circumstances. I take the point that Donald Cameron is making. That place is not friendly, to be honest, to anybody of any age sometimes. The hours that we have to endure are incredible. Therefore, we need to get that settled, particularly for those who have family responsibilities and the decision time is so variable. We have good progress in recent years, with the remote voting and the remote speaking. I think that that is a good bit of progress. I have gone over seven minutes already. I think that we need to extend the candidate rights to 16-year-olds but make sure that we change the institutions in which they are entering to make sure that they are suitable for those individuals. I love a good citizens assembly. It is important to try to engage the wider population in in-depth decisions, but we should not use them to kick more issues into the long grass. Too often, that is exactly what they are used for. I will give you one example, council tax reform. This place could not solve it for 15 years. I have sat through numerous discussions across party groups who have looked into the issue. The SNP to be frank was never really interested in changing it despite the promise in 2007. Now we have the citizens assembly, so we can kick it over there and leave it to them to resolve when we are incapable of resolving it here. It should not be used for that. It should be used for finding real solutions for issues that involve wider engagement. I would be remiss in not talking about proper electoral reform and that is proportional representation. I think that we need that for the House of Commons. I think that every vote should count. We should put an end to things like Mondeo man, Wooster woman, Essex man, Hobby City woman, Motorway man, Soccer mom, Workington man and my party has come up with a new one, which is the Surrey shufflers. It is people who move out of London into the suburbs. We should not be focusing on such narrow groups of people to decide the future of our government. We should have votes on a proportional basis for everyone so that we can have a fair system, greater engagement. It should be the single transferable vote with multi-member constituencies, but I won't obsess about that at all. I think that it is important to have the change so that we can have a refreshed democracy and for that I think that the country will be far better. We will now move to the open debate. Again, we have a lot of time in hand so we could happily continue in the vein that we have started off in. I call Bob Doris to be followed by Stephen Kerr. I am keen to do so, and I have a strong constituency interest, which will become clear shortly. First of all, if we look at the section within the Scottish Electoral Reform consultation, it looks at improving the accessibility of voting. Comments and opinions are sought with regard to providing support at polling stations. It highlights those with citing hearing impairments within the consultation. There are some concerns that UK changes, which no longer makes tactile voting devices an automatic provision at polling stations, may be detrimental. The change at a UK level requires polling stations to have reasonable equipment to make it easier for people with disabilities to vote independently and secretly. The UK 22 act now places a duty on the electoral commission to produce guidance for returning officers, which will include minimum standards of equipment available. The Scottish Government appears to be taking a similar approach, and as long as those who wish to have a tactile voting device can still get access to one, that would seem a reasonable direction of travel. It also welcomes the suggestion that digital voting cards will also potentially be available for visual impairments, and that that should be considered but developed over a longer term because of practicalities in cost and development work that has to take place around that. Why do I mention those things, Presiding Officer, as important as they are that might not be the burning issues at the heart of the debate this afternoon? I mention those both because they are matters of accessibility of voting. We should always be looking at that to make sure that the electorate can cast a valid vote, that their vote counts and is counted. Unfortunately, in some elections, some people's votes do not count, but they are not counted. I refer to the perennial issue of how we minimise and reduce the prospect of rejected ballot papers. That is highlighted very well in the Electoral Commission report on the May 2022 Scottish Council elections, and that is where my direct constituency interest comes into that I referred to at the start of my contribution. From the outset, let me say that, by and large, the report is hugely positive, and I think that all involved in delivering safe and secure elections last year for all their hard work and their success. However, although only 1.85 per cent of ballot papers were rejected at that election, it makes serious concerns over the level of rejected papers in some council wards. Back to that constituency interest. Can I award which sits within Mary Helen Springburn, the constituency that I am privileged to represent, had a rejection rate of 5.64 per cent? At the previous local authority election, it was 5.36, not a one-off pattern. With a rejection rate at three times the national average, we cannot assume that more voters will make their votes count next time round. Indeed, it may be the same set of voters who routinely do not vote in a way that allows their votes to be counted and that are rejected. We may be perennially disenfranchising 5 to 6 per cent of my constituents that go out to vote. It is our job to get it right, not just the job of voters to get it right. At each election disenfranchised, with little idea of their votes, do not count. The next four areas with the highest... Yes, Stephen King. Would Bob Dorris agree that part of the problem with some of the electorate is that there are so many voting systems and there are certain sections of our electorate that are perhaps quite frankly and understandably confused about which sort of voting method they are to use. How big are the posters and all the leaflets? Having different sorts of electoral systems for every election is bound to be confusing for a substantial number of people. I thank Mr Kerr for that intervention. I am so tempted to say if we could have Westminster elections that would de-complicate matters considerably, but I am not going to do that in what is a very consensual debate, but you do have a valid point. Mr Kerr, I would agree with that, but it is for us to get it right, not for the electorate to have to navigate a complicated system. I think that that is the important point that Mr Kerr seeks to make. The next four areas with the highest rejection levels range from between four and four and a half per cent. That is still more than double the national average, Presiding Officer, and 64 per cent of papers rejected were for voting for more than one first preference candidate. We know the risk factors, and Mr Kerr alluded to some of those. Deprivation is a risk factor. Unemployment is. Historic trends are. Multiple party candidates on the ballot paper also are. There is a predictability to some of this, but what we do not have is a coherent, structured strategy for dealing with it. Voter identification and education may need to be tailored for each individual election, absolutely, but that work should take place targeted to areas most likely to have disenfranchised voters at elections all year round, not just when there is an election on. However, no one body has the statutory duty to ensure that this happens, not the local elections office of returning officers, not the electoral management board for Scotland, not the electoral commission. That is an issue, I feel. Counselors in the local ward of canal, Counselor Jackie McLaren, who is currently Glasgow's Lord Provost and Counselor Alan Gow, have also highlighted those issues, and they and myself have previously met the electoral commission shortly to progress some of those issues further. I should point out that the electoral commission is listening. It wants to look at what can be done locally at a grass-roots level to make sure that there is impartial, independent, grass-roots, community-led, good quality voter information and education as a matter of course in areas where there could be a high risk of rejected ballot papers and of disenfranchisement. I commend the electoral commission for that, but I would like consideration from the Scottish Government for placing a duty, be that on the electoral commission or another body, to make sure that that happens routinely and strategically. It may be a ward in my constituency, but in every part of Scotland there will be outliers. In your constituency, to fail the MSPs and your electoral regions, there will be one or two council wards where the amount of rejected papers is far higher or the turnout is far lower. It may not be an outlier to the extent of canal ward in my constituency, but it will be an outlier in your area, and that requires attention. I think that there should be a statutory duty place somewhere to tackle that. I would welcome any thoughts that the Government would have in relation to that and whether the legislation that will follow from this consultation could nip some of that in Minister in relation to securing what I am looking to have. Finally, if I've got any time left, which I do, but it must have made not to mention foreign nationals, normally resident within Scotland with limited rights to remain in the UK. I do believe very strongly that absolutely should have candidacy rights. We need to make sure that we maximise the ability for all those people who have chosen Scotland as their home to vote in elections and to stand for elections and all governance of issues in making sure that we embed people at the heart of our democracy. The Scottish Government is currently consulting to make sure that those who have not had their cases disposed of by the Home Office in relation to immigration cases looking for leave to remain can get access to higher education, free, because those who are waiting longer than three years have no right, those who are over 18 have no right. The Scottish Government lost a court case in relation to that, saying that it was deeply unfair. Sorry, Mr Kerr, did you want an