 1. Angela Constance ar y Fysnes Cymru yw ddrifnegol.司egwyr ydych chi fyddiw nhw'n ddwygu'r lyth cael ei wneud, ond mae yn rhan o'r disyddio ni, voeddwn i'r ffรadwyr o'r ffyrdd o'r ffordd, ddifwg, iechyd amnoch? Maes y cymdeithasid cynyddiol yn gweithio y llefnol i'r hollol iawn. 4. Maes i'r cymdeithasid cymdeithio yn gwyllgor o'r iawn i'r maes i'r ffordd o'r I gave a commitment to establish an independent inquiry into historical abuse of children in institutional care with full statutory powers to compel witnesses and demand evidence. On 17 December last year, I announced to this Parliament that we would consult with survivors and others on the inquiry's remit and the appointment of a chair. We took a careful and consultative approach to try to build consensus, and I can today report to Parliament on the outcomes of that work. It is important to emphasise that no inquiry can right the wrongs of the past, but that is not a reason to fail to act. We have listened to the views of survivors on the shape and the scope of the inquiry. I am grateful to those who have given of their time and knowledge, but I know that many have yet to come forward. I do hope sincerely that survivors will use this opportunity to tell of their experiences and testify to the inquiry. This inquiry will aim to shine a light in the dark corners of the past to shape how we respond in the present and guide how we go forward in the future. We need to learn all we can to ensure that no institution becomes a hiding place for those who abuse positions of trust to pray on our children. We want to make Scotland the best place for all of our children to grow up. Children and young people must grow up feeling cared for, nurtured and loved, as well as being protected from harm, abuse and neglect. We have a particular commitment to our most vulnerable young people, those of whose care and protection the state is directly responsible for. Accordingly, we will listen carefully to the inquiry's eventual recommendations and make whatever changes may be necessary to policy, practice or legislation. Reaching a decision on the scope of the inquiry has been challenging, given the range of views even amongst survivors. The remit cannot be so wide that survivors lose hope of the inquiry ever reaching clear and specific conclusions. I am mindful of the urgency of this last issue, given the age and the health of some survivors. The inquiry will examine any instance where a child was abused in care, including residential care, children's homes, secure care, borstles and young offender institutions and those placed in foster care. In-care will also carry a broader interpretation to include allegations affected boarding out children, child migrant schemes, school hostels and healthcare establishments providing long-term care for children. Independent boarding schools are also included. While parents are responsible for the placement of their children in those institutions, the state also has a responsibility to ensure a standard of care. The starting date for the inquiry's scope will simply be within living memory. The inquiry's chair will determine the exact end date, but it will be no later than 17 December 2014. This timeline goes further than it was originally envisaged and has been informed by the views of survivors and others. The inquiry will be asked to report to ministers within four years of the date of commencement to be no later than 1 October. I expect it to take a human rights-based approach to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, enabling people with little experience of legal processes to engage with it. Incrucially, the inquiry will also examine the on-going effects of abuse on survivors and their families to improve our understanding of the issues that they face to help us to improve support for them now and in the future. Taking all of this into account, the inquiry needs a chair who can rise to these challenges while gaining and maintaining the confidence of survivors. I am pleased to announce that Susan O'Brien QC will chair the inquiry. Ms O'Brien is an experienced advocate in civil litigation, including issues pertinent to the inquiry and has a knowledge and expertise in human rights. Crucially, she also chaired the Calabnes inquiry in Edinburgh in 2003. I am very grateful to her for agreeing to take on this very significant task. Of course, the inquiry forms a significant part of the Scottish Government's wider response to the Scottish Human Rights Commission's interaction plan. As significant as this will be, it does not stand alone in demonstrating our commitment to survivors of abuse. Survivors have told me about childhoods lost as a result of abuse, and their experiences have impacted adversely on their adult lives also. Restoring what has been lost is vital. Scotland is one of only a few countries to develop and implement a dedicated support strategy for survivors of historic abuse in any setting. For 10 years, Survivor Scotland has delivered services that many survivors describe as their lifeline. We now intend to build on this and to do more. I am announcing today that we will set up a dedicated support fund for survivors of abuse placed in care by the state. It will enable survivors to identify their own personal goals and access the right support to achieve them. Work on this will begin immediately, with £13.5 million allocated over the next five years to develop a dedicated in-care support service. I am also announcing an additional £1 million to enhance the support available to all who have been abused, whether in care or not, through the Survivor Scotland development fund. Through the interaction process, many of those abused in care are children called for the right to seek reparation. That would involve removing the time bar, which requires a civil case for compensation to be brought to court within the three-year limitation period. At the heart of the issue is the reality of childhood abuse. It can take decades for a survivor to have the strength to challenge their abuser in court. Having listened to survivors and examined the legal position carefully, I can announce that this Scottish Government intends to lift the three-year time bar on civil action in cases of historical childhood abuse since September 1964. We will consult on how best to do that in the summer. To further demonstrate our commitment to this issue, we will also produce a draft bill by the end of this parliamentary session. With regard to cases before September 1964, I must be clear that there are considerable challenges regarding human rights. We will, of course, continue to listen to views on what, if anything, can be done to remove barriers pre-1964. I believe that I have set out today to demonstrate that this is a dynamic process and that we are a Scottish Parliament that listens, hears and acts. Although we cannot undo the deeds of the past, we cannot acknowledge them, address their impact and learn how to do much better in the future to protect Scotland's most vulnerable children. As a Parliament, we can and must give voice to those who have been silenced for too long. We can and must recognise that abuse they suffered is children. We can, we must and we will do everything we can to ensure that the same thing never ever happens again. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes of questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call Ian Gray. Thank you and thanks to the cabinet secretary for her statement and early sight of it. We sincerely welcome today's statement. We very much want this inquiry to succeed and we want to work with the cabinet secretary to ensure that that happens. It must be a bright and unfettered light that we shine into this dark corner of our nation's recent past. Above all, the survivors of abuse must have total confidence that we will not flinch and will face that past without fear or favour. In 2008, the then minister told this chamber that no further inquiries were required in Scotland and that the time bar must remain, so today's announcement is great and welcome progress indeed, but we have to recognise that it has taken a very long time. The central to survivors' confidence, of course, is the chair of the inquiry, as we have seen it all too clearly in England. Survivors had the expectation of a High Court judge to lead the inquiry, so what assurances can the cabinet secretary give us that she knows that Miss O'Brien's appointment is acceptable to survivors? Crucial, too, is the breadth of the inquiry, so can I ask the cabinet secretary to confirm for the avoidance of doubt that establishments run by religious institutions or religious orders are contained within the scope of the inquiry? Let me start by answering the last question that Mr Gray posed very directly, and the answer is yes, and I hope that that is crystal clear. I can also reassure Mr Gray that the voice of survivors has been absolutely central in this. It is fair to say that there is a range of views within the survivor community about a chair. All those views that I have taken on board, there were many debates about whether the chair should be someone within Scotland, outwith Scotland, within the legal profession or not, and I am confident that we now have the right person to chair this inquiry. Perhaps it would be useful for me to share a bit more information with regard to Susan O'Brien, who has been in practice as a QC since 1998. She was a solicitor for six years before she was called to the bar in 1987. She has represented abuse victims and took a test case on time bar in historic claims to the House of Lords in 2008. I know that she understands the issues that are so important to survivors. I also know that she is a highly competent woman. She was the legal chair of the panel of three, which investigated the death of a baby, which produced the Calabnes report in 2003. That was a highly significant report, not just for social work services but for health services right across Scotland. I was a social worker at that time that report made its recommendations. I know the impact that that report had on the social work profession and other establishments. Of course, that report led to significant changes here in the city of Edinburgh. Ms O'Brien, in the 1980s, was also on the steering committee that set up the Scottish child law centre. I am confident, Presiding Officer, that we have struck the right balance between someone who has the necessary legal skills and experience but who also crucially understands first and foremost the needs of survivors. All I can say to Mr Gray with regard to the passage of time, I am very painfully aware that it was Chris Daley who first brought the petition to this Parliament a way back in 2002. I think that if we were to move forward together, united in this chamber, we all have to reflect on the passage of time and how long it has taken to get to this point. I know that there is a wealth of work that has taken place since the establishment of this Parliament, and we can demonstrate that we collectively are a Parliament that listens and acts, but we all have to do so much more. In that spirit of co-operation, I welcome Mr Gray's words that we should not flinch without fear or favour, and that applies to us all as we look to the future and move on together. I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement. I associate our very strong recommendations with the Scottish Government in the way that it has handled this situation. It is very sensitive indeed, and I think that it is absolutely imperative that this Parliament is united in the way that we move forward. Cabinet secretary, you said very carefully at the start of your remarks that the scope of the inquiry has been shaped by the consultation of survivors, and I think that that is something that is extremely important, as is the £13.5 million support fund. Could it be possible to have a little bit more in terms of the detail as to how that support fund might work? As I say, those survivors—very brave survivors—need that support, but additionally I think that there is a duty to ensure that we support and protect those who are currently working in some of the institutions that may, at some stage, be under investigation. If it is possible, Cabinet secretary, who gives that? Secondly, could I just ask whether the principles of the investigation will underpin the structure of the report in the same way that will be the case for the UK investigation, because, obviously, there will be situations where they have a cross-border implication? As announced in the statement, there is an additional £30.5 million to be invested over a five-year period—that is 2015-20. £1.5 million will be available for this financial year, thereafter £3 million a year will be rolling forward. There is the £1 million for survivor support for all survivors. The rationale for that investment is to ensure that survivors get a personalised service, that they get support that is based on their needs for as long as they need. I expect the in-care survivor support fund and the enhanced support for all survivors of abuse to be operational this year. We will work very closely with survivors to consult and listen to them as we go through the procurement and tendering for services. This is about having a one-stop shop for survivors where they can access practical support, whether it is employment, education, bus fares to services, or whether it is about access and that more specialist support that people need, particularly when they have experienced great trauma in their life. It is designed to be bespoke and personal to the needs of each survivor. On the principles that underpin the inquiry, we have looked closely at developments with the UK inquiry. The point that Ms Smith touched on is that it is important that we do not look at inquiries in isolation, although we are jurisdictions. The scoping remit of the inquiry in Scotland is different from that of the one in England. My officials are very grateful to the officials in the Home Office in south of the border for that sharing of knowledge and experience. While the inquiry south of the border has had its issues and we have sought to learn from that, we seek to learn more positively from the inquiry south of the border. For example, it is setting up a reference group for survivors to keep them informed of progress as the inquiry proceeds. It has also set up a small selective expert panel to support the chair. There will, of course, have to be very appropriate protocols between inquiries because no one wants to see overlap. On the third point raised by Ms Smith, it is important to recognise that the vast majority of people who work to support our vulnerable children do a grand job. Anyone who is designated as a core participant will have to think about how all those core participants are treated fairly and supported accordingly. I know that my officials have certainly been in touch with agencies in terms of NHS and local authorities, but I am happy to provide further information. As you were aware, in September 1984, the law on prescription was amended so that the long-stop 20-year prescription period was removed from cases such as that, but that change was not retrospective. That means that any claims that were prescribed before September 1964 were not revived, and to seek to revive them now would raise considerable legal issues. Is there anything further that you can tell the chamber about that issue? As Mr Campbell will be aware from his own professional background, that area is technical and complex. I will take a minute to run through it for the parliamentary record. As we know, the Prescription and Limitations Act 1984 applied a 20-year prescription period to obligations to make representation in respect of personal injuries. The 1984 act came into force on 26 September 1984. Accordingly, cases where the right of action had arisen prior to 26 September 1964 were not revived under the law as it presently stands. As it presently stands, it is not possible to bring before a court any child abuse case where the relevant abuse all took place prior to that date. The Government acknowledges the difficulties that have been expressed by the Scottish Law Commission and others and the difficulties that Mr Campbell touched upon that might arise should attempts be made to revive personal injury claims that were extinguished by the negative prescription through the legislation on 26 September 1984. There are obvious concerns about applying liability retrospectively to someone for events in the past where they are currently not liable for those events and how that might contravene the person's human rights, and specifically article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. I apologise that that is a very technical legal explanation, but I do want to emphasise, Presiding Officer, that I gave a commitment personally to survivors that we would be very clear about our position on time bar as a Government when we came back to this chamber. What I have announced today is a significant step forward. It is a significant movement where we have the intention to lift the time bar in terms of cases post-64. We will have to consult carefully on how we do that, but there are real legal issues in terms of pre-1964, but nonetheless we will have that dialogue with all partners and particularly in terms of survivors, because we are in the business of opening doors, not closing doors and to find solutions. I join members in paying tribute to the commitment and tenacity of survivors throughout this long process, some of whom are in the public gallery this afternoon. The cabinet secretary said that she hopes that survivors will use the opportunity to testify to the inquiry and tell of their experiences. She will be aware that a number of survivors will need financial, practical and legal support to do that. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary if survivors as part of the survivor support fund will be offered legal aid and financial support, including expenses, in order to allow them to participate fully in the inquiry. Let me reassure Mr Bibby that, in terms of the issues in and around legal aid, all the usual processes apply and that those processes that apply to everybody will also apply to survivors seeking assistance. What I try to do in the lead-up to establishing this inquiry is to be as flexible as possible. When survivors have approached the Government in terms of needing support, for example, to participate in the consultation process, we have showed willing and responded positively to requests in a pragmatic manner. In terms of how survivors are supported pragmatically to participate in the inquiry, that is obviously a matter for the chair of the inquiry and for the inquiry itself. If I can reassure the member that we are acutely aware of the needs of survivors and that we need to have a very supportive process. I welcome the very significant advance that is made in this cause by the cabinet secretary today. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary if I am keen to know how allegations involving clear criminal wrongdoing will be dealt with, what measures will be put in place to ensure that disclosures made in the inquiry will be channeled to the appropriate criminal justice agencies and on that basis could I ask the cabinet secretary to provide the assurance that consideration will be given to an examination of facts to enable survivors to have their day in court, to tell their story and the key issue for them all is to be believed and have trust in the system. I concur with Ms McKelvie's views and her sentiments that she has expressed. The inquiry is being set up in such a way as to give survivors every opportunity to tell what has happened to them and they can be absolutely assured that they will be believed. Although the detail of the operation is of course a matter for the inquiry itself, we have, in getting to this stage, worked very closely with the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland to ensure that, where testimony suggests that criminal investigation is appropriate, that that can indeed be undertaken. The inquiry is not there to establish guilt or innocence in a civil or criminal way. It is there to establish facts, have a national record and enable us to allow voices to be heard that have previously not been heard and so that is a Government and a country that we can learn from past failures. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of our statement and very much welcome the contents of it, particularly the intention to lift the time bar, notwithstanding their hard difficulties. I think that she is fairly articulated. She will be aware that one of the demands of survivors has been around the access to third-party advocates. She wrote to my colleague Alice McInnes earlier this year, suggesting that it may be that advocates could be appointed by the chair of the inquiry to give testimony on behalf of survivors. Can she say whether or not that is part of a personalised service or whether or not advocates, third-party advocates chosen by survivors themselves, might be more appropriate to support? That is an entirely reasonable timeframe for completing an inquiry of this complex and sensitive nature. In terms of learning lessons for the future, what reassurances can she give that lessons will be learned now and that will she commit to providing an update to Parliament on steps being taken to address concerns raised about current child protection arrangements in Scotland? Yes, of course, because while the inquiry proceeds with its business, the business of government, local and national government in terms of our responsibilities to protect children in Scotland in here and now, that continues. Of course, this government has to be scrutinised for our responsibilities in this area, so I am absolutely confident that whether it is myself, or Fiona McLeod or Aileen Campbell, when she returns from maternity leave, I would anticipate and expect that that to be a firm feature of our involvement and accountability to Parliament. The position that I wrote to Ms McInnes with regard to access to third-party advocates is the same—it is unchanged. Of course, advocates can be used by survivors in a way that is about their personal support, and the chair will be able to come to a view about the role of advocates in the inquiry process. I think that that is quite clear, although some of the matters are indeed for the chair and the inquiry. I remind the cabinet secretary that the handling of the UK inquiry into historical child abuse and the distress caused by that has been fairly well documented. Could she outline how she will ensure that the inquiry will not make the same mistakes? What would I say to Mr Coffey? It is a part of reiteration to my answer to Ms Smith. This is a difficult process. We, of course, have looked to other jurisdictions, whether it is the inquiry in England or the one in Northern Ireland or the one in Jersey, to learn from their experiences both positively and negatively. We have worked very hard with survivors and had an extensive consultation period with different types of consultation opportunities to do our utmost to ensure that the inquiry gets off to the best start. As I said to Ms Smith, while the English inquiry has certainly not been without its difficulties, there are positives that we can learn from that inquiry also. Presiding Officer, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for the early sight of her statement. Thirteen months ago, I led a member's debate on this issue and called on the then cabinet secretary to institute a public inquiry. It was denied. Survivors, some in the public gallery today, have waited for eight years for the SNP Government to make today's announcement. During that time and in recent months, survivors have died. Can the cabinet secretary, knowing the trauma faced by survivors, confirm now some fresh details of the psychological support that will be available to survivors from today? Can I say to Mr Pierce that I gave a number of very personal commitments to survivors and one of those commitments is that, despite being a politician, despite being a political animal, irrespective of what anybody in the chamber says to me, I just wasn't going to rise to it. As I said to your colleague Mr Gray, the first petition calling for an inquiry was in 2002. I think that we can all reflect on our past involvement on this. As I often say to Mr Gray and other exchanges regarding education, I am actually not that interested in the past. What I am interested in is the hearing now and how we move forward in the future to do a far better job of protecting all of Scotland's children. I hope that that is met with the spirit that it is intended to. I hope that Mr Pierce would recognise that there is a substantial announcement being made today in terms of movement and addressing time bar issues but also in terms of a very significant investment in survivor support services, which is about dealing with the practical issues but also helping people to get access to services with regard to trauma. Can I say to members that this statement is of great importance to people both in and outside the chamber, and it is obviously very sensitive. I have a duty to protect the next debate as far as possible, but I intend to allow that to continue for as long as necessary, recognising the importance of it to people outside. There will be an impact on the debate that comes afterwards. If you are asking questions to try and keep them as brief as possible, I am not going to curtail the questions. I intend to make sure that everybody wants to ask, will ask, but can I ask you to help me to protect as much as possible the next debate, which is important to the Parliament. I welcome the announcement from the cabinet secretary. As the cabinet secretary knows, one of the most important contributions in getting to this point was the work done by the Scottish Human Rights Commission with others in the interaction process, a process that enables reconciliation and dialogue. I would ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that that approach continues to underpin the Scottish Government's attitude to this issue. There is a society in which we not only call to account those who committed these dreadful crimes, but there is a society in which we can also find ways of healing the hurt, so that survivors can anticipate a time in which they not only survive, but they go on and flourish. Mr Russell is right to point out that the interaction process has played an absolutely crucial role in getting us to where we are today, and I am extremely grateful to everyone who has taken part in that process, not least the central role that survivors themselves have had to play. I would also like to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Mr Russell for his role in getting us to where we are today. It should be important to emphasise that the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the national action plan and the survivors' engagement are not a process that the Government controls, but if survivors and the Scottish Human Rights Commission wish to get together to continue that collaborative process, the Government will be more than happy to participate fully and in good spirit. I would take issue with one part of the cabinet secretary's statement. She said, survivors have told me about childhoods lost a result of abuse. Restoring what has been lost is vital with huge respect. I do not think that you can restore a lost childhood, but if we get this process right, we can go a huge way towards bringing closure to the victims of childhood abuse. To that end, I enormously welcome, as others have done, the decision to look at ending the time bar, even with the constraints that were going back to 1964. I asked about this last December, and the cabinet secretary very cleverly passed the buck to her colleague Paul Wheelhouse. Will she, or indeed he, undertake to keep Parliament fully updated on the Government's progress towards a bill and on the proper legal safeguards that will require to remain in place during that process? Mr Ferguson, I said at the start of my statement that we cannot undo the past and we cannot put all wrongs to right, but that does not give us an excuse not to act. I am very conscious that Mr Ferguson said to me on the way out from the last statement that I gave. He challenged me and said that I did not answer his question, to which I acknowledged that I did not really answer his question at that point in time. I am pleased to be able to give a far more definitive answer that this Government is about opening doors and addressing this time bar issue. It is not easy that there are problems, particularly pre-1964, and that I most certainly was not going to do from highlighting those problems. The last thing that I want to do is to lead people up the garden path only to dash their hopes, but we are in the business of opening doors and finding solutions. Whether it is myself or Mr Wheelhouse, I have to say that Mr Wheelhouse has had a lot of contact in listening to survivors with regard to this particular issue. We will relish the prospect of keeping Parliament informed, because we will be looking to benefit from the brains of the brightest and the best in this Parliament. We have some thorny issues to solve, and I will be looking forward to Mr Ferguson's contribution to that. I very much welcome the lifting of the time bar and know that it will help my constituents too. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement of his support fund. The cabinet secretary will of course be aware that, in Ireland, the Government made an interim payment of €10,000 to every survivor, which was in addition to a support fund. I think that they took that approach, and she will recognise that in the last six weeks there have been a number of deaths of survivors. On that basis, will she consider making interim payments to survivors as they did in Ireland? I say to Ms Bailey that, in terms of support and access to justice, that has been very much at the basis of the investment that we are making in the survivor support fund and, of course, our steps to remove time bar. That is not the end of a process. I am not going to stand here and try and second guess what all the solutions are, other than to say that we are still on a journey. I am aware of interim payments on an ex-grasio basis being paid by some local authorities. I am looking very closely at other experiences and other jurisdictions. Although we do not have all the solutions right here and now, we are still on that journey and we are in the business of finding solutions. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing those questions to be put at this time. I also welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is reporting to Parliament now what is a matter that is very complex, as members have already highlighted. Can the cabinet secretary explain why she has used the definition of in-care that she has outlined in her statement? The definition of in-care for the purpose of this inquiry means a child that is in the care of a person or organisation other than the child's natural or adoptive parents or other family members. As I set out in my statement, we have gone much further than originally envisaged with the definition of in-care to bring a potentially much wider group of people into the ambit of the inquiry. I have done that for two reasons. Firstly, I have sought to strike a balance between the need for the inquiry to investigate those issues that survivors have said are most important to them with the need for the inquiry to report on systemic issues and within a reasonable timescale. Secondly, we have one opportunity to do that, and we want to shine a light in the dark corners of our past to shape how we respond and how we go forward in the future. Margaret Mitchell, I very much welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and the allocation of funding particularly for the national strategy and survivor development fund. I also acknowledge and very much welcome the wide definition of in-care. Given the vast majority of childhood and sexual abuse that happens in the community and in a family setting, can she confirm that the survivor development fund's core funding will continue annually? Can she also confirm that this is an additional £1 million for the survivor development fund, and if so, over what timescale? To Margaret Mitchell, I am acutely aware that the majority of abuse does indeed occur in the family or in the community. The purpose of the inquiry was to look at the systemic failures where the apparatus of the state had made decisions that involved children being looked after elsewhere, and we have, as she rightly welcomed, had a broad definition of what in-care means. Yes, in terms of the survivor support fund, it is funded annually on a basis of £800,000, and that £1 million is indeed additional. I very much welcome the cabinet secretary's statement today, and particularly the dedicated support fund that has been announced. Can I ask what is the eligibility for survivors of child abuse suffered here in Scotland who are now living elsewhere, either in another part of the UK or indeed abroad? Will they be able to access the support fund too? Cabinet secretary, what we will do between now and autumn this year is that we will work very closely with survivors about the criteria for the funding. I do not have a direct answer for that question, but it is something that we will work closely with survivors on, and I will ensure that Ms Hilton is kept up to date on that very pertinent point. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary in terms of the inquiry and the timescale. Is she confident that the inquiry can be delivered within the four-year timescale that she set out, and whether or not there has been a budget set aside for this inquiry to take place, including financial support for the survivors and their advocates? Cabinet secretary, Mr Wilson asks a fair question. In setting the timescale for the inquiry, we have sought to strike a balance. This is probably Scotland's biggest public inquiry. It is a massive undertaking. That is why we have thought very carefully about who to appoint to chair this inquiry. It does need someone with exceptional management and quite pragmatic skills, as well as legal knowledge, and someone who is acutely aware and attuned to the needs and views of survivors. However, I am also conscious that time stands still for no one and for many survivors who are elderly or in poor health, that everybody wants to see some clear recommendations and that the fruit of our labours come to fruition over this very significant and difficult matter. I am confident that we have struck the balance, right? I am not saying that it will be easy to do the work in the timescale. The budget will be there and supported appropriately. It is not an insignificant undertaking, as Mr Swinney will be aware of. However, if we want justice to be done, that will cost money and not an insignificant amount of money. Cabinet secretary, I congratulate our great personal commitment on the issue. I have already written on behalf of a constituent, and I know that he will be asking whether he can be guaranteed that his terrible suffering will be listened to. Can she guarantee that all those affected will be listened to under the arrangements that she has outlined? We are working very hard to be alert to the needs of individual survivors. Many survivors will want to formally give evidence or give their testimony to an inquiry. Other survivors will wish to perhaps do that through third parties or in writing. The role of the national confidential forum is very separate from the inquiry. They have two very separate legal basis for their establishment. There will have to be a protocol and a connectivity between the two. The purpose of the inquiry is indeed for people to be listened to and for those voices to be heard. That ends the statement from the cabinet secretary. We are now moving on to the debate on motion number 13285, in the name of John Swinney, on the Scottish election reduction of voting age bill. The run-over from the statement will have some impact on the debate that follows. I anticipate that the open speakers will now have four minutes. I would appreciate very much the open debate speakers will have four minutes. The opening speakers will have their usual allocation, but it would be extremely helpful if you could shave any time off it and it would help the debate management thereafter. To speak to me of the motion, you have a maximum of 30 minutes, Mr Swinney. I tend to restrict my opening remarks to help out as you have requested. As I am sure that Parliament appreciates enormously the decision that you made in that statement. I am delighted to open the debate on the principles of the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. I would like to express my thanks to the devolution of further powers committee for the detailed scrutiny that they have given to the bill and to those who have contributed to the consultation process that has surrounded this issue. The issue of providing eligibility to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds was taken forward in the independence referendum bill. When the independence referendum process, it was judged by everybody in the aftermath of the referendum to have been a successful initiative that enabled young people to participate fully in the settling of the future of our country. We therefore, on the basis of the success of that initiative, proposed the extension of eligibility to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for local authority and Scottish Parliament elections. The legislation that is before Parliament today lowers the voting age to 16 for Scottish Parliament and local government elections, and any other elections that adopt the local government franchise provides for modification to electoral registration forms to capture the details of all those eligible to register. It makes provision for how young people in particular situations are to be dealt with within existing electoral registration systems and sets out specific protections to be placed on any data collected on electors aged under 16. Let me now turn to the recommendations that the committee has made and to set out the Scottish Government's proposals for how we will take them forward. Firstly, I want to deal with the issue of political literacy education and discussion of election issues in schools and colleges. The committee noted that they had heard evidence of inconsistency in approach across local authorities during the referendum. In the report on the arrangements for the referendum, they recommended that Education Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Electoral Commission and others, should consider how rules within schools during the pre-election period should be applied to ensure that young voters are able to discuss the issue freely in school, in particular through discussions with teaching staff. In that stage 1 report, the committee have recommended that Education Scotland review their guidance to bring more clarity about the type of activities that may be considered to be best practice in schools, particularly during pre-election periods. As I said in evidence to the committee that there is existing guidance on political literacy education, I think that the guidance takes the right approach. It respects teachers' professional discretion to determine what is taught in the classroom whilst encouraging schools and teachers to enable young people to develop their political literacy skills through a variety of engaging activities. Indeed, that point was made to me very strongly by a group of young people that I met this morning under the auspices of the young scot organisation, who were raising with me the importance of access to quality and objective information in the school estate, which would enable young people to formulate their views. I was grateful to them for the advice and the contribution that they made this morning. I am pleased to say that Education Scotland is currently reviewing and updating its suite of political literacy educational resources, working with a wide range of stakeholders, including young people and youth groups, and that work is due to be ready in September. I agree with the committee that some further guidance to bring clarity about the types of activities that might be undertaken in schools during pre-election periods would be helpful. I encourage all those organisations with an interest to work together to consider how the current guidance could be developed to further support schools and colleges to engage with elections issues with confidence. It will be important for school and college leaders, teachers, parents and most importantly young people themselves to be involved in this process. It is crucial that the guidance continues to respect teachers' professional discretion and ensures impartiality and balance in the information that young people receive about elections. I am sure that all those involved will want to ensure that all young people are given every opportunity to reach a fair and dispassionate understanding of political processes and of their own choices. I want to turn to the issue of political donations and young voters. The committee noted that restrictions on the data that will be published about young voters may mean that political parties would have difficulty in identifying that a young voter is registered to vote and therefore an eligible donor under the terms of PEPERA. The committee considered potential solutions, including the possibility that a young person could seek written confirmation from the relevant electoral registration officer that they were registered. I believe that this is an approach that has considerable merit and the Scottish Government is considering the form of amendments that could be introduced at stage 2 to provide for this suggestion. Another issue that was raised was possible implications for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service of not showing attainment dates for 16 and 17-year-olds on the published register. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals service was concerned that that could affect their ability to identify those eligible for jury service where the qualifying age is 18. Again, I can offer a positive response in that the Scottish Government is planning to put forward an amendment at stage 2 to provide that the published register will include attainment dates for 16 and 17-year-olds, which will address the issues of concern to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals service. No information on those aged under 16 will appear on any published version of the register. I now want to deal with the duties of local authorities towards looked-after children. As I noted earlier, the bill includes a duty on local authorities to promote awareness and provide assistance to enable the registration of looked-after children. Like the committee, I have some sympathy with organisations such as Celsus who take the view that that should be extended to care leavers. In that respect, I have asked my officials to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities whether there is a proportionate and practical approach that could be of assistance while avoiding unreasonable burdens on local authorities. The committee also noted an issue raised by the Electoral Commission about the interpretation of the bill in relation to the registration deadline for young voters. The intention of the bill is that the registration deadline should be the same for young voters as for all other voters, that is 12 days before poll. Having reviewed the relevant section of the bill, the Scottish Government is satisfied that it does not result in a later registration deadline for young voters and that no amendment is needed. My officials are in discussions with the Electoral Commission on that basis, and we will write to the committee on the outcome of those discussions. Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of ensuring that registration and electoral information is accessible to children with additional support needs. I share the objectives of the committee and of organisations such as Children in Scotland that the registration and electoral process should engage and be accessible to children with additional support needs. While I do not at this stage believe that there is a need to amend the bill, I am happy to support work to review relevant materials in this respect. I thank the devolution of the Further Powers Committee for the thoughtful work that they have done on the bill to date. There is clearly some way to go before the bill completes its passage, but I am encouraged by the broad support that it has received to date in Parliament and among key stakeholders. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the United Kingdom Government and the Electoral Commission for the assistance that they have provided with a number of practical issues relating to registration forms and the digital service, and not least, of course, the ability of us to embark on the legislation by virtue of the co-operation around section 30. The bill builds on the outstanding success of the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum. It extends that opportunity to elections under the control of this Parliament, giving younger people a stronger stake in our democracy. It is an opportunity that young people grasped with energy and enthusiasm during the referendum, and I urge members to support the general principles of the bill. I therefore move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. Mr Swinney, I am indebted to you. I now call on Bruce Crawford to speak to, on behalf of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, a maximum of nine minutes. I will try to abide by your beginning to say to try to shorten this a bit. I will give the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, which is the lead committee in consideration of the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. I like to start by thanking everyone who provided evidence to the committee during our scrutiny of this bill, whether that is during formal evidence sessions or through their online calls for evidence. In particular, I can also thank the clerks, specifically Heather Galway, who is the lead clerk involved in a lot of the work in this bill. I also like to thank all the members of the committee for their constructive approach to the bill and for our unanimous report. We received 17 responses from organisations such as Electoral Commission, Young Scots, Scottish Youth Parliament and Children of Scotland. Those and all others were welcome contributions. In addition to our written and no relevance, the committee has tried to connect with as many young people as possible to hear their views and ensure that their voices were heard on this important issue. As part of wider Parliament days, we visited Levenmouth and Fort William and met with over 216 and 17-year-olds. The key finding from the committee's discussions with 16 and 17-year-olds who voted the referendum was that people's believed that they had shown that they were fully capable of making informed decisions. As well as our call for evidence, we also produced an online survey that was completed by over 1,016 and 17-year-olds. The results of the survey were very clear. Over 79 per cent of respondents agreed that 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote in future elections to the Scottish Parliament and local authorities. The survey also highlighted how politically engaged those 16 and 17-year-olds had become since it was allowed to vote in the independence referendum. Since then, 26 per cent of those responding to our survey said that they joined a political campaign or taken part in a campaigning or political activities, and a further 63 per cent had found out more about politics. I am delighted to say that all five political parties on the committee unanimously supports the general principles of the bill. I confirm that, in evidence provided to the committee, we received no substantive objection to the main objectives of the bill, namely to reduce the voting age to 16 for the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I will now briefly go over some of the key issues that the committee looked into before the bill received approval at stage 1. The first key issue is public awareness among young people and the right to vote on educational issues. The committee welcomes the work that is already undertaken by the electoral commission and its partners to raise public awareness among young people and its rights and processes for registration and voting. However, the committee received strong oral evidence from numerous witnesses that highlighted the importance of schools as a forum for discussion for young people. The main problems that were highlighted by school pupils and youth organisations were the lack of consistency across schools and colleges in Scotland to political engagement. We heard in some schools that there were many opportunities to discuss political issues and they run up to independence referendum, but others were advised that they were unable to organise discussions, especially during the latter stages of the campaign, which coincided naturally with the point that most young people became engaged. For example, one pupil I spoke to in Levenmouth told me how she tried to arrange a debate between politicians of both sides of the yes and no campaigns, but it was advised that it was not allowed within the school. That was an issue that was highlighted on numerous occasions. It was not only for straighting to school pupils, but it was also confusing. In the light of that, the committee saw the need for national guidelines to reduce to ensure a level of consistency across local authorities when it comes to what is and what is not permitted in schools by way of discussions on those matters. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has recognised that when his announcement today about further guidance will be made available by Education Scotland in this regard. We agreed with the comments of the Deputy First Minister when he came to the committee that no aspect of the education system should prevent young people from reaching a fair and dispassionate understanding of the political processes and choices. I am sure that what is now today will help to ensure that the relevant education authorities are now best supporting the discussion of election issues in schools and colleges across Scotland. The second key issue that I want to raise is data protection. It is a very important issue and the inclusion of those under 16 that the electoral register brings with it matters of data and child protection that has been recognised by the cabinet secretary. The committee wanted to be sure that personal information held in the electoral register would only be available to electoral registration officers and their staff. The committee had evidence from the Deputy First Minister, the electoral commission and the information of the commissioner's office on that issue. As a result, we are confident that the processes that are being put in place will ensure that information on younger voters will be safeguarded. I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister clarified that matter in regard to practical issues and in regard to the selection of juries in Scotland and his opening contribution. One final key issue that the committee highlighted in its report that might have been brought up by other speakers today is whether young offenders should be allowed to vote. As is currently drafted, the bill does not amend section 3 of the Representation of the People's Act 1983. That could only be achieved by legislation enacted at Westminster. That means that convicted persons in penal institutions, including those under 18, will not be able to vote in future Scottish Parliament elections under that bill. We received written evidence on this matter from the Law Society of Scotland and the Howard League Scotland. I would like to reiterate that the committee's view is stated in our stage 1 report that whether a provision is within the legislative competence of the Parliament is solely a matter for the courts, but in the light of the minister's opinion on the legislative competence and the Deputy First Minister's response during our committee proceedings, we are satisfied to proceed with scrutiny at this stage. In closing, I would like to highlight briefly the fact that although this bill will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections for the Scottish Parliament, it does not allow them to vote in elections to Westminster, and it is my understanding that they will not be allowed to vote in EU in-out referendum, although it is strictly not an issue for this bill. To me, personally, there is a somewhat sense of an irony that we are to pass a bill at stage 1 today, while elsewhere a bill is being published where the franchise will not be expended to 16 and 17-year-olds. I am pleased and honoured to be able to recommend to the Parliament the degree of the bill tonight at stage 1 and take the next step in permitting young people in Scotland to continue with their democratic rights, which we in this Parliament trust them with. Sometimes, I think that when we are going through our job in this Parliament, we get so involved in the detail that we do not always recognise that we are making history. That is exactly what we are doing this evening at 5 o'clock if we pass this bill at stage 1, and all of this Parliament agrees to the principles of 16 and 17-year-olds voting in the Scottish Parliament elections and local government elections in the future. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I intend to follow the example of the Cabinet Secretary and the convener in striving for brevity. Votes for 16 and 17-year-olds has been a long-standing ambition for many people across this chamber, and I am very pleased that we are taking steps to extend the franchise not only for Scottish Parliament elections but also for local government elections, buy elections and for elections to public bodies like Loch Lomond and the Trossacks national park, which covers my constituency and indeed Bruce Crawford's constituency. To be honest, it is a bit of a no-brainer in policy terms on two counts. First, think back to the debate during the independence referendum, the energy, the interests and the sheer dynamism that 16 and 17-year-olds brought to the referendum debate shows exactly why they should be allowed to vote. Young people at schools across Dumbarton, the Vale of Leven, and Helensburgh took part in debates in the classroom, at home with family and on Facebook and social media with friends. I often thought that they were the most educated section of the electorate asking indeed the hardest, most searching questions, so it is only right that their voice is heard in the Scottish Parliament elections next year. Indeed, I believe that no debate about the future of our country should take place without the future of our country being involved. Secondly, there is something to be said that if you are old enough to pay income tax, you are old enough to have a say in how it is spent. Can I turn to the committee report and thank the members and clerks for their effective scrutiny to get us to this stage 1 debate? There is little to disagree with in their recommendations and I note that the cabinet secretary has in the short time available to him addressed many, if not all of these in his opening statement. Let me touch on just one area that the committee highlighted in the interests of time. That is how we register attainers. That is those young people under the age of 16 that might appear on the register in advance of their birth date due to the timing of the election. For the referendum, there was a separate register of young voters. There will be no need to create that separate register for future elections. But there is a note of concern about making public, even in restricted circumstances, the details of any person under 16. The provision in the bill, which is helpful, is that there would be a prohibition on disclosure except when the registers are supplied to candidates in advance of the election. Those registers would therefore contain data on those under 16. From an election point of view, it is absolutely necessary for candidates and their teams to be able to contact all electors, but we need to assure ourselves that there are no concerns from child protection professionals. There are obvious sensitivities about making public any data in relation to under 16-year-olds. Those sensitivities were considered first in the pilot elections to health boards, then in the referendum vote, and those proposals differ slightly to both of those. I know that a privacy impact assessment has been carried out. That is very useful. It is of benefit to all of us, if those provisions could be checked again with appropriate childcare professionals. I want to turn to consultation with young people. Can I commend the infographic from the Parliament that summarised the survey of 16 and 17-year-olds undertaken by the devolution committee? It was absolutely wonderful in the simplicity of the data that it revealed. A staggering 85 per cent thought that it was right for 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the referendum. I suspect that 100 per cent of us in here agree that it was right. 44 per cent thought that they were well informed. 30 per cent quite well informed. 80 per cent watched at least one of the televised debates and 63 per cent discussed the referendum online. That and all the other statistics highlighted by Bruce Crawford showed that young people were very engaged during the entire process. However, I want to share with the chamber the views of two young local constituents who are active in my local community. One is Stephanie Thomas, soon to be the MSYP for Helensbury and Lomond, and the other is Alex Robertson, who will be taking up her post as MSYP for Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven in the summer. Members may recall that, although MSYPs are probably the youngest democratic voice in Scottish politics, the Scottish Youth Parliament is actually older than the Scottish Parliament itself by one day—it opened one day before MSPs met for the first time in 1999. However, here is what Stephanie had to say. I definitely think that it would be a good idea to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. It will get them more involved in politics, let them make choices on things that affect them. With the education that you gain now, you know how to vote and also how the voting systems work. However, by the time you turn 18, you have then forgotten most of the stuff that you have learnt. Alex told me that I feel as a 16-year-old myself that having a say in my future is a very important thing. At 16, a young person is allowed by law to make many complex decisions such as getting married or leaving school to enter into further educational jobs. I feel that it is impossible to justify the exclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds from the right to vote when we are already able to take on a wide range of responsibilities. She continued, I also believe that including 16 and 17-year-olds in voting will help to engage them into our expanding democracy. In the Scottish Youth Parliament elections in March this year, 70,000 young people aged 12 to 25 voted to elect their local MSYP. That in itself demonstrates that young people, when given the chance to vote, are passionate about having a voice in matters that have an effect on them, not only at a local level but at a national level too. Presiding Officer, I couldn't have put it better myself. Labour members are happy to support the bill to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Many thanks. I now call in Alex Johnston. Can I begin by commending the Presiding Officer for the actions that she took earlier on today to ensure that the business that preceded this debate was given adequate time? This is an important bill that we are discussing, and we should give it the due reverence concerned. But with the degree of agreement that exists between the parties, perhaps there will be less argument today than we have seen on some subjects recently. The Scottish Conservative Party, of course, opposed the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in the referendum franchise bill last year. We had a number of reasons for doing that, some of which still concern us today. But the experience of seeing how 16 and 17-year-olds contributed to the debate participated in the activities that went on during the referendum campaign and then came out in large numbers to vote on both sides in the referendum is an indication of the willingness of that age group to participate in an electoral process. In fact, if you look very carefully at it, I think that there is a huge opportunity here to engage young people at a stage where they will be enthused by politics and will continue to participate in the electoral process as they get older. That contrasts with the situation that exists in some places, including south of the border, perhaps, where young voters are reluctant to become involved even at the age of 18 and vote in much smaller numbers until they are significantly older. However, there are a number of inconsistencies that need to be addressed. One of those is, of course, the fact that we quite often in this chamber talk about the appropriate age for individuals to be given certain responsibilities. And while it is easy to blame the Government for inconsistency, I believe that it is something that any Government could be blamed for, because there are always arguments made for increasing an age limit for buying alcohol and an off licence, for example, to 21 and then reducing the voting age to 16. Perhaps as we go forward beyond this legislation, we need to take a more coherent attitude to how we give responsibility to young people. I, for one, would always take the view that encouraging young people to take responsibility early is the best way to make them responsible citizens. Moving on from that situation, there were, of course, concerns expressed by Conservatives before, which have been addressed in the process of preparing and analysing this bill at stage 1. There is, of course, that too diametrically opposing the needs when we take young people on to the register. The need to have transparency. The need for us to know that everything is fair and above board. But at the same time, the equally important, perhaps more important necessity to ensure that the identities and the information of these young people are appropriately protected. That is why this legislation does a great deal of work to ensure that those who are taken on to the register before the age of 16 are given that appropriate protection. We have, of course, also heard in the minister's opening remarks that progress is being made on some key issues. The issues that have looked after children and care leavers are, of course, vital. I am delighted to hear that that is already being addressed. Data protection, of course, will be key. But one of my biggest concerns is one that has been discussed by a number of people already. That is how education, our schools and our colleges will take responsibility for political and electoral discourse during future elections. It is my experience in the past that it was not unusual for a school to invite candidates at election time to go in and address a cross-section of classes. But then there was a time when fewer children stayed on to the school at the age of 18 and very few had a vote while they were at school. The fact that most of our young people now stay on later in the education system and also now will have a vote as early as 16 means that real political campaigning for the first time could be taken into our schools. Going back once again to my experience of the referendum campaign, I was particularly disappointed by some of the decisions that were made in relation to the involvement of schools in Aberdeenshire, for example, where there was an involvement in the process at a very early stage a year before the referendum took place. But in the latter days of that campaign, just as young people were becoming enthused, the school authorities appeared to clamp down on any engagement. There is also always a legitimate concern that people in positions of responsibility within our schools might somehow abuse their position for some political gain. It has never been my experience, either as a pupil or as a parent, that that has happened. In fact, I have perhaps mentioned before that the two ladies who inspired me to become involved in politics were teachers at my secondary school. They are both now enjoying their retirement in a slightly heartbroken way because I believe that we are both paid up members of the Labour Party. But what they taught me was not what to think, it was how to think. In bringing my remarks to a close, I believe that this piece of legislation is vitally important. It is at the leading edge of these decision-making processes. We will be making history when we invite 16 and 17-year-olds to participate in the election for this chamber next year. I believe that the experience of the referendum has taken myself and one or two others in this chamber to a place where we are now comfortable in engaging with younger people in the electoral process. I look forward to a chamber elected by an electorate that includes everyone in Scotland from the age of 16 onwards. I hope that it will be a better political environment as a result. Thank you very much. We now turn to the open debate and looking at the time just now, it seems that speeches could go up to five minutes but not beyond. I call Rob Gibson to be followed by John Pentland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to take part in particular focus on the public awareness campaigns and schools, which have been mentioned already. However, I want to refer back to evidence that we took in the referendum bill campaign scrutiny on 21 March 2013. In questions that I asked of Bruce Robertson, the representative of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, I asked about the discussions of the referendum in personal and social education and in modern studies classes. He said, I do not want to get into the technicalities of the curriculum not every school offers modern studies, so we need to ensure that there are opportunities in every secondary school's curriculum. That is where work and collaboration across the 32 education authorities and with school leavers Scotland which is an association of secondary headteachers will enable people clearly to understand what is happening. That is what we all aspire to. We cannot have a situation in which a set of children in Helmsborough has an opportunity to engage that is very different from the opportunity that children in Helmsdale get. Mary Piccethli, wearing her hat as a chief executive, agreed that she would be interested to make sure that the guidance was consulted on and expect schools to use the material that is made available. I am delighted that the Deputy First Minister has talked about that in terms of this bill, but it is clear that, in the referendum campaign, the advice of Bruce Robertson was not adhered to, was not carried out and indeed left many schools with a very great disadvantage for their school students. The recommendation in our report that Education Scotland should review and update its guidance in order to ensure consistency in this area in the context of the extension of the franchise to a much larger number of school pupils, including the types of activities that can be permitted in schools as best practice during any period of perda and that such guidance should be communicated to all local authorities in all schools is absolutely key to ensuring that there is no risk aversion in schools from recognising that the educative role of teachers is not being breached, it is being enhanced and I want to make sure that people understand just exactly that their role is not to clamp down on debate but to increase it and to increase that participation. I have experience in allness academy near to where I live of 12-year-olds in the debating society being stopped debating the subject in hand because of the kind of risk aversion first of all of the head teachers and possibly of the local authorities and the kind of evidence that we had when we asked local authorities about their guidance led us into a maze of gobbledygook as far as I'm concerned we found that many children were denied the right to take part in that approach and that's why I welcome the fact that Education Scotland has been given this role now and that in fact we will have a chance at last to set a new standard for the awareness and raising of the campaigns in our schools I'm not going to take up much more time because I think that's a key point that has to be made there but I'm delighted that MSPs from across party lines overwhelmingly voted in favour of extending the right to vote to in the Scottish Parliament local elections to include 16 and 17-year-olds one of the greatest achievements of last year's independence referendum was to extend the franchise to young adults young people grasp the opportunity as many have said to become involved in the democratic process with both hands this bill embeds their right to vote in Scotland's national and local elections and I welcome this move which, as Bruce Crawford said, is historic thank you very much could I remind members who wish to speak in the debate they should press a request to speak buttons please I call John Pentland to be followed by Linda Fabiani so when we debated the right to vote in the referendum I said then that the right to vote should be extended to 16-year-olds in all elections so any doubt about extending the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote was surely put to bed when their vote helped to deliver a turnout of nearly 85% showing that they had the motivation and maturity and known their vote would and could change things if we had enough confidence and young people then surely we can trust them to take part in the election of government for five years Mr Pentland could I ask you to move your microphone around slightly I'm not sure if the sound has gone quieter this afternoon but we're having trouble hearing you thank you To argue against this we'd be out of sync with other areas where