intervention? Apologies, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Government is seeking to get its house in order to make sure that we are fair in relation to education provision in Scotland and we have to be fair irrespective of where that power lies at a Scottish level and at a UK level. Those who have chosen Scotland as their home should be able to vote in elections and to stand for elections. Finally, Presiding Officer, I strongly agree that those who have found guilt over a fence involving the harassment or intimidation of politicians, candidates and more importantly, campaigners who are only out of their blood sweat and talk as they believe in something have the right not to be intimidated in the democratic process. Those who have found guilty of such intimidation should be banned from standing from election and five years seems about right. Presiding Officer, thank you. I never thought I'd see the day elect gave me 10 minutes in this Parliament. Thank you, Mr Doris. I'm not entirely sure whether you'll see it anytime soon either. I now call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Emma Roddick. Yet, if he should give up what he has begun seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the king of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and subvert our of his own right in ours and make some other man who was well able to defend us, our king. I probably need to offer no explanation to you, Presiding Officer, but those are words from the declaration of our growth of 1320. The words, our exertion, well, our vote to me is our exertion of this day and the ballot box allows every one of us the privilege of expressing our view on the direction of travel that we wish our nation to take. I'm referring back to the quote. History has taught us that defining the defence of the nation and our freedom is resting upon solely the shoulders of one chosen individual and one ideology is fraught with danger. Our democracy is rules based and rests on an accommodation between differing interests and that is what a healthy democracy promotes and that's what this Parliament should promote. Its practices and procedures should facilitate it. As we, as if we need any reminder of the importance of defending our democratic traditions and practices, dare I remind the chamber that Monday of this week was the 90th anniversary of the coming to power of Adolf Hitler as the Chancellor of Germany. I mention this because it's always good to be reminded of the fragility of our democratic institutions and practices. We should not consider ourselves to be unassailable and we should not become complacent. We cannot afford complacency about what we should rightly regard as our birthright. We must all be willing to defend our democracy from the threat of people who seek to ignore or sideline the democratic process. That is why I agree with my colleague, who spoke earlier, when he described the importance of us all taking a close interest in updating and revitalising our electoral process. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to engage in the democratic process without fear or favour is something to which we are should have a total and uncompromising commitment. I appreciate and agree with the points that he makes about the importance of defending democracy and how it is our birthright. Can he understand the reaction that is likely to be from people who do not have passports and who do not have driving licenses, who turn up in future at the next UK general election to be told that they do not enjoy such a birthright? I never have any concern about whether or not Alasdair Allan is making his point honestly and sincerely. I believe that there are a number of ways in which voters can obtain, for no charge, an appropriate identification that they can use at the UK general election. I have no concerns whatsoever about that. I am glad that he agrees with me about the importance of us defending in an uncompromising way our democracy, but I think that that defence of democracy involves us being prepared to look at updating those democratic processes. That is why I, along with Donald Cameron, welcome this consultation from the Government on electoral reform. There is a lot to consider in the Government's consultation. I am afraid that I could not even begin in the time that I thought I would allocate. If I had known we were going to have so much time, I would have perhaps come with a list of things and I am sure I could look through the document and come up with things. To properly address everything is a very packed document. By the way, congratulations to the minister on a very arresting picture at the beginning of the document, which I am sure everyone will have noticed, my old sparring partner, the minister. I cannot address all the issues that are raised in the document, but I want to talk about some over art. It is a compliment. The minister says that he is not sure that it is a compliment. It is a compliment. I was not using arresting as any sort of a pun when I said that he had an arresting picture. Our democracy needs good people, many women, just for public office. That is what I would like to measure my remarks on in the context of the consultation paper. Right now in Scotland, many qualified people would never consider putting themselves forward for public office. People say to me, and I am sure, and I would wedger that people say to many of you, my colleagues in this chamber, why would you want to be a politician? Why would you want to put yourself through all that? Why would you want to put your family through all that? There is the old canard that someone who wants to be a politician should be banned from ever being able to be one, etc. The underpinning aspect of the consultation is about engagement. Engaging people to make it easy for them to become candidates and actively engage in the democratic process is local and national. Engaging all our fellow Scots to make our democracy accessible to them and to have the opportunity of voting made available to them is what this document is all about. Many good people who have a desire to stand for election in our nation are refusing to do so because of intimidation. Many voters are turned off by the viciousness and the vitriol. They do not engage in the discussion for fear of retribution. It would be easy for us to blame this on social media, but it is not just a social media phenomenon, I can tell you. We would be kidding ourselves if we think that this is something limited to the virtual sphere. Again, it is similar to the intervention that Mr Rennie made. Is it not down to ourselves in this place as well to show leadership in that and how we conduct ourselves in this chamber and how we interact with one another? Today's debate is a perfect example of how members of the public would probably want to see us interact with each other instead of the usual argy bargy that we tend to have. I respect the fact that some of his party members applaud that. I do not applaud that. In fact, debate and robust debate are absolutely central to the functioning of a vital democracy. Where we go wrong in Scotland increasingly is that our politics has become nasty. It is quite possible for there to be a full-on battle of ideas, as there often is in this chamber. That is out of the nastiness. There is no way on this planet that, because I disagree with Graham Day, somehow Graham Day is my enemy. We have to take this out of our politics and there is too much of that in our politics today. I might identify, for example. I think that awareness is very important in politics, so perhaps Mr Kerr might reflect on that. It is not just today in his speech, but in his contributions as we go forward in future debates. Stephen Kerr. I think that this is an example, but I have just been talking about it. If you are a member of this Parliament and you cannot stand up to the robust presentation of someone's views that you disagree with, then my goodness me, have you chosen the right path by being here? At the end of the day, I am afraid that that intervention on its own stands some merit of study, because that is exactly what is wrong with our politics. Yes, of course. Thank you, Stephen Kerr, for giving way. One of the things that we do need to be cognisant of in this chamber is the language that we use that is respectful and very carefully constructed to convey respect for our colleagues. Would you agree that we need to use respectful language across this chamber? We need to speak through the chair, Stephen Kerr. On no account should that mean or become a byword for us having to agree with each other. The people of Scotland do not send us here to agree with each other. They know full well that they are voting for us because of the views that we hold that are replicated by what they believe, and they would expect us to stand up for those things when we speak in this chamber. The idea that the only way that this Parliament functions or our democracy flourishes is by us all agreeing is a busted flush. That is not going to work. What works is when we can have a full-on debate about ideas that we profoundly disagree with each other on without the personal vitriol and nastiness. It is just not required. I am afraid that, from my point of view, and maybe I am beginning to test the Presiding Officer's patience on time, and I have got so much more to say, of course, but an example of this, and I will draw on the experience that many of us have had on this side of this chamber. When you see political banners, let's say Tory scum out or England get out of Scotland, it is difficult to read those banners in any other way than they are intended to harass and to bully opponents. Anyone who stands behind such a banner seeks not to engage with issues or have a debate robustly and settle it with a vote. They stand behind those banners because they wish to cause intimidation and fear, and such a thing is bigotry, and it has no place in modern Scotland. Briefly, because it is a very interesting debate, but I think that we need to probably get back to the topic. I do not disagree with the member's assessment of some of the banners that he mentions, but just in the interests of completeness he will, of course, be aware that many of us on this side of that particular debate experience bigotry and intimidation from people of an extreme on the other side of this debate, too. I'm not disputing that, and that's why I said that I was going to relate it into the context of the people that sit on the nice side of the chamber. But if we can all agree that this sort of thing is the thing that we should all condemn and all stand against, then that is progress in the context of the atmosphere, the environment in which politics is conducted in Scotland. I'm not going to make my way through my speech, which is surprising because I thought we had at least half an hour in hand, but there we go. I'm obviously not getting into half an hour, but I would just conclude by saying that there is a growing number of people in our country who are the don't-knows. And when pushed it isn't that they don't know, it's that they prefer not to say because they don't want hassle, and that should be something that concerns all of us. Beyond the negative political culture, there are other issues which I think are dissuading people who want to be part of the change that they believe Scotland needs to see, but they don't put themselves forward. I will save those comments for another speech on another occasion if I can ingratiate myself with my party's chief whip. But I think that the issues in this document do deserve careful thought and consideration, and especially around the idea of throwing 16 and 17-year-olds into what I've been describing. I do believe that we have a duty of care, that we have got a safeguarding responsibility for 16 and 17-year-olds. And, Presiding Officer, in conclusion, you'll be pleased to hear, election reform is vitally important. But let's not kid ourselves on that election reform in the context of the chapters and headings in the minister's consultation paper alone will improve participation in the democratic process or change the culture of politics in Scotland that I detect we would all like to see. I might just add for the record that I think it might perhaps be wise for Mr Kerr not to assume that any particular precedent was being established today in terms of speaking time. On that note, I now call Emma Roddick to be followed by Paul McLean and Ms Roddick. It does feel odd to be discussing electoral reform and enhancing our democracy on the day that the public gallery is empty. I want to make clear my solidarity with those on strike who are also upholding democracy by doing so, not only making their voices heard on their working pay and conditions but picketing during a week where workers' rights and the right to strike are both under threat from the UK Government. Presiding Officer, I was one of the first people to benefit from Scotland's progressive attitude towards electoral reform voting in the 2014 independence referendum before being denied a say in whom my MP would be the following year in the 2015 Westminster general election. I had mixed feelings at the time but I'm now certain that expanding voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds who were later given the right to have their say in Scottish elections was the right thing to do. They've had that right for a few elections now and firstly the world hasn't burned but secondly we're seeing real impact in political inclusion and activity amongst that age group. I might be the only one at the moment in this place but many more are councillors and activists in making a real difference to their communities. Though they're not in my own party, some are Highland councillors and frequently making a real difference to the diversity and quality of debate there. I enjoy taking a wee cross-party interest in watching the efforts of Molly Nolan and Colin Atkin from Willie Rennie's party, particularly as there's a lot more opportunity for finding common ground when it comes to local issues. I think the experience of a young person getting elected to anybody, be it council or parliament, would be very different when you don't stick out like a sore thumb and you have some colleagues with similar experiences. There is quantitative evidence to recent research through Edinburgh and Sheffield University shows that those who were given the right to vote in 2014 are more likely to continue the habit of voting into their 20s with young people being one of the least registered groups. The expansion of voting rights to them is worthy work in getting folk my age and younger more interested in politics because they now have a real stake and a real voice and the same vote as anyone else. It only makes sense, I think, for the right to stand as a candidate to be aligned with this. I think it's important for folk to remember that that's all we're talking about here, the right to stand. If that right were extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, people would still have a right to vote against 16 and 17-year-old candidates, although I do sincerely hope that they would find a better reason to do so than simply age on its own. I think it's a shame that we're hearing comments that amount to pretty much they should be in school, which is not a comment that I ever heard when I was working delivery or in retail as a teenager. Out with that it was get a job, pull your socks up and members of my family reminding me of the age they were when they got a paper round or went to help their parents at work. Young folk can make decisions for themselves. Discussion is all very well and debate is necessary, but let's try and stay away from paternalistic comments and moving towards condescension because if you can vote, why not be allowed a platform to speak your mind and promote your ideas as well? I'm also glad that we are taking other progressive steps, like building on the work done through the Scottish Elections Act of 2020, which extended the right to be a candidate to many of those who are not in Scotland by accident of birth but who have chosen to make this place their home. The consultation paper also discusses whether that can be extended even further to those with limited leave to remain. It's also looking at how wider support can be offered to disabled voters and I was glad to hear the minister making specific reference to that commitment in his opening remarks. Disabled people know how important it is that there are folk with personal experience or at the very least who value and make sure they listen to lived experience representing us at all levels of government. That becomes far less likely if disabled people are prevented from voting for or indeed voting against candidates and parties who fail to do so simply because they are disabled. A particularly niche suggestion in the consultation but one that I'm personally a fan of is the discussion around addresses and alternatives being printed on the ballot paper. I've been an election agent and my own election agent at a previous address and I know all too well the dangers that that presents to candidates. Council candidates should not have to publish their address on the ballot paper but the current alternative printing the words address within X council area is not good enough because those words mean very little to many of my constituents particularly those voting in Highland council elections. Our local authority is the largest in the country, not only the seven most populated council area in Scotland but one that covers an area 20 per cent larger than Wales and amounting to 11.4 per cent of the whole of Great Britain. A voter in WIC will want to know if their candidates have an address in their ward, the neighbouring Caithness ward, Inverness or perhaps even in Kilhorn which is over a 200 mile drive away. The suggestion that printing the words address within X ward be added to the existing two options will be a very welcome one for many that I represent. I hope that all fellow electoral nerds will take an interest in this consultation and share their thoughts and I hope that those council candidates who take to Facebook, Twitter and SNP branch meetings after elections to winge quite rightly about the issues with the ballot paper or the relationship between Boundaries Scotland and the Scottish Parliament will take the time to put it in writing because these are the things that we need to hear. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing forward this debate today. As a previous member of the standards committee, this topic was discussed at length at the committee over a few sessions in Bob Doris. I will remember that and we had also had a few meetings with the minister on the topic. The consultation seeks to deliver on the joint undertaking between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party, set out in the shared policy programme to increase voter registration and promote active participation elections by underrepresented groups including young people and foreign nationals. As we are already here, I am glad to hear that we have got cross-party support at this stage regarding the consultation. I know that we have slightly different views that you can touch on. The Scottish Government led the way in 2017 by lowering the voting age to 16 to give young people a choice. At 16, I believe, they should have the right to vote. We have already seen and we have had that debate around whether 16 or 17-year-olds are able to do that. We have all met and experienced and discussed and debated with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. Some of the discussions that we have had in an alcohol focus event just last week are absolutely fantastic, so they would add to the value of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we can agree that. I am grateful to him for giving way. In fact, he makes a very good point. There are lots of forums and platforms, not least the Scottish Youth Parliament, where 16 and 17-year-olds can help their voices heard and are with respect. That underpins the concerns that I might have about 16 to 17-year-olds standing for this place. There are other forums. I still believe that they have the right to make their views known. I know that there are issues around 16 to 17-year-olds that have been raised, which I will come on to in that regard. Internationally, Scotland has one of the world's most generous and inclusive arrangements for voting and candidacy rights. Many democracies extend voting and candidacy rights on an equivalent basis, so that is with two or more countries. It is agreeing to give voting and candidacy rights to each other's nationals. The Scottish Parliament does that on a unilateral basis, allowing those who have chosen to