they are considered sufficiently mature to make their own mind up they can join the army they can get married they can work full time they can even fly a glider so it's absurd to exclude 16 and 17-year-olds from voting of course it might be we also need to review what else they can can't and can't do at particular ages for the sake of consistency but that is a discussion for another day and one that we may end up having to assate in themselves if we agree to this bill I can see it being quite tempting to seek the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds by promising them more rights to go alongside their franchise During the referendum campaign I visited schools including the hussings at St Aden's High School with Alex Neil and Margaret Mitchell where everyone was so very well behaved even with outgrain Campbell you know to keep us in order Now during that campaign I met many young voters from all parties some of whom took the next step and became energetic and enthusiastic participants in leafeting, canvassing and street campaigning that enthusiasm needs to be harness and maintained and hopefully extending the franchise for the Scottish elections will help to do that The other side of the coin however was the real eye-opener as he witnessed the ugliness associated with the campaign posters being trashed people followed by people with cameras and physical and verbal intimidation The social media debate was often not much better and sometimes disgustingly worse Not the best advert for political involvement and I really do think that if we want young people to develop a lifelong commitment to democratic debate based on political principle we need to strive for higher standards of behaviour and greater respect being shown among so-called grown-ups who should know better Many technical aspects to the bill will be reviewed in more details of the bill progresses and one of the most important is the mechanism will be to ensure that young people are registered to vote I know that a large percentage of eligible voters under 18 were successfully included on the register for election and this was no doubt helped by the inclusion of attainers on the register young people who could become eligible to vote while register was current Similarly, if we agree to Lord the Age of Franchise then we need to ensure that young attainers aged 14 and 15 are included The bill includes provisions that allow electoral register officers to access education records and this will require consideration of how the system works in conjunction with other legislation design to protect the interests of those under 16 In addition to changes that may result from lowering the franchise age there are other changes to the registration that are being brought into operation this year The bill has technical provisions made with these issues in mind but these must be subject to thorough scrutiny to ensure that they are too fit for purpose So in conclusion, Presiding Officer this is a final stage of a long journey for voting age it has travelled from being 21 or 30 for women when they first got to vote via the reduction to 18 in 1970 and at each stage there have been voices raised over the extension of franchise but time has settled those arguments I cannot see us going further than 16 but I suspect that adopting this for other elections is just a matter of time So blazing the trail for 16 and 70-year-olds to vote in Scottish elections is a significant step forward in our democracy and one that I hope paves a way for the UK to follow suit Thank you very much I now call Linda Fabiani to be followed by Alison McInnes Thank you very much Presiding Officer I note to what John Pentland and Jackie Baillie also said about the concerns about the vulnerability of attainers going on to the register etc This was something that some of us who are on the current committee for devolution and further powers looked at in the referendum bill committee as well in terms of extending the franchise very extensively and certainly the view of the Scottish Government this time around that it's different from the referendum sorry the referendum legislation because of the section 363 order allowing flexibility in the approach that can be taken etc as detailed in the committee report this time round didn't seem to be disagreed with in any way by those experts who came and gave evidence but I would concede that it's such an important issue that there's never any harm in looking at these things again Ms Fabiani could have stopped you for a second I'm going to ask Broadcasting if they can consider whether the microphones could be turned up slightly because I don't usually have an issue with hearing you in the chamber but I'm afraid there's something I'm going to do Presiding Officer would you like me to yell? That's better thank you Okay were you through me there? I really actually enjoyed this scrutiny this time round because it was underpinned with the absolute joy that we were extending that franchise beyond the referendum to Scottish Parliament elections and I hope that we can extend that to all elections sooner rather than later to follow on from what John Pentland said because I thought what's really important was that the key finding from the committee's discussions with first-time voters was that they believed that they were fully capable of making an informed decision at the independence referendum and agreed therefore that that franchise should be extended to allow them to vote in Scottish Parliament elections and it was absolutely wonderful to see that knowledge and confidence that came with so many young people who gave us evidence Bruce Crawford, as convener, mentioned one of the committee studies but if you look beyond that to other studies that were carried out February 2015 a BBC survey 70 per cent of respondents to it in Scotland believed that it was important to vote and 67 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed that politics was an effective way to make a difference to the country now these figures were the highest of any part of the UK and I think it's a direct result of people and young people particularly becoming engaged in the referendum process I have four senior schools in my constituency of East Kilbride Calder Glen, Duncan Rigg, St Andrews and St Brides and Sanderson school and I have been fascinated at the way and the very articulate and sensible thinking way that young people not just 16 and beyond but from going into senior school and even before that some of the primary schools the way they can engage and understand the issues and want to be part of where their country is moving forward to extremely important and again for me the best evidence of all that we received at the committee discussing these things was from Louise Cameron a chair of the trustees of the Scottish youth parliament and it was lovely because Louise said we were so happy that the vote was extended to 16 and 17 year olds referendum it's even better that it will be extended in all future Scottish elections getting the chance to vote in future elections is such a great opportunity because it really does encourage political participation among young people and some might say oh yes the young people would say that but it's then backed up by academics including Dr Yann Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh who made it very very clear that whilst the referendum was a special occasion the long-term engagement that comes with having been engaged in that special engagement is marked and he also made it very plain that the issues that Rob Gibson spoke about were extremely important because we did find disparity in how different local authorities applied the rules I heard from John Pentland there at North Lanarkshire was allowing politicians into school that didn't happen in South Lanarkshire there was just one big debate that all the schools in South Lanarkshire were allowed to send a few representatives along to I think that that wasn't good enough I do think it's good that everyone who knows best has come forward and says national guidance would be the best way forward and I would urge us all to engage with that as far as possible to make sure that we're not just extending the franchise to our young people but that we are extending the right to be properly and well informed Thank you Many thanks I now call Alison McInnes to be followed by Stuart McMillan Thanks very much The Scottish Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for votes at 16 and we're delighted at the cross-party consensus that has emerged on this issue and will of course support the bill at decision time today Given the chance to vote for the first time young people undoubtedly embraced the opportunities the independence referendum presented young people on both sides spoke eloquently at public meetings and joined us all on the campaign trail Schools throughout my north east region held hotly contested mock referendums but this time thousands of people were also able to proceed to take part for real but I know that not all local authorities allowed such activity so I welcome the committee's recommendation that Education Scotland should review and update its guidance to ensure that there is more participation in debate Speaking to young people on the doorstep it was evident that young people were among the best informed and most engaged of the electorate and I was really heartened to see them stride into the polling stations with a real sense of purpose I've never seen anything quite like it in my 20 or so years of being involved in politics so we must ensure that their appetite to be involved their palpable excitement at casting their vote is not a one-off and of course it's incumbent on us to help sustain their interests and how our country is run from local council chambers to Westminster and I am hopeful that this bill will act as a catalyst for wider reform not just in Scotland but across the UK I never doubted the ability of young people to make informed decisions but if anybody did that should no longer be in doubt at 16 as others have said you can join the forces you can get married and crucially you can pay taxes and if a Government can take your earnings it should also accept your vote civic responsibilities should of course be balanced with civic rights so Presiding Officer I'm proud that Liberal Democrats played a key role in reaching this because it was of course Liberal Democrats in the UK Government who delivered the provision to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum through the Edinburgh agreement and we ensured that the devolution of the powers that members are discussing today were fast tracked so that young people can from next May have a say in who represents them so the vote later today is an important step but I'm also under no illusions there are other young people who will continue to be disengaged disillusioned with politics parties and politicians young people who don't believe they are represented and we will need to find other ways aside from lowering the voting age to address this apathy and strengthen our democracy Presiding Officer I appreciate the scope of this bill and the order is tight however it's important to note that this legislation will not grant every 16 and 17-year-old a vote as the committee's report highlights it doesn't amend section 3 of the representation of the people act 1983 and it's regrettable therefore that around 100 young people in Caernton Vale Polmont and HMP Grampian will remain disenfranchised members might recall my attempt to extend the referendum franchise to some short term prisoners that was blocked by this Government so I have to say I was surprised yesterday to find an ally in the former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill the latest in a string of crisis of conscience he reportedly told a newspaper it was shameful of the SNP to continue to deny prisoners to vote and he said it could no longer hide behind the franchise being reserved to Westminster Why did he and Scottish Government not extend the franchise when they could? According to Mr MacAskill it was for fear of the right wing press fear of negative headlines or as he put it needless distractions that might damage the campaign for independence The Scottish Government backed blanket ban on prisoner voting isn't legal fair or progressive and I look forward to the day when that is resolved Presiding Officer the importance of 16 and 17 year olds to our society is finally being properly recognised and today we can celebrate the next step towards giving thousands of young people the opportunity to vote in elections in this Parliament Thank you I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm Thank you very much Presiding Officer I welcome this debate today and I'm looking forward to voting for it at 5pm this evening and also the key provision on this bill is to lower the voting age to allow 16 and 17 year olds full representation in the democracy in Scotland and just I think there's one point I do want to raise I've actually been having this discussion with my daughter explaining to her about what we're actually trying to do Now she is a wee bit disappointed that she's not going to get a chance to vote for her father next year but at the moment she's only eight she will be nine but I have explained to her that it's going to take a bit longer for that to actually have maybe another 40, 50, 60, 70 years but we'll see how that progresses in the future but certainly our committee pardon oh sorry okay Alec Johnson I was just going to remind the member that one of the things that came out of the research that was done in advance of this is that children don't necessarily follow their parents and their voting intentions Stuart McMillan I know I haven't followed my mother's their voting intentions but I'm sure my daughter will follow her father's certainly the devolution the devolution for the powers committee certainly we took we took evidence from various respondents as well as conducting the online survey as we've heard and certainly there was this overwhelming support for extending the franchise to younger voters and the online survey that we that we undertook across Scotland we also spoke to those who participated in the independence referendum also asking their views and also on their experience of voting in the referendum and as a convener of the committee mentioned earlier we received over 1000 responses to the survey and with 85 per cent of them agreeing that it was right to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum with 79 per cent agreeing that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote in elections to the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament and to local authorities and the results from this online survey also highlighted that nearly 36 per cent of respondents campaigned for either side of the debate whilst one in four actually joined a political party I don't know of anyone who could argue that that actually wasn't a positive case for increasing the franchise to the people of Scotland and a level of engagement of younger voters and politics particularly in Scotland it was also seen in the survey by BBC Newsbeat that was conducted in February of this year and the survey found that following the referendum young people in Scotland and the survey was done between 18 and 24 year olds they were more politically engaged than young people in any other nation or region of the UK and it highlighted that 70 per cent of respondents in Scotland believe that it's important to vote that's the highest percentage of any region or nation within the UK 67 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed that politics is an effective way to make a difference to the country that's the highest of any nation or region within the UK and 76 per cent of respondents in Scotland agreed that voting is an important part of being involved in society once again that's the highest of any nation or region within the UK now these two surveys highlight the interest and even the demand from younger voters to get engaged in electoral politics almost 110,000 16 and 17 year olds registered to vote in independence referendum and according to the electoral commission survey 75 per cent of these young people voted of those who reported voting 97 per cent said they would vote again support for this change in the franchise was also obvious from the evidence received by the committee from a number of respondents representing a range of individuals and organisations now my colleague Linda Fabiani touched upon Nick Lewis Cameron from the youth parliament earlier on I won't go over that particular part of the evidence but we also heard information from youth link and he also stated that the bill addresses the inequality that young people aged 16 and 17 year olds half historical faced the discrepancy between the democratic rights and responsibilities 16 and 17 year olds as we know we can enjoy the art man forces they can pay tax they enter employment and subject they can get married and drive a car yet they were deemed too immature to cast a vote in an election and we have experienced in Scotland through what we have experienced certainly throughout this referendum was a blossoming of a new political generation as younger voters became engaged not just in voting but in becoming active in politics it's therefore unfortunate I would suggest that with the EU referendum going to take place at 16 and 17 year olds won't be allowed to take part in that as well as obviously not having the opportunity to vote in the recent UK election but I hope that certainly will change in the future and I would urge the Conservative members