make their life in Scotland the right to participate in our democracy. On expanding candidacy rights, the consultation raises potential issues on 16 and 17-year-olds, such as exposure to online intimidation and hate speech. It also raises potential issues around working time in the Parliament, which we know can occasionally hold us late. That means that 16 to 17-year-olds may need to stay away from home. I am glad that Donald Cameron mentioned that in amendment and that the Government is supporting that as well. That is an incredibly important point to mention. I am building on the comments that have been made by Willie Rennie and Emma Roddick on the differential between the age of 16 and 18. Obviously, there are some things in Scotland that you cannot do until you are 18. You cannot drink. You cannot buy cigarettes. Do you think that the age of 16 should be applicable across all areas, whether it is voting or purchasing cigarettes or alcohol? Or do you think that there is an argument for doing different things at different ages effectively? I think that the member makes a very good point. I think that it needs a debate because it is not just voting rights that talks across other policy issues as well. It merits a debate on that. The point that Willie Rennie made on that point is very important because it does 16 to 18 to 21. I think that it merits a discussion, but there are policy areas that we need to look at more in depth. I think that it merits a discussion in that regard. I want to move on and on about those with limited leave to remain in the UK to hold elected office. That raises a number of issues. One of these is if their leave comes to an end during the course of this office, the person would have no choice but to resign. Local government by election has been estimated at the cost of £50,000. The UK Government amended legislation to ensure that those filling elected posts in local or devolved government is not considered to be employment for the purposes of immigration rules and conditions-restricted employment do not affect ability to undertake such activities. The first three questions that are asked in the consultation are around about, first of all, should 16 to 17-year-olds be able to stand in both Scottish and local elections or neither. Certainly, my point of view is that they should be able to stand in Scottish and both local elections. The question 2 also asks the same thing in regards to the same question on foreign national residents in Scotland with limited rights in the UK again, so it should be Scottish and local, either or or neither. I want to move on to the next thing about talking about the qualifications that have been shared before. The study that was carried out by the Electoral Commission in the 2022 Scottish Local Elections estimated that 44 per cent of candidates stated that there are separate threats, abuse or intimidation. 44 per cent. The Scottish Government has a view that those harassing and intimidation electors should be subject to additional sanctions that reflect on the defence on the democratic process. It mentions specifically as well that an individual is convicted of certain offences and the court is satisfied and that offence was aggravated by hostility to either a candidate, an elected member or campaigners who are campaigning on behalf of a candidate as well should mention that the court can make a disqualification order of five years in relation to standing or holding an elected office. The consultation asks whether that is a suitable sanction or not. I think that that is an incredibly important point where Stephen Kerr's contribution that we all need to do with things in a more respectful manner. There are a few other areas that I want to talk about as well in publication of home addresses. I think that we have already heard that candidates have to provide their home addresses to returning officers, but those are not made public. Emma Roddick touched on the point about providing home address for agents. That is made publicly available in my collection. Some candidates may be their own agents. I agree that the point that Emma has made on that point of view and support are for use. The Welsh Government has already made that change. Perhaps one of the most important part in the consultation that has not really been talked about in a massive amount is that of increasing registration. The electoral commission produces a completeness and accurate report on the registers of Great Britain every four years. The report estimated that 17 per cent of eligible vote in Scotland are either not registered or not correctly registered at their home address. That is between £630,000 and £890,000. It is like having not having the City of Glasgow being able to vote, so 630,000 in between 900,000 people aren't able to vote and aren't registered in terms of that. That comes down in a split in age groups as well. 68 per cent between 1834 are estimated to be registered, 68 per cent with 92 per cent of over 55 in over in Scotland. We need to make sure that in many areas of young people as well as other voters are eligible to take part in our democracy. I wonder if the member agrees with me that those statistics are particularly prevalent in areas of deprivation. Those sensitive areas have got low turnout. If my contribution is nearly wrong, there is a higher rejection rate on spoil papers, there is a triple disenfranchisement going on and there is the need for a serious look at taking us forward in a strategic fashion. The figures are produced at national level, but it does not go down, as the member said, particularly in areas of multiple deprivation. I know that we discussed that in the committee as well. The minister could comment on that as well. That is something that we should be looking to do. That is particularly important. We touched on accessibility of voters and the possibility of companions for those who need help in casting of voters when the option is being considered as well. The Scottish Government is minded to increase the number of voters that a companion can support in a Scottish election to five. Again, that improves that area. That is a suite of measures by the Scottish Government that looks to increase the registration of voters, potentially help younger and foreign nationals to take part in our democracy. It also looks at increasing levels of abuse that we suffer as politicians and what sanctions we can do to deter that. I would encourage all of us to publicise consultation and encourage members of the public to take part. I am pleased to contribute to this debate, which, at its core, is about making our democracy fairer, more inclusive and more transparent. The Government's consultation touches on a number of different areas of electoral law and proposes a number of different possible changes. The issue of how candidates are treated when on election campaign trail is one that has always been an issue, but it has become more prominent in recent years. As MSPs, we know personally how divisive political campaigns have become and can become. Many of us have personal experience of harassment or intimidation at some point during our political careers. Even for those fortunate enough not to have encountered this type of behaviour, we know that it is far too common in elections at all levels of government. It is therefore right that we consult on whether the provisions of part 5 of the elections act 2022 should be replicated in elections held in Scotland. That would ensure that anyone charged with offences, including hostile behaviour towards candidates, campaigners and elected politicians, would be disqualified from holding any elective office at their own. It is important to consider whether additional sanctions for the intimidation of candidates or elected politicians would be effective in encouraging more people to stand for election. I hope that the responses to the consultation will make it clear whether that is likely to be the case or not. Perhaps the most significant single change proposed by the consultation is the proposal to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to stand in a Scottish election. Our amendment seeks and speaks about safeguards for young people being at the heart of the proposals. It is clear that the issue is one that needs to be approached on balance. We need to look at the balance. We have already heard this afternoon about the enthusiasm that these individuals have towards the electoral process, but we also have to take on board how volatile they could be to some of that process. The balances and checks need to be in place to ensure that they are safeguarded. On the one hand, it is right to be open that our democracy system is there, but it is also to ensure that participation is possible. However, in the case of 16 and 17-year-olds, that must be considered for their wellbeing. For example, I have already spoken about the potential harassment and intimidation that candidates may encounter at all types of elections. When the target of such intimidation behaviour could be a 16-year-old, is it fair to ask whether they should be allowed to be put in that position? Is it fair to put them at risk, their families at risk and their compatriots and friends? Someone who is young and active has the enthusiasm for all that, and normally is surrounded with individuals who give them that enthusiasm. We do not want that to be removed. I am sympathetic to the points that the member has made. I have spoken in the chamber about the violence in schools just now. I am not proposing to abolish education. I would much prefer to get a better political environment so that those people can enjoy the rights that we have rather than restricting those rights because of the environment. Willie Rennie makes a very valid point, and I thank him for the intervention. However, it is the case that safeguards need to be in place. We would have to ensure that safeguards are here. You talk about education. There should be safeguards within the education environment or within the education establishment for individuals. That seems to be whether there has been a breakdown if there is a breakdown at present moments where people are at risk. We would need to make sure that those safeguards were here and that they were advanced and endorsed by us and by the organisation that looks forward to represent and support them. Given the risks that those safeguards might