in the chamber today to talk to their colleagues and Westminster to try to extend that franchise for the upcoming EU referendum certainly in summary Presiding officer I absolutely welcome wholeheartedly welcome the key finding from the committee's discussions that the first time we voters was that pupils believed that they had shown they were fully capable of making an informed decision at the independence referendum and that a significant majority had actually agreed that the franchise should be extended to allow them to vote Mr Macmillan, you need to close please in future Scottish Parliamentary and local elections thank you very much many thanks can I ask members to keep to five minutes please and welcome chism to be followed by Christina McKellan from this important bill and the beneficial consequences that I think I'll flow from it in terms of empowering young people and increasing their engagement in politics I'm sure we were all in the chamber hugely encouraged by the level of interest engagement that we saw from young people during the referendum I'm equally sure that we all took part in meetings with young people and were impressed with the level of knowledge and questioning that we had at least the equal of what we received from older people so I now think that we have an opportunity to ensure that that participation lasts and becomes a salient feature of our political culture I'm glad that that reasoning is now widely shared among political parties the Labour Party had votes for 15, sorry 16 and 17 year olds across the board in its recent election manifesto and indeed the SNP Greens and Liberal Democrats had adopted that policy at an earlier time all of those parties I think understand the positive consequences this could have in tackling the disillusionment many young people feel when it comes to politics and I do regret the fact that the current UK Government hasn't accepted that position when it comes to its own elections obviously for its own Parliament but also more immediately for the forthcoming EU referendum obviously I hope they will change their minds on that and I would ask them and in fact other people and we know there are other people who are still skeptical about this whether in Scotland or further afield I would ask them to reflect on two points and I think the first of these two points is a piece of incontrovertible evidence because they should listen to the voices of those young people who did vote in September and if here the effect that the inclusion has had on this generation of voters and obviously Bruce Crawford and Jackie Baillie have referred to some of that evidence and I'll do so myself in a moment but the second thing I hope that people who are skeptical about this bill and similar proposals should bear in mind is that it could well have positive outcomes not just I think for political knowledge and civic participation but also I think for our education system and those points I'll try and come to as well if I've got time now I won't quote all the figures some have been quoted already from the devolution committees survey and I would commend them for that piece of work as well as the report more generally 92 per cent of the young people surveyed voted in the referendum a significant turnout by any standards 840 of the voters felt that it was easier or quite easy to vote 44 per cent of the young voters felt well informed on the major issues involved in the referendum debate with almost 30 per cent feeling quite well informed I think that means even better informed and that's a large majority of the young voting democratic stating that they'd done the reading taken on board the messages and made an informed choice reading into the small detail of voter engagement 16 to 18 out of those 16 to 18 went to a variety of sources for information 60 per cent reading official campaign materials online or via social media 65 and a half percent from traditional media so I think the general conclusion I would draw from all that is young people took this very seriously and made sure they were very well informed and that's an incredible legacy and an opportunity as well of course to learn how young people interact with contemporary politics and some of us are trying to catch up of course in terms of our use of social media and other forms and this leads I think we've got time for this to the second persuasive argument that I've suggested for lowering the voting age namely that it could provide a catalyst for updating political education in our schools the curriculum could benefit from the kind of lessons in citizenship and civic power that may not have been afforded to many of us older voters in the democratic audit UK report entitled should the UK lower the voting age to 16 research associates Richard Berry and Sean Cippan made clear that lowering the voting age is an important part of the solution to disillusionment and a kind of politics that is done to rather than done with citizens they make clear it's not the only answer to that but I do think this is an important part of the debate the committee made certain recommendations on this I heard what the cabinet secretary said I think perhaps I would prefer to have a more more radical development of the curriculum for excellence to actually make sure that people of 16 and 17 are extremely well informed for the voting that they would then be entitled to do Ed Miliband in fact and Labour more generally during the general election sorry to mention that twice in one speech talked about a redesigned curriculum and obviously that applied to England rather than Scotland but they were saying as part of the 16 to 17 year olds you have to redesign the curriculum in preparation for so I hope curriculum for excellence will take on in a Scottish context the need to and the opportunity to really develop political and civic education as part of this proposal thank you very much Christina McKelvie to be followed by Graeme Pearson Presiding Officer it strikes me that referendum are a bit like buses you don't see any for ages and suddenly you get to within a close period of time and Scotland is perhaps at the vanguard of a yes no voting strategy and our referendum we recognise the importance of giving 16 and 17 year olds right to a view to a view on their future and more than 109,000 registered to do just that and boy did they give us their opinions and they want to give us their opinions in next year's Scottish elections that group Presiding Officer including my 16 year old son having become so involved and engaged in politics were rightly frustrated at being denied the opportunity at the Westminster elections they are to be denied it again in the EU referendum unless combined resources of our Labour colleagues SNP colleagues the Liberal Democrats and I hope some of our conservative colleagues lodge an amendment and realise that amendment to change that Presiding Officer voting structures structures like democracy itself need to evolve and change to reflect the needs of society we have moved on from a time when only the landed gentry could vote where women were excluded and the poor had no political voice at all and I do welcome my conservative colleagues conversion to support this bill maybe they could use that conversion to encourage some of their colleagues at Westminster the Scottish Parliament has been created on a fundamental principles of equality there may be some issues around our hybrid form of constituency and list votes but most people agree that it is far better option than first pass to post but Presiding Officer no system is unbreakable no democracy can be unaccountable change that improves access and engagement in political life has to be a big positive people in Scotland have learned that they have a voice and they've used that voice and they can genuinely make a difference to the future of their country and by people I mean everyone with a critical opinion including 16 and 17 year olds teenagers have a fundamental right to express and opine about their future so who owns the future who will be the people who make the money pay the pensions for us no doubt buy the houses raise their families acquire the skills to run a prosperous economy the answer is obvious Presiding Officer a way back in 1967 when Dr Winifred Ewing won her house of common seat in the constituency of Hamilton which I represent now she used her maiden speech in 1967 to campaign for a lowering of the voting age to 16 we are still waiting for London to catch up but we can be proud of ourselves in Scotland that we are working to achieve this with cross party support within 15 years of our own Parliament we look likely to achieve that aim why Westminster needs centuries to pass such fundamental legislation remains a bit of a mystery for me and for Westminster to sit in the last century by not giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds but also to deny the right in the EU referendum of EU nationals the right to vote I find astonishing for the moment at least and while our MPs work to change at Westminster we can lead from the front here at our own elections next year even the Smith commission not renowned for its forward thinking views and devolved powers recognised that Scotland must have the right to give younger voters this opportunity Presiding Officer I ask for this not just for my son because believe me he's watching on the telly now and ensuring that I do ask on his behalf but for all of those young people who had the right to vote for all of those young people for all of our sons for all of our daughters in Scotland that they can lead the way not just in the independence referendum not just in the EU referendum but in every election that they have a stake in so let us encourage the political engagement that was so evident among Scottish young people in the referendum let us indeed give them the right to express a view on their future on the future of this Parliament on the future for their children Presiding Officer I support the Scottish elections referendum of voting age bill when it comes to the vote at 5 o'clock tonight Many thanks Now Colin Gray and Pearson do we follow my Roderick Campbell five minutes please Presiding Officer thanks very much for allowing me to contribute to this debate I stand and wholeheartedly support the general principles of the bill I think it right to acknowledge the work of the committee and the convener of the committee in preparing the work for this Parliament in seeing this bill on its way it's an important to move forward and it strikes me as one old enough to remember the heat that used to remain within the debate of could we trust our young people to make conscious decisions in a political vein that today we seem very relaxed even our colleague from the Conservative party who on the benefit of his education was led into politics although he almost breached consensus at one point he saved the day by his summation of the benefits to be achieved by involving our young people I do however welcome Mr Swinney's acknowledgement of the sensitivities in relation to education and the part that schools will play in the future and in that context my own experience in the south of Scotland with the secondary schools there show that schools are capable of taking a sober approach to the topics of politics and indeed it may well benefit those who decide the way forward to gain experience from Strenrar academy who played a substantial part in a project parliament that all parts of this parliament fed into where modern study students learned something of the democratic processes of this Scottish Parliament and indeed hosted a debate in their school to which each of the parties in this chamber contributed and it was without doubt a challenging evening and one that showed that those who are 16 and 17 are indeed keen to play their part in Scottish politics and do understand the role that politics played plays now in their day-to-day experience I reaffirm Bruce Crawford's commitment on behalf of his committee to ensuring the safety of our young people where data is to be managed that is obviously a very serious issue as we go forward and one fears and I know that the government will take seriously the mistakes that can be made in moving forward in this exciting time and overlooking the needs of those who are looked after children those who are within secure accommodation those who have additional support needs that sometimes in preparing the way forward we can too glibly decide how we might manage things on their behalf we need to think soberly about their particular needs if we are to genuinely say there is social justice in Scotland and that we include people who very often are forgotten too often are overlooked and by experience we see are left behind so in this time of commitment to engaging with as wide a representation as we can those elements of young people who aren't in the main catchment who are not fortunate enough to have the support of their families around them that we take an extra step on their behalf even though it takes time even though it may cause additional expense if we are to bring those elements of young people who are in many respects deprived of a modern way of living that we give them the step to become involved in politics and to understand the issues that we discuss here in this chamber and allow them to connect that to their experience of day to day life only by engaging them in that fashion can we truly give them access to modern life to public life and allow them to feel that they are part of what we do here in this chamber The final point that I would make that hasn't been made thus far but was certainly my own experience was not only did we engage with young people of 16 and 17 but through them they ensured by some deem of pressure that their parents became involved in the political process yet again and certainly in the schools in the south of Scotland we found that young people forced their parents out of an evening to come with them to the school to engage in the debates that occurred there and I found that a most invigorating experience and one I would commend to my colleagues here in the Parliament thank you Presiding Officer thank you and I now call on Roderick Campbell to be followed by Alison Jolson Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate the current political re-engagement of many of the population that we've seen since the run-up to the independence referendum has certainly seen a very significant shift in attitudes and interests towards politics generally in Scotland this change was especially so amongst 16 and 17 year olds who having been offered the prospect of being able to make a decision on their future moved towards a very significant interest in politics the closer it became to polling day as others have said the online survey of 16 and 17 year olds conducted by the committee found that 80% watched at least one of the major televised debates and 63% found out more about politics and most impressively 26% joined a political party this is at least some evidence of how engaged young people were since my view vitally important that we respond to that indeed it appears as a result of the referendum that this engagement seems to have continued in Dr. Jan Ikorn of a university of Edinburgh has written submission to the committee he said that of 18 to 19 year olds there would have been 16 to 17 year old during the referendum campaign in Scotland 63% said they would certainly vote in the general election in 2015 as opposed to only 27% in England in no other age group was this different so substantial implying that there may be more than a general referendum effect which we would have seen across all age groups by contrast since the general election Morrie have conducted a poll which suggests that throughout the United Kingdom only 43% of 18 to 24 year olds voted as opposed to three quarters of pensioners I'm not sure I haven't seen any Scottish breakdown so clearly throughout the UK there is work to be done in addition other work by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the gap between American youth turnout and overall turnout has changed little in 40 years whereas in Britain that gap has widened dramatically so it's clearly a cause for concern in the United Kingdom as a whole Presiding officer we live in an age in which one of the preferred means of public communication and forum is that of social media as masters of that medium 16 and 17 year olds have potentially greater access to information than ever before but schools have a very important part to play as Bruce Adamson of the child law centre says in his submission to the committee the primary duty of the state is to provide education for children and as Dr Jann Icon said discussing political issues in schools increases pupils confidence in ways nothing else does so we know how important it will be to ensure that that information is replicated throughout Scotland in every school not propaganda but informed guidance early engagement with politics understanding the political process is vital and at a time when young people are expected to move on to the next stage in their lives whether that be an education in an apprenticeship or full time employment it's only right that we also invite them to fully participate in the democracy that we all value at the very earliest opportunity research evidence from Norway and Austria suggests that 16 and 17 year old first time voters and people that vote in the first election they're actually eligible to vote in are more likely to vote in the future i.e. they get into the habit of voting and then they continue to do so so it's important to get them into that habit at the very earliest