pose to—yes, of course? I have just been inspired to intervene, thank you for the intervention, based on the idea of safeguards. I suppose for a 16 or 17-year-old political party that would put forward a 16 or 17-year-old with a duty of care as well and they would have their assessment process. I suppose I would be addressing what other safeguards you think would be worthwhile, Mr Stewart, which would enable us to come on board and across party consensus to see 16 or 17-year-olds have candidacy rights, because that could get us all in the one place in relation to this matter. I think that there have been discussions at party level about what could be put in place and they should continue to be expanded during the consultation. We should get views from 16 and 17-year-olds about what they feel, because if that is the case, it is important to take on board the feelings and views that they may have. However, as I say, it is an opportunity to widen that scope and to talk through what might be possible. Given the risks that are proposed to the young people's wellbeing, it is essential for us to have a full impact assessment. That is what I would suggest. We have the impact assessment that looks at what can be discussed. Improving voter engagement more generally should also be a key aim of this consultation. The proposal to extend existing mail-out rules for local elections, which would allow each candidate to send one free-post letter or leaflet to their potential voters, is one way in which engagement could be improved. We know that a voter engagement tends to be lower in local elections, and that is reflected clearly when we look at the statistics around turnout. The previous two local elections in Scotland's turnout was 46.9 and 44.8. When we compare that to the Scottish Parliament, there were 55.8 and 63.5 in the last two elections. Addressing disparities such as those will take time and they will not be solved with a single issue or a single measure. Allowing wider engagement for all council candidates and all individuals is the most effective way we can. It is important that the Government considers views as to how that could be carefully involved. The rules regarding electoral boundaries are also something that the public has a huge interest in. It will be important to ensure that any changes in this area are not only transparent and fair, but are seen to be so by the public. We all have seen and heard accusations in the past of gerrymandering that has taken place across boundaries in other locations. It is therefore clear that the issue is of great interest to the public. It is quite important that the Scottish Election Reform Act 2020 removed ministerial discretion from boundary proposals that were proposed at that stage. That led to the local government housing and planning committee having a greater role in boundary reform processes in 2021 and they rejected two proposed reforms to local government boundaries. We are all still in a positive position where MSPs and we will have the final say here on reforms to our own constituents and our own regions with all the potential conflict of interest claims that that may endorse. That will be a brief minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I sure agree with me that what I said earlier on to Mr Rennie that this will be the first time that we will be doing this as a Parliament. There needs to be a level of maturity no matter if, for talking sake, the boundary commission will come back and change the boundaries of the great town of Paisley. We all have to look at this with a level of maturity, what is good for here and for the voting public, not just ourselves. I thank the minister for that intervention and I think he makes a very valid point. We have an interest in this whole process, but so do the constituents of these boundaries and these changes. Communities do not like being ripped apart or added to certain areas that they do not feel an assimilation with, so I think it is very important that we look at that. Public trust, as I say, is very much important in the whole process. Presiding Officer, this consultation touches on many aspects of our democracy and it is not possible to do justice to all that in one debate. You have seen that by the time that we have offered today. In conclusion, there is an opportunity for positive reform to our electoral practices and those benches are ready to listen constructively. We await the Government's final proposals in this area, where we will hope that transparency, fairness and the safeguarding of young people's wellbeing is at the heart of those reforms. I now call Evelyn Tweed to be followed by Graeme Dey. True democracy requires equal access for all when it comes to voting, standing for election and remaining in office. Electoral reform is vital to achieve that and I commend the Government for its ambitious plans and look forward to reading the consultation responses. Scotland has been progressive in previous reform, extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and has built a generation of committed and well informed voters. I really welcome the collegiate nature of the debate today and the minister's opening remarks. I have really enjoyed the contributions. I did not agree with them all, but I have enjoyed the debate so far. We are currently sitting at 45 per cent of women in this Parliament and this is progress, but there remain areas where significant improvement is required. I have spoken in this chamber before about the challenges that I face as a woman in politics and I would like to use this opportunity not to get into the finer points of the bill but to raise this issue once more and contribute to a conversation on mitigating some of the barriers both through the current reforms and into the future. Because there are barriers up against women in politics and across national and local government from sexist abuse to childcare or caring responsibilities to demanding unpredictable schedules that we have already mentioned today, to low pay in local government to name but a few. Historically politics has been dominated by men and according to engender, this has led to men being considered as the default figures in politics. Globally we see young women leaders not being taken seriously. When Jacinda Ardern and Sana Marine met on official business in New Zealand, journalists asked if the reason behind the meeting was their shared age and gender and would such a question have been put had they been male Prime Ministers? I don't think so. We need to reduce barriers to women not only standing for office but remaining in politics. Studies show that women are more likely to leave elected office sooner than their male counterparts and often when they do so they return to constituency level voluntary work, however men on the other hand are more likely to move on to other professional political roles. Local government is a key pipeline into national politics and I probably wouldn't be here today had I not stood for election to Stirling council in 2017. However research shows us that the typical councillor in Scotland is an able bodied white man in his 50s. There are many barriers to women entering politics and some are more difficult to address than others. In the report making it happen for 2027, in gender, elector and women 50-50 recommend increasing councillor renumeration as a key step in making standing for council or local government more tenable for women. That reform offers an opportunity to do so and one that I think we should take. You commented on remuneration and I think that that is very important. I had the privilege of being a councillor myself for 18 years before I came here and during that time remuneration was a massive issue. I do believe that it does stop younger and female candidates coming forward because the remuneration that they receive is not enough to then do other roles and responsibilities if that is the only thing they can do. The taking on a role of a councillor is not a short time, it can be even more lengthy than the job that we do here. I completely agree with the member's contribution. I think that remuneration is very important and I think that we need to consider that further for young people, for women and also the point that a lot of people think that a councillor is a part-time job and it's just not. The councillors in the chamber, including yourself, will know that. It's a full-time job. If you want to do the councillor's job well, it's full-time. Do you think that the time has come for us to consider reform of local government? I mean, I know that it's not part of this consultation, but in a way the member's comments, which I agree with, lead us to a point where we have to consider the number of councillors, number of councils, functions. Is it time that we looked at that again? Thank you for your intervention. I think that it's a good point well made, possibly for another day. As a councillor, I ran surgeries in far flung and remote places, which Mr Kerr will know. He knows the size of the patch that I worked. I would turn up into empty halls. I had no mobile signal. My location was widely advertised and basically I didn't feel safe. When I raised this with the council, their response was to ask if my husband knew where I was and would he notice if I did not return. This was not quite the response that I was looking for and it would actually be funny if it was not so serious. I think that that is a barrier to women running and staying in local politics and I think that one needs to be seriously looked at by councils. I'm not saying that all the councils are the same because I've heard from other people that they get very good support, but locally for me I didn't. Also, when I asked male colleagues for help on that point, I wasn't given it. I don't know if that was because they felt that it was not manly to ask for that support, but I think that that's something that we definitely need to look at. I look forward to seeing how those reforms will put support in place to encourage women to stand for office and stay in office. Gender also calls for quotas to ensure gender parity amongst candidates. This remains a reserved matter, but I call on the Government to continue to raise this with Westminster to share the benefits that these measures bring and to make a case for devolution of those powers. This reform also offers an opportunity to shore up protection