opportunity the high turnout during the independence referendum and the slightly lesser turnout in the recent general election which was still much better than in 2010 so that gave us all I hope some satisfaction in Scotland turnout even in such traditionally low voting areas such as Glasgow northeast improved considerably Presiding officer under the new conservative Westminster government we now approach the prospect of a EU referendum but instead of embracing the gold standard of the referendum we seek to exclude not only EU citizens such as Christian Allard my colleague but also 16 and 17 year olds we're happy to allow citizens of Cyprus and Malta who are of course EU states but not long term residents in the United Kingdom citizens of other EU states Presiding officer whilst we've gone forward with the Smith commission on votes for 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland once again Westminster is behind the times Westminster of course now includes Mari Black MP the youngest member of the Westminster parliament since 1667 I commend her fantastic achievement if ever there was an example of how a young person can become involved in politics from the earliest opportunity she has won and of course her own First Minister Nicola Sturgeon joined the SNP at the age of 16 that's quite clear that there is cross party support for this bill there is an air of inevitability about this bill but we clearly have a bigger battle to win at Westminster as we know at Westminster old habits die hard it would be good however if this parliament could encourage the 15, 16 and 17 year olds of Scotland to use the time before the EU referendum bill becomes law to make Westminster know loudly and clearly at every stage that they should think again as for this parliament let's progress this bill so that we can demonstrate to Westminster that we really do do things better in Scotland thank you thank you Presiding Officer I too would like to thank our first class clerks well informed witnesses and all who've contributed to our stage 1 report on the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill the committee does indeed support the general principles of the bill principles that have long been part of Scottish Green Party policy and just as last week's debate on the Smith draft clauses was a result of the engagement witnessed in the referendum today's debate is an incredibly positive reflection of this increased political engagement and a concrete step to make it possible for that engagement to continue to its fullest extent and the act of voting itself for 16 and 17 year olds the Scottish youth parliament campaigned for votes at 16 in the referendum followed by all other elections and referendums and they're not alone the votes at 16 campaign says since 1998 we've been calling for votes at 16 and last year's indie ref was proof we're ready and who could argue with that even those who were previously unconvinced recognise this involvement is appropriate, important and quite frankly right we experienced at first hand the contribution young people make to the democratic process and wasn't inspiring and I'm delighted that we're on the road to enabling 16 and 17 year olds to vote in Scottish parliament and Scottish local authority elections and I've no doubt that if the UK government passed similar legislation at Westminster they too would witness the passion and dedication that comes when young people are allowed to be fully involved with the democratic process and when they're given the right to vote Presiding Officer many believed and now we all know that democracy is better when young people are involved when young people cannot vote we squander energy and we squander passion and can we really afford to do that at a time when politics is so poorly regarded and when we all too often have woefully low voter turnout votes at 16 say we want our political system to recognise the abilities of 16 year olds to properly include us in our society and show us the trust and respect that society expects of us by giving us the right to vote My committee colleagues agree that our evidence-taking session involving the Scottish youth parliament Young Scot and the NUS was particularly lively engaging and informative Louise Cameron of the Scottish youth parliament was an inspirational witness and she pointed out that 16 and 17 year olds challenged their families about not going to the ballot box and she said that maybe parents or others who've been disengaged from the political system have had their engagement revitalised and there are those who will still insist that young people aren't equipped or well enough educated to vote and I disagree wholeheartedly as do colleagues who took part in debates where young people engaged and debated in an articulate, a passionate and a well informed way we've heard in media debate this week about the need to extend the franchise for the proposed EU referendum and we know that young people are very well informed indeed that they're able to access information and they have exposure to information that some older voters will never see because social media as we've heard during this debate is transforming the way we do many things and its impact on politics and campaigning was clear to see in the referendum many pupils did benefit from taking part in fairly cheered debates with balanced panels but as colleagues have noted this wasn't the case in every local authority an action to overcome the reluctance to host such debates which seem to stem from concern about being partial is essential and Bill Scott from Inclusion Scotland summed up perfectly when he said there's everything to gain from having national guidelines because they could break down those barriers and encourage education authorities to take a risk that risk is worth taking because everybody has to take risks one of the rights of passage is for young people to begin to make their own decisions and take chances we need to allow people to make decisions for themselves rather than doing it for them well absolutely Curriculence for Excellence aims to create confident individuals who are effective contributors and responsible citizens who participate responsibly in political, economic, social and cultural life and involvement in our democratic process is a perfect way to enable this development now Louise Cameron noted that while the school system this time missed some young people practically everyone nowadays is on Facebook and Twitter it's a valuable way to catch people and she cited a hashtag on Twitter on the day before and on the referendum itself that encouraged people to go to the ballot box and she noted that it received huge publicity but with amendment we can ensure a more equal playing field as the bill moves forward the votes at 16 website says the EU referendum will be a historic once in a lifetime vote 16 and 17 year olds took their right to vote in the Scottish referendum with over 75% turnout and now is the time for the government to give them a vote in the EU referendum Westminster I hope you are listening Presiding officer our work on this bill isn't the end of a process is clearly the beginning the bill will be amended as it proceeds through Parliament and I hope that our experience in Scotland will demonstrate to those who still require convincing that the time has come to give all 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote thank you many thanks when we now move to closing speeches and I call on animal Goldie six minutes please Presiding officer this has been a positive and an interesting debate and can I too thank the committee for its work in producing the stage 1 report on the bill there is nothing like the zeal of the convert and my party has moved from an anxiety surrounding the reduction of the voting age to enthusiasm in supporting it for the Scottish parliament and local government elections in Scotland and as many others have indicated our view changed when we saw at first hand the levels of engagement interest in and knowledge of the issues in the referendum debate displayed so impressively by these young people I was privileged to sit in the referendum Scotland Bill Committee chaired by that parliamentary deity Mr Bruce Crawford and we were we were able to explore we were able to explore a divine intervention from Mr Crawford I'm just wondering if when you're in the house of lords given your new enthusiasm for votes at 16 you might bring forward an amendment to the EU bill to allow that to happen there too Annabelle Golden One step at a time Mr Crawford the change in my party's attitude in this parliament to reducing the voting age has been a very challenging experience for us to adjust to but nonetheless we adjust with pleasure I have to say that on the referendum Scotland Bill Committee we were able to explore thoroughly what a reduction in the voting age for the referendum might involve what issues would arise and areas where we considered care would be necessary and I hope that exercise has been useful to the successor committee the devolution further powers committee I don't propose to dwell on the mechanics of creating a voting system for 16 and 17 year olds system has been tried it has been tested I'm sure any lessons learned or adjustments necessary can be made The broader issue is how we inform young people of the issues in which they will be voting bearing in mind that some will still be attending school and as other contributors have indicated the balance to be struck is the ready provision of that information without veering into propaganda by either local authorities or teachers or other school staff and I think this is of particular importance if young people are to have the reassurance that out with the home they can access such information listen to debates or even organise and participates and debates themselves and think through the issues for themselves Presiding Officer I don't believe it's for governments to tell local authorities how to do their business but I do believe some consistency of practice by local authorities is desirable and I'm indebted to Spice for their excellent paper in this area entitled approaches of local authorities to the Scottish independence referendum and schools and I quote it found at top line level that 25 authorities agreed a policy on whether and how discussion of the referendum was to be permitted or encouraged in schools and some authorities stated that their guidance had emphasised the importance of neutrality so council staff were not to wear badges or symbols or emblems supporting either campaign or using slogans ensuring that all council staff retain neutrality in all issues relative to the referendum and emphasising the rights of people to express their views freely on more specific issues almost all local authorities permitted encouraged or actively supported schools to hold debates in the referendum Aberdeen left the decision to individual schools while others stated that debates were not discouraged that was the position of East Renfrewshire highly perhaps a ringing encouragement to young people only one local authority specifically said that debates in the referendum were not permitted in schools and that was in Renfrewshire my own home area but Renfrewshire did organise four major hustings events at which parity of access to the new school age voter constituency by the two campaigns was ensured again participants as other contributors have indicated in such debates seen varied sometimes local sometimes national politicians interestingly North Lanarkshire and West Lothian discouraged such external participation while Inverclyde supported it some local authorities permitted mock referenda but indeed for example did not and I merely give these illustrations from the spice paper Presiding officer to indicate there is a disparate approach and in fairness to local authorities some may have felt nervous about permitting too much activity fearing they might breach election law or their obligations of neutrality but with one election experience of the reduced voting age behind us it may be these authorities will now feel more relaxed observing what other authorities did and our examples of good practice Presiding officer I hope that Education Scotland in considering the guidelines will have a look at the models contained in that spice analysis paper I hope local authorities can be innovative as we approach next year's Scottish Parliament election this is an exciting time for politics heightened by the prospect of engaging thousands of new young voters in the electoral process and our democracy in Scotland will be stimulated by their participation I have pleasure in confirming my party will support the bill at stage 1 I now call on Lewis MacDonald seven minutes are there by please Mr MacDonald thank you very much Presiding officer some new laws lead social change the ban on smoking in public places which this parliament enacted 10 years ago was a good example of that other new laws do not so much lead as follow and this bill I think is an example of such a law because it's clear from today's debate that the time is indeed right previous extensions of the franchise have in some cases been bitterly contested from votes for working men in the 19th century to votes for women in the 20th other changes like the extension of the franchise to 18 year olds in 1969 quickly gained support because they reflected the spirit of the times before that young people could not vote until they were 21 even though the school leaving age then was lower than it is now extending the franchise to over 18s made sense in the 1960s at a time when youth culture was emerging as never before and young people's access to education and knowledge was growing exponentially and those young people of 1969 are now approaching the end of their working lives and a generation later the time has come for another change in the voting age indeed a generation is long enough between changes in the voting age it might also be the right length of time between referendums on the same question as the current First Minister said not so long ago and indeed the next European referendum is some 40 years after the last one and therefore a case in point but this bill also raises some important questions and it's important that there are answers offered to those a number of colleagues have addressed particular issues to do with looked after children with young offenders with young people with additional sport needs protecting the privacy of 14 and 15 year olds prior to their attaining the new reduced voting age of 16 is clearly important and I was glad to hear the Deputy First Minister respond to the issue which has been raised around selection of jurors there is no good reason why the rate of attainment of 16 and 17 year olds should not continue to appear in the electoral register as at present even if and when the voting age is reduced to 16 across the board of course there is nothing uniquely Scottish about constitutional referendums or indeed about votes at 16 the German land of lower Saxony can perhaps claim to have led the way but the Scottish angle here of course as a number of members have said is last year's referendum the high levels of engagement by 16 and 17 year olds in that referendum moved the debate on decisively a number of the other questions that have been raised during the committee's consideration of this are also significant the introduction of individual electoral registration has ended the practice of a householder registering everyone in his or her household just at the point when larger numbers of younger household members will qualify to vote than ever before that is inconvenient on one level but it does provide a double incentive to ensure that those who are entitled to register to vote are given every opportunity to do so and a voting a falling level of voter registration would be disappointing in all age groups and for younger voters in particular it will be important to see in detail why the Scottish Government believes there is no ambiguity around the registration deadline in the bill and I hope Mr Swinney's letter on that subject will issue in advance of stage 2 but as a number of members have said the referendum engaged young people on both sides of the debate and also posed some new challenges for school senior secondary school students were no longer confined to mock elections until they reached the age of 18 at some point in their final year they were now voting for real from fourth year onwards it is perhaps not surprising that schools and education authorities became anxious about that and that they dealt with these challenges in different ways too teachers were voters as well and formed their own views and they realised and schools realised that teachers could not be seen to try to influence how pupils chose to vote yet equally they did not want to seem to want to close down debate the referendum was a one-off event but this bill turns that novel challenge from last September into a permanent feature of school life that means schools must accommodate the debate and discussion that go with any election campaign but of course they must do so in the right way schools stand in local parentheses they act for and in place of parents for the duration of the school day that relationship of trust between the school the student and his or her family or carers applies at 16 or 17 or indeed at 18 as well as at a younger age that is the responsibility that lies with them the role of the school in this context then is not just to instruct in how the system works or to provide a forum for debate a school also has a particular duty to equip young people with the critical faculties they need to deal with the choices they face as independent adults the ability to think for yourself matters to young people in all sorts of context not least in evaluating and making judgments about things that are said in an election campaign John Swinney told the revolution committee that young people should be able to reach a fair and dispassionate understanding of political process and choices and I welcome his tone in addressing those issues today but I'm sure he would agree that that must not simply mean political parties being given a platform in schools to make their case to an uncritical and captive audience it must mean school students being taught the skills they need to ask the tough questions they should ask of all concern and the support they need to do that with confidence Democracy is not just about the right to vote as Alison Johnstone said it is also about the ability to make informed choices it is about a culture of mutual tolerance of opposing views these are the values that our schools should transmit and the revised guidance which Education Scotland is to provide should support schools in doing that Today's debate has of course gone beyond the terms of today's bill because the general principles providing for votes at 16 can be applied to other parliaments besides this one and just as we had a referendum last year which made votes at 16 an established fact so we will very soon have another referendum which will be just as significant for the younger generation Scotland's devolved parliament led the way in the smoking ban 10 years ago we will do so again on votes at 16 with this bill this bill as it stands is not the last word in the subject but it does point the way forward and where this parliament leads I have no doubt that others will follow Thanks and I now call on Jordan Swinney nine minutes Will they abide, Mr Swinney? Presiding Officer Mr Mcdonald Perhaps 10 For you Perhaps 10 Perhaps 10 Thank you, Presiding Officer Mr Mcdonald remarked there that it would be unhealthy for debate to take place with tough and uncritical audiences I feel as if I face tough and uncritical audiences on a frequent basis when I appeared in this parliament but today has been a slightly different occasion of greater unity of opinion and Mr Crawford was absolutely correct and I point echoed by Mr Pentland that this is a moment of history where parliament essentially regularises for the purposes of our elections and local authority elections the participation of 16 and 17-year-olds in the electoral process and I think one of the most pleasant parts of the debate has been the enthusiasm if I would say even Ms Goldie described it as the zeal of the convert in Mr Johnson in the way he expressed his opinion I felt I unreservedly welcome that and I want to say formally to the Conservative Party that I welcome the fact that they have taken a more positive and enthusiastic stance on this point and I think it's to their credit that they've looked at the experience in the referendum and come to that conclusion I felt as if Mr Johnson took it a bit far because he did speculate that the addition of 16 and 17-year-olds would perhaps create better political times If that was a note of optimism that all 16 and 17-year-olds in the future elections might vote Scottish Conservative I think that that is well perhaps a heroic assumption Mr Johnson to be made on this occasion but I wish Mr Johnson well in trying to pursue that particular objective the length and breadth of Scotland Alison McInnes made the point that of course the provision of voting for 16 and 17-year-olds was part of the Edinburgh agreement which was negotiated by the Liberal Democrats or delivered by the Liberal Democrats I think that that was her word I'm not sure where that leaves the Conservative Party who were her coalition partners up until a few weeks ago but perhaps that's still too sore a subject to talk about Of course the principal author of the Edinburgh agreement was that much respected former Secretary of State Michael Moore who a very fine individual and I'm sure there are a few Liberal Democrats wishing that he had perhaps remained the Secretary of State for Scotland given the current embarrassment of the most recent Secretary of State for Scotland but nonetheless we welcome the co-operation with the UK Government that enabled us to undertake the exercise of extending the franchise in 2014 for the referendum I want that has created as a platform for the longer term application of this provision and I do think there is a substantial point which is advanced by a number of colleagues across the political spectrum in the course of the debate today about the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds have been able to participate in the Scottish referendum they will be able to participate in the Scottish Parliamentary and local authority elections but they have been excluded from participation in the Westminster election and it appears as currently proposed that they will be excluded from participating in the EU referendum in one moment I think that that is a point that was made very strongly to me by the group of young Scots that I met with the young scot organisation today some of whom had actually voted in the referendum last September but were unable to vote a few weeks ago in the Westminster election and I do think this is an inconsistency that it would be best to resolve and of course my colleagues in Westminster will try to advance that argument and I hope that we can make progress that I'll give way to Mr Kelby Cabinet Secretary would be interested to know that they are advancing that argument as we speak the UK Government has just announced and published the bill on the EU referendum which excludes 16 and 17-year-olds and also new EU nationals Would the cabinet secretary with me impress on our colleagues on the Conservative benches here to take that opportunity to push for that amendment on that bill? Mr Swinney That was the sense in which I was making my remark a second ago and I do hope in general and I do applaud the Conservative party in Scotland for coming to the view they've come to on this issue and I do hope it's one that can be advanced and perhaps Mr Johnson has a direct line he's about to tell me about Alex Johnson I'm afraid I have no direct line however would the cabinet secretary agree that there is a certain symmetry in the fact that we today are taking the opportunity to decide who will vote in the elections that elect this chamber next year and it is a certain symmetry to the fact that the House of Commons will decide who will vote in their referendum or their future elections I accept the symmetry of the argument but I think the arguments that have got Mr Johnson and Ms Goldie to the conclusion that they've got today of the welcome participation of 16 and 17-year-olds are just as compelling arguments in relation to the UK general election or the EU referendum but I'll leave them to advance that argument as others will do Linda Fabiani made I think a really substantial point about the fact that the participation of individuals in the referendum essentially established in their minds the norm of participating in the democratic process and I'm struck by some of the research that I've seen which suggests almost that the referendum was such a compelling debate for citizens in Scotland that it activated and reconnected many citizens with the democratic process who had previously been alienated from the democratic process and I think the fact that the turnout in Scotland was 85% which represents a higher turnout than for any election in which I've certainly been a participant is perhaps a validation of that point that the referendum reconnected individuals to the democratic process and I think that was very welcome On the question and two questions I'd like to address specifically Presiding Officer one is on the whole issue of education and I do take sympathise entirely with Mr Gibson's points about this I think the argument I think there was a timidity within some aspects of the local authority sector and with an education that by enabling this debate somehow they were taking sides in the debate and I think having the debate enabling the debate to happen as long as it's balanced is something to which nobody should take any exception and I take from the debate today and I think Ms Goldie's explanation of the spice research of the variability of decision making around the country rather makes that point so I'll reflect further on that point in terms of the guidance that we believe that should be appropriate because I don't think we should be timid on this question as long as debate is balanced and objective and the second point are the substantial issues that Jackie Baillie raised about data protection and child protection and the reason why we're in a different situation from the referendum register is that in the referendum register we didn't know that this was going to be a recurring register and what we have to be satisfied is that in the gathering of information on 14 and 15 year olds who will be the attainers in the register that there is absolute security within the electoral registration office on the handling of that information and it's sharing with nobody out with the electoral registration process there will however be a moment when it comes to the sharing of the register for electoral purposes that for individuals who are 15 years and 46 weeks upwards they will be their names will be disclosed and I think we we have to be absolutely mindful and I'll look again at all of these provisions given the issues that have been raised today to be certain that we are taking the right steps in that respect but I do believe there has been extensive extensive consultation with representatives of the child protection organisations and with the electoral registration officers to make sure that these issues are properly addressed but I don't in any way dispute the significance of them and I will look afresh at these questions before stage 2 to ensure that the legitimate points that have been raised by Jackie Baillie and others are properly addressed in advance of stage 2 of the bill's consideration Presiding Officer the comment has been made during this debate about the election of Mary Black as the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South a 20-year-old young woman who's made already a very strong and profound and distinctive contribution to our politics and I think it's indicative of the contribution that young people can make to the process and we saw that evidenced by the enthusiasm of young people to participate in the referendum and I also saw some of that for myself in my discussion with young people along with the young scot organisation this morning where young people came from all parts of the country to question me about the issues around this bill but to express their enthusiasm to be full active participants in the decision making of our country we should feel very privileged that we have young people with such aspirations to participate in our democracy and we'll take an important step in facilitating that today by passing the bill that's before Parliament this afternoon Thank you Mr Swinney that concludes the debate on Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill we now move to next side of business which is consideration of motion number 13146 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill Can I call on John Swinney to move the motion? Thank you the question this motion will be put decision time The next side of business is consideration of a parliamentary pure motion I would ask Joffix Patrick to move motion number 13267 on approval of an SSI any member who wants to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now and can ask Mr Patrick to move formally moved Alice McKinnis has indicated that she wishes to speak against the motion I call Alice McKinnis as McKinnis you have up to three minutes Thank you very much Presiding Officer we do not support this SSI before us this afternoon when the legislation was first debated in this Parliament Scottish Liberal Democrats raised our very serious concerns over part 2 and the powers that it confers section 10 allows ministers to make any provision which would improve the exercise of public functions this includes modifying conferring abolishing transferring or delegating any function it also includes abolishing or creating or amending the constitution of public bodies part 2 allows potentially radical changes to a number of bodies to be made without any ability for Parliament to amend instead bringing changes to Parliament by statutory instrument and as Jeremy Pervis said at the time the Parliament will have a final say but it will not have a full say in potentially large-scale changes now I know that the cabinet secretary assured the finance committee that he thought that the had been used in relatively small number of orders and it had been used to make important but small scale changes and he thought that that should provide reassurance that the powers should be extended for another five years I don't agree with that I don't doubt the minister's good intentions but I would point out that scale is in the eye of the beholder we do remain opposed to the powers as set out at park 2 they are too wide the legislation was used to bring forward an SSI to abolish prison visiting committees that to my mind and to very many prisoners and organisations was not a small scale change visiting panels played an important role in the lives of people serving prison sentences and their family and it was a change that should have been subject to thorough proper parliamentary scrutiny not the use of an SSI today's SSI is not simply about how the powers have been used to date though it is about how they could still be used we are right to work to ensure that this parliament has all of the scrutiny and amending powers that it requires and a continuation of the order making powers undermines our powers here in Parliament and for that reason Scottish Liberal Democrats will not support the SSI thank you Presiding Officer thank you Ms McInnist can I conjure on to willing to respond Deputy First Minister up to three minutes Presiding Officer Alison McInnist said that she didn't doubt my intentions in bringing forward this order to extend provision that Parliament put into primary legislation back in 2010 well back in 2010 these were the words of her former colleague Robert Brown who I think was doubting my intentions John Swinney seems to want the royal dispensing power that was claimed by the Stuart Kings which led to their removal in 1649 and again in 1688 I wonder whether he like Charles I and James VII regards Parliament as an administrative inconvenience and I wish to list to Parliament the instances on which these powers have been used declassification of the general teaching council for Scotland as a public body and turned into an independent profession-led organisation hardly the royal dispensing power of the Stuart Kings transferred the functions of the public standards commissioner for Scotland and the public appointments commissioner for Scotland to a new commissioner of ethical standards in public life in Scotland at the request not of ministers Presiding Officer but of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body hardly the royal dispensing powers created the roles of prison monitoring coordinators and independent prison monitors and transferred the roles and functions of prison visiting committees to which Alison McInnes has referred provided the basis for measures to provide a greater level of confidence in the working relationship between landlords and tenant farmers enabled ministers to recover the costs of education in Scotland carrying out inspection of independent further education colleges and English language schools it helped to streamline the and simplify the planning system in two specific areas and it allowed NHS National Health Services Scotland to provide shared services across the public sector with a view to improving efficiency and productivity we took these powers to try to enable us to undertake modest public service reform without resorting to primary legislation we gave that commitment in 2010 the eight occasions in which we have used these powers I think are evidenced that we have used those powers judiciously and wisely and we seek Parliament's consent to extend that for five more years I wish to assure Parliament I have no aspirations to exercise the royal dispensing powers only to exercise due administrative efficiency over the public sector in Scotland The question on this most will be to put a decision time to which we now come there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business the first question is at motion number 13285 in the name of Don Swinney on the Scottish Elections Reduction of Voting Age Bill be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is there for agreed to and the Scottish Elections Reduction of Voting Age Bill is agreed to the next question is at motion number 13146 in the name of Don Swinney on the financial resolution for the Scottish Elections Reduction of Voting Age Bill be agreed to are we all agreed the motion is there for agreed to the next question is at motion number 1328267 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI be agreed to are we all agreed the motion are we all agreed no the Parliament is not agreed we move to vote members to cast us what's now the result of the vote on motion number 13267 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick is as follows yes 99 no 2 the motion is there for agreed to that concludes decision time and I now close this meeting