for candidates and we have spoken about that earlier in the debate. Generally speaking, women are significantly more likely to experience harassment and abuse than men and this risk only increases in public facing roles. Women in politics are under scrutiny from the press and face abuse both online and off over their personal lives and their appearances. The risk is even further compounded for minoritised women with colour, disabled women and members of the LGBTQ plus community experiencing disproportionate levels of abuse and harassment. In the current reform of the legislation around intimidation and beyond, we must take the gender dynamics of intimidation and harassment seriously. How can we expect more equal representation if we cannot ensure safety? We have an opportunity here in Scotland to use these reforms to show that we value diverse voices, that everyone, regardless of age, gender, race or disability, has a place in politics. It is an opportunity that we must take. I took two electoral bills through the last Parliament. I recall in the course of the second of these, which set the terms for the conduct of the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, acknowledging that we had by no means reached the end of the road as far as electoral reform was concerned. I am therefore pleased to note the consultation on the topic and welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My abiding memory of that second piece of legislation, the Scottish General Election Coronavirus Bill, was the cross-party consensus that we were able to build around the legislation. The pandemic, of course, had focused minds. However, even allowing for that, the tenor of the process was overwhelmingly constructed, despite the fact that, for some, the prospect of the election proceeding was less enticing than others. This Parliament has, sadly, in my view, been a more unnecessarily confrontational beast than the last one, but I am heartened by the tone of today's debate and I live in hope. Not least of all because we, as the minister alluded to, as politicians cannot escape our responsibilities when it comes to encouraging increased voter registration and active participation, nor could ourselves on that our actions can't and don't have a detrimental impact on both. The image of politics at a UK level has been badly tarnished over recent times, and I suspect that it has turned off even more people from voting. We have not suffered from anything like the same kind of issues at Hoirude. Nevertheless, we need to be mindful of the nature of discourse that we have here and how it is reported and perceived. We cannot, on the one hand, commit ourselves to wanting to encourage greater involvement in the political process than, on the other, act in a way that at least some of those who are seeking to bring inside the electoral tent find off putting. Although we might all draw a bit of encouragement from a record 63 per cent turnout in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, we should not forget the resources that were committed to boosting the postal vote participation. In his ministerial forward to the consultation, George Adam references underrepresented groups, including young people and foreign nationalists, and he's right to do so. However, we have all of us as politicians during election campaigns met swathes of individuals who would not be covered by those herrings but who simply never vote, let alone would contemplate standing for election at any level. We need to consider how we engage those folk, which is where I'm coming from with my point about how we as politicians sit in the right tone. However, turning to the content of the Government's consultation, I think that we need to be completely open-minded on reform. However, at the same time, we shouldn't rush to change for the sake of it just because something needs to be done or we need to do something. I'm not suggesting for a moment that that's what the Government is doing here, but I'm reminded of a legitimate discussion that we had during the election's legislation in the last Parliament, namely the accepted electoral advantage that council candidates whose surnames placed them in the early part of the alphabet and there on the ballot paper have. There were those who outright, from the outset, favoured randomisation, and you could see the attractiveness of that at face value, but when you looked at the very large number of ballot papers which would have to be issued in order to ensure that there was no bias of another nature which might inadvertently come into play, then you realised the challenges here. That shouldn't be an excuse to dismiss what at face value is a reasonable suggestion, but it illustrates the need to interrogate the pros and cons of any significant electoral change that we're considering. We've made progress over recent times in terms of expanding voting and candidacy rights, and now, logically, the question of whether 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to stand for election arises. I've got to admit that I'm personally a little bit torn between the arguments that are for and against, but on balance, I tend to believe, as I noted earlier, that there is a potential case for dipping or two in the water in the form of local government elections. I think that that doesn't keep me from my point about listening to all the pros and cons. Douglas Ross' point about work load at council elections. Donald Cameron's amendment about safeguarding, but then Willie Rennie's views about the Parliament, the need to reflect the electorate that puts it here, they're all valid and need to be considered. On the question of banning individuals who've been found guilty of harassment or intimidation of politicians, candidates or campaigners losing the right to stand for election for five years, I've got no qualms. I absolutely support such a measure, not least of all because of the deterrent effect and the spin-off benefit of hopefully encouraging people to stand, who might not otherwise do so when they read of court cases involving abusive threats to political representatives. Let's face it, there are sadly far more of those occurrences than attract publicity and, frankly, anyone who believes such behaviour is acceptable has, in my view, no place in elected office. There are a number of other proposals such as those for home addresses of candidates acting as their own agents or the list in which council war people reside and I think require first reading for me a little bit more consideration. Turning to chapter 2 of the consultation and increasing registration, the fact is that, as others have spoken already, 17 per cent of eligible voters in Scotland are either not registered or not correctly registered at their current address is concerning. I'm all in favour of looking at processes to improve that position, but I do go back to my earlier point. If people don't wish to register or don't see it as a priority to re-register when they move house, then that is a reflection of the importance they place on voting and we need to reflect on that as policy. There is so much more in the consultation, which is as comprehensive as one would hope for, that I would have wanted to address, especially in relation to accessibility to voting and absent voting, but I have to confess that at the point of pairing this contribution I expected to be far more constrained in the time that I would have available. However, let me pick up on Willie Rennie's contribution, typically humorous and memorable on two counts. First, I think I heard him say something positive about the concept of independence, and secondly, and a surely similarly unique occurrence, an eight-minute speech from Mr Rennie on electoral reform and not a single mention of the F-word federalism. I know that he'll take my comments in the spirit intended. In conclusion, let me finish on a positive note. I have every confidence in the ability of this institution to debate and shape a set of electoral reforms which we can get behind and which will improve the processes and the landscape here in Scotland. The debate today has shown that it's possible. I look forward to it happening. At the outset, I'd like to say how much I've enjoyed the richness of this debate this afternoon. Longer speeches, better debating, more friendly, less combative and very constructive, I believe. This is a real lesson in what we should be doing in this Parliament, and I think we should learn from it. The only weakness of this afternoon's debate in my mind is that there are some members of this chamber missing who I'm sure could have added to it. Elections are the foundation of a thriving democracy, so I do welcome the debate and the opportunity to consider where our electoral system can be fine-tuned. Everyone in this chamber can speak with experience, not only of a voter but as a candidate and as an MSP, and that has led to this wide-ranging debate. Before I pick up on the salient points that have been raised, I'd like to mention my concerns on the age of lowering the age of election 216. Presiding Officer, despite what many people in here may think, I can remember back to 1977, backer, supertramp, Fleetwood Mac, Carly Simon, 10CC, the Sex Pistols and the Clash, they were all great bands. Presiding Officer, I'll let you decide which track of those bands sum me up, if not all of them, but suffice to say at that stage I was no more ready to do what I'm doing now than I was to fly to the moon. Presiding Officer, planning law, equalities, local government finance were not matters that I knew much about or, frankly, at that stage cared much about. Finding sufficient finance to go to the pub and play darts, which I often won, and to find a few pints were critical. As indeed was trying to make myself look 18, which I clearly wasn't, and it might well be that at 16 I was not representative of my country, but I guess I was representative of my age and my friends. What is more, Presiding Officer, my lived experience was truly limited. It is not till I had lived that I gained experience, living as a soldier where I learned of conflict and leadership, and later as a surveyor that I fully understood industry and finance, which was critical to allow me to do what I'm doing. It's only then that I can honestly say that I had an informed and balanced opinion. Yes, of course I'll give way to Emma Roddick. Thank the member very much for taking my intervention. On the point of experience, and I appreciate the point that he is making, we're often talking in this place about the lived experience that's now in this chamber, and a lot of that for many of us happened before the age of 16, so does he appreciate that it's not the same for everyone and there is more to life experience than reaching a specific age? Edward Mountain. I absolutely do accept that, but I also accept, and as I'm sure the member will accept, that many people come to MSPs as their last port of call when they've got a really serious problem, and they look to those MSPs to give them some guidance, some way through to see the problems that they've faced. And not everyone has faced those problems before. It's only later in life when you've seen those problems and seen how people have dealt with them that you honestly know the best way to deal with them. So I think there's a balance there in my opinion. I was interested now turning to the debates. I always like to try and agree with the minister when I meet. He doesn't think this is the case, but let's start off where I do agree. More participation of voters, I totally agree. More accessibility, I totally agree. And there were other things in your speech that I agreed with. And I would say that turning to Donald Cameron's speech, the reform of the electoral system should be evolutionary, not revolutionary, encouraging engagement as he made quite clear. And he did also, as many people have, and I'm going to pick up on this, his concern about abuse. I think it is a concern for everyone, but that abuse should not be allowed to discourage participation. Again, I was interested in Willie Rennie's speech. You know, there isn't much that anyone can't learn from Willie Rennie when it comes to elections and photographs. But there were a lot he said in his speech that I agree with. I agree that we should be encouraging participation, but we should question at what age a young person can do something, because I agree we are completely all over the place when it comes to drinking marriage and election. It's maybe something this Parliament should look at more closely. I've listened to Bob Doris on committee and he speaks eloquently, and I take my hat off to him that he speaks clearly about the need for accessibility and the need to reduce rejected ballots. It's a thread that I've heard from him before, and I'm absolutely behind him in trying to achieve an outcome on that. I was pleased that he mentioned that he supported a ban on those people that had abused people standing for election. Stephen Kerr's points that I absolutely take the points he mentioned about protecting democracy is something that I gave, I believe, 15 years of my life to do, and I think that we all have a duty to do that in everything we do. I agree with him about encouraging voter participation, and I agree with one line that he said, this place should be about the battle of ideas, not the battle between people, and so often we forget that. Emma Roddy has come up with some really salient points about diversity and engagement, and I note she is less concerned about people of the age of 16 standing than I am, and I agree that we may disagree, but I do think that the point she made also about the danger of showing addresses of candidates is something that we should be concerned about. I like the idea of addresses within wards rather than actual home addresses. Paul McLennan spoke eloquently about concerns for the working hours for young people if they were allowed to vote and come into this chamber. I think that that is a problem. He also spoke about abusive candidates saying that I think it was 44 per cent of candidates had faced abuse. That is not something we should be proud of. He also spoke about the importance to get voters to register. I agree totally. Alexander Stewart spoke about the need to ensure that elections are fairer and more inclusive. Again, Alexander Stewart spoke about abuse. I give this example because I think that it is a shame on us and we should all stand out against it. In 2014, my son came back from Afghanistan having served seven and a half months out there with the Afghan police in Helmand. Not a great posting. He came back to help me in an election campaign and ended up being the headbutt of a person in Inverness. It was completely unacceptable as he stood between my wife and this person. We all have stories like that. I make no excuse for people who do it. I do not care which side they come from, but we should all stand up against it. That is why I believe that Alexander Stewart is entirely right saying that anyone who does that should be disqualified from public office for a term. I would be stronger. I would say for a long term because I think that it is unacceptable and brings Scotland into distrust butte. Alexander Stewart spoke about looking forward to the consultation. I agree and we need to encourage people to get engaged in it. She also spoke about the importance of reducing barriers, especially for women. I agree with that totally as well. I think that you would be a strong person to stand up in this Parliament to say that you disagreed with this. I think that we undervalue our local politicians not only do we undervalue them but we underpay them. We expect them to do a huge amount for very little. I very much take the point that it is a full-time job in most cases for those that are working and doing what their constituents ask. We should do more to respect and reward them. That day and I often have good arguments. He is a strong parliamentarian and I agree with what he said, which reflects a lot of the speeches this afternoon about it should be a conflict of ideas, not about individuals. I also believe that we should do, as he says, by encouraging people by setting our standards here at the highest possible standards to show that that is what we expect everyone else to do, leading by example I think we used to call it. So Presiding Officer, I would say concluding, electoral forms should not be rash or rushed through. Indeed electoral forms should be made thoughtfully and cautiously. We need to be mindful about the measures which may result in the opposite and sometimes adverse effect on the one that we had intended them to change. What is more changes must result, I believe, Presiding Officer, in good legislation based on informed and knowledgeable debate. None of that can ever be sacrificed as we seek to become more inclusive. Presiding Officer, I don't think that anyone ever accused me of being wise beyond my years but I am wiser for my years and I think that that is something that we should consider. The Scottish Conservatives will await the outcomes of the consultation and we encourage everyone across Scotland to engage with it. Normally when a minister gets up at the end of a debate like this and says that it's been a good debate, it's normally written down for him to say so. On this occasion it has been a very good debate. It has been a debate that you have been encouraging, Presiding Officer, where we have talked about the big ideas and where we go forward. It has been done in a manner that is fitting of this Parliament in this place. That is one of the things that is really important about how we conduct ourselves. I think there has been a lot in this debate about abuse and abuse of politicians in particular. I think, and I have said in a number of interventions, we are the starting point in that. How we conduct ourselves in this place and how that is transmitted out in Scotland and it's not about neutering debate or making it less passionate or making it less robust, it's about how we, the language we use, how we conduct ourselves, how we put our point across is important. I know that Mr Kerr always says that I always do with a smile and a bit of humour, but I normally find it disarming enough to make sure that we do get through the debate in that kind of idea of having the debate, but at the same time still being able to treat each other with respect and showing the people of Scotland that we are the heart of Scottish democracy here. I think that that's an important part for us all. Fiona Hyslop. For example, does the minister think that words like licks spittle are probably inappropriate to be used in this chamber? I would say that there's quite a lot of terms that have happened over the past few months that should not have been said in Scotland's Parliament. I know for a fact that the Presiding Officer has pulled me up on a number of occasions for some of the things that I have said as well, but as Ms Hyslop said in her intervention earlier on, it's how we look at ourselves and how we interact that is important. We need to look at ourselves and say, are we part of the problem with some of the abuse that's going on out externally? Edward Mountain. I wonder if the minister would agree with me that by having the debate this afternoon, we've proved how important it is not to have set peace skirmishes in this Parliament, and therefore debating things properly as we've done this afternoon with more generous time limits allows arguments to be developed, which would be a good starting point as far as reform of this chamber would be. Minister. I've already said that we had a good debate here today, and we did debate the ideas on the subject matter in itself, and that in itself is important for us here. I'll start with what Edward Mountain said towards the end. This is the battle of ideas that should be the issue, and I've already said that as well. Although, in 1977, when he was 16, I'm guessing, I was in primary school, so I don't want him to feel bad about that right now, but I think he's doing himself a disservice if he doesn't think he could fly to the moon because I'm sure NASA could look for an aging astronaut, Mr Mountain as well. William Shatner has already been in space, but not all 16 and 17-year-olds, he believes they shouldn't be considered because they're all different. Mr Mountain talked about life experience, and Emma Roddick brought this very important point out. Life experience is an important thing. Some 16 and 17-year-olds have experienced completely different life and have given completely different skills from others, and they may have lived things that other people will have not by the time to get to that age, and they may have lived experience to deliver in a place like this or in a council election. To me, that's the quite important part of the debate. Donald Cameron brought up the fact again about the 16 and 17-year-olds and the idea that we've got consulting on whether those in mental health institutions should be looking at votes as well. One of the things that I would like to see with regard to the Tory amendment is that any change to the law would be accompanied by a full assessment of potential impact for changes in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds. That will be included in an equality impact assessment and a child's right and wellbeing impact assessment, both of which would be published when a bill is introduced at Parliament. I hope that that puts minds in the Tory benches at rest with regard to that. Willie Rennie brought up the fact that, when he was out and about in the United States of America, he saw some gerrymandering of boundaries at close quarters. I would say to Willie Rennie that this is something again that I've brought up throughout the whole debate, is that this Parliament will be looking at our boundaries when the Boundary Commission makes the submission. We have to have that level of maturity to be able to deal with that and see what's best for the public and not necessarily for the elected member. Willie Rennie. I agree completely with the minister. Would he consider a similar boundary review along the lines that he achieved in America and perhaps link North East Fife with Paisley? Is that something that he would consider? Mr Rennie, you may or may not know that he went to what was the College of Technology in Paisley, now UWS. Once you've been to Paisley, you can never leave the centre of the universe, so he wants to bring it back to his home in Fife. Bob Doris said that he made a big thing about accessibility during elections, and I hope that we have put his mind at rest with regard to some of the plans that we have with regard to that. I always use the example of when I was a councillor, they made me the council rep on Renfrewshire access panel. Nobody knew what it was. That shows you how well-attended it had been engaged with it, but it was actually to do with those that had access problems. Basically, I went in there and got them in part of the process, involved them in the process, and it went from a room of angry people wanting to have a go at the councillor to people engaged and actually wanting to be involved in the process of making that change. I think that's what this consultation is all about, is trying to get people to engage and be part of the consultation and move things forward. I also brought up a point on duty on the Electoral Commission to consider rejected votes. I might consider taking that further with Bob Doris, because I think that it might be something that we can explore and look at, because I think that it's an important part of our democracy as well. Well, Stephen Kerr, my old sparring buddy, we once again had a debate where we're all actually agreeing with everyone. Stephen still manages to fall out with somebody. I find that quite an incredible talent. Little Lee did not fall out with anybody on this debate. Presiding Officer, it wasn't in the chairs, so he needs to know that as a matter of fact for the record. I've never heard somebody during an election reform consultation, he mentioned the declaration of growth. Who knew that Stephen Kerr was a closet nationalist? Who knew? During that period, he gave us a history lesson and he mentioned voter ID and we won't agree on that, so I think we'll move on from that whole point there. Another thing that Mr Kerr brought up again was that we should have a robust debate at the same time, but I would say to Mr Kerr that we have to be very careful with our words and how we move forward. I include myself in that. We can all get excited in the heat of a debate and say something that we possibly shouldn't, but I think that at the end of the day we need to lead by example. Emma Roddy, when she was talking about the fact— Minister, can I just stop you a minute? I know that we're having a very consensual debate here, but can I just remind members of Chamber Etiquette? Yes. That's all I'm going to say at this point and hopefully that will be enough. Do you continue, Minister? I think I used first names on about three occasions there. No, Minister, my comments were not directed at yourself. I'm always feeling guilty, Presiding Officer, and I always want to do it by the book. Emma Roddy brought up the fact that in 2014, during the independence referendum, it was the first time that she voted. That's quite incredible when you look at that now, because this woman is now a member of the Scottish Parliament having voted for the first time in 2014. That shows that she now did that. Miss Roddy Roddy would be the first to say that this has been a challenging year and a half to settle into this place, but, as I've said previously, it's up to us and this institution to make sure that this place can actually support and make sure that we represent everyone in our communities as time moves on. As a youngest member, the Parliament thing has been difficult for herself, but she brought up some very important points, particularly those about disabled voters as well. I hope that I've explained how we would go about that as well. Paul McLennan mentioned the fact that we have to make sure that we have the engagement with our public and ensure that we have the voting register up to date. I think that that's an important point to bring up at this date, because we have to ensure that everyone feels the need to register and be a member to get involved in all elections. Alexander Stewart brought up again the fact about who would want to be a politician and who would want to be involved in politics. Again, when we talk about 16 and 17-year-olds, I don't believe that every 16 and 17-year-old would want to be involved in an election, but would I have been at 16? I was a member of the SNP. Would I have possibly wanted to put myself forward? I would have probably been an arrogant young man enough to actually think that I'm doing that. Am I happy with the way things worked out and confident my skin? Yes, but then again it's back to Edward Mountain's lived experience. For me, it was a bit different. For others, it will be an entirely different experience as well. I'm comfortable with the way it worked out for me, but there will be others. There will be other young men and women who might be watching today or might be thinking that they want to get involved in the process, and surely that is something to be commended to actually say. When you look at the University of Edinburgh's recent findings on 16 and 17-year-olds voting, it shows us that we have managed to engage with these young people. They have stayed voting for future elections, and that in itself is a good thing. Obviously, when we are talking about voting, we have to ensure that when you are voting you should have the right to be involved in that election as well. I personally think that that is a way forward for us. Evelyn Tweed talked about gender quotas, and I agree that this Parliament has evolved during my time here in the Parliament. With more—we are now sending the 45 per cent of female members—I think that it is only right that this place represents the public of Scotland. Many of the things that we have discussed today show that. Some of the flexibilities that the Parliament now offers has made things easier with remote working. The pilot and proxy voting at the moment gives it a wee bit easier for everyone to look at a career in politics as well. Again, there was a talk about intimidation and how things work out during elections. It is something again that we all need to be very mindful of as we deal with this. Graham Day—what can I say about my predecessor Graham Day? He had to remind the whole chamber that he was the last Minister for Parliamentary Business that took through not just one election bill but two election bills during a pandemic, he added, as well. No pressure there whatsoever. He also added about how consensual it all was, but today is a perfect example of how consensual we all have been here today. Of course, he was the last SNP speaker in the open debate, and we managed to get through a whole election debate without somebody bringing out council election ballot papers and talking about the alphabetical order. Again, as I always say, people are always a wee bit skeptical of me, and I have to declare an interest in my sister, Councillor Jennifer Adam, in so much that I have not been looking at any way to change the ballot paper. Last year's result was accepted by all, mainly because the technology of randomisation and various other ways we can go forward. At this stage, I do not believe that we are there, and I am not willing to look at that risk to try to make sure that we get to a place where people are starting to doubt the results of elections. However, I do know that there is an issue, and I accept that there is an issue, and I am quite willing to talk to everyone about how we go forward with that. In closing, this has been a very good debate. I have enjoyed it. It has been one of the big ideas on how we move forward, and I encourage members to promote the consultation as widely as possible. I look forward to engaging on this debate continually as we continue with this and the consultation process. That concludes the debate on electoral reform consultation. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of two parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 7, 7, 4, 6 on committee remits and 7, 7, 4, 7 on office of the clerk. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 7721.1, in the name of Donald Cameron, which seeks to amend motion 7721, in the name of George Adam, on electoral reform consultation be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next question is that motion 7721, in the name of George Adam, as amended, on electoral reform consultation be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motion is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on two parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No member objects. The final question is that motion 7746, on committee remits and 7, 7, 4, 7 on office of the clerk, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The motions are therefore agreed, and that concludes decision time. I will now move on to members' business.