 Felly dyma i gael i amser wneud cydwyddiant allanol? Fynghoriwch ati'r gynhwys i ei ddigwydd o'r gynediadol. Felly, fyddech chi i Huw Ysgrifennid gyda'r prifsgrinwyr a'r Pwyllfaedd Cymru, ddim eich cyfnodol ein gwerthu'r astudio i ddim i, ac yn yr adnoddiadau fawr i ddweud tratyn o'r gweld y gwirthau yn yr ysgol tychwyddiad. Felly, o gyfan yr ysgrifennid yn fawr i'ch peirioneddau ar y cyfnodol, from senior members of this SNP Government. This is now an established pattern of engagement in this chamber, the gross misrepresentation of the views and opinions of colleagues who are members of this Parliament. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I think you've answered your own question. It is on the record. It's time to move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 3009, in the name of George Adam, on the UK elections bill. I would ask members who wish to participate in this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on George Adam to speak to and move the motion for around nine minutes, please, Mr Adam. Eleven years, Presiding Officer, and that's never once happened to me, honestly. Presiding Officer, the UK elections bill is both a highly complex and highly controversial. I'm pleased that the Standards Committee agrees with me with its assessment that legislative consent should not be granted. However, the bill will still have a profound impact on voters and electoral administrators in Scotland, not only just in relation to holding UK general elections here but also creating pressure on us to act in a very similar way. It is therefore important for Parliament to have this opportunity to discuss the bill. I am strongly opposed to several of its proposals for reserved elections. In particular, it is apparent to many across the political spectrum that voter ID in the UK general elections would disenfranchise us as a substantial number of people. I agree with Ruth Davidson, Presiding Officer, and that's not something that you often hear. However, I agree with Ruth Davidson's description of the proposal in her quote that she says, trying to give a solution to a problem that does not exist. Although I will not say the full quote, because as you know, I do not believe in bad language in the chamber. However, Ms Davidson was extremely strong in her disagreement with the issue. Where is the need for such an expensive and disruptive change? What happened to promoting participation by our most vulnerable citizens as the UK Parliament's Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded that the evidence base has simply not been good enough? That committee rightly called for a pause to allow further research on consultation. I am quite happy to hear that. Rachael Hamilton I agree that the recommendations have been implemented by the Electoral Commission and other bodies. Therefore, they are recommendations that are designed not to disenfranchise the voters. The whole voter ID policy will, in effect, make another barrier for individuals going to a voting station. We will have a situation where there will be completely different scenarios with regard to devolved election and those that are from Westminster. The Tories should not be ones talking about the Electoral Commission, because part of the problem that we have here is the Tories roughriding over the election commission already. I am concerned by the bill's move to require postal votes for reserved elections to be renewed after three years. That is another example that people will be disenfranchised. That means an end to voters being able to make one application for a postal vote for all election. That represents a significant loss to many voters and our constituents. By unilaterally setting the period at three years for reserved elections, the UK Government is effectively pressuring us all to follow suit to avoid confusion to voters—something that could be said about every single other aspect of the bill. We should be proud of what devolution that it has already achieved in elections policy. For example, we have extended votes to foreign nationals and 16 and 17-year-olds and developed a role of the electoral management board, which was vital in coordinating last year's successful May election. We should not be obliged to adapt our law to whatever the UK Government considers appropriate, especially where there is no evidence-based or compelling argument for that change. That is especially so in relation to the proposals from UK ministers to issue a statement directing the electoral commission's work in overseeing elections. That seems to risk interference with the commission's independence. Indeed, as Louise Edwards, director of regulation at the commission, said to the standards committee, and I quote, "...the strategy and policy statement would put one political party in essence. It would put one political party in a privileged position of influence above all others and above all its political competitors." That is the point at which it would impact on confidence and integrity of elections because it would impact on our independence. There is the director of regulation at the commission saying how difficult and impossible their position will be made by this power grab by the UK Government. Our legislative consent memorandum rejected the proposal that UK ministers should be able to include developed elections within the terms of the statement. It is a reflection of the lack of respect for devolution that runs through the bill that there would have been only a simple requirement to consult Scottish and Welsh ministers in relation to devolved elections. Our views could have been entirely ignored and there would have been no role at all for either any of us in this building or this Parliament. Even with the consent refused, any statement in relation to reserved elections could feed through to the commission's handling of devolved votes. Both I and my Welsh counterpart therefore suggested placing a duty on the UK minister to consult us in relation to the statement in its entirety. Even that simple concession was rejected out of hand. I am quite happy to hear what Mr Kerr has to say about that simple concession that we asked for. I am grateful to the minister for giving way, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I hear the minister confirm that the electoral commission actually endorses the measures in the bill? That is a statement of fact. That is a massive overstatement. It has endorsed some of the things. I think that the member has already said from a serious position that he all knows about alternative facts. My final major concern in the bill is that it simply casually seeks to replace our existing legislation on digital imprints. We were the first in the UK to require an imprint on electronic election material to identify its source, but by taking an extremely broad view of the internet service reservation, one we continue to contest, the UK Government is effectively trampling over the law that is already set by this Parliament. There are a number of other changes in the bill, for example, on undue influence and intimidation, where I can see merit in similar changes in Scotland, but, as I explained to the Standards Committee, there is currently no need to rush. The first major devolved election will be held after the UK bill becomes law in 2026, and we should take the time to assess those proposals and consult this year on the best way forward. For me, Presiding Officer, that is to ensure that we get that opportunity to have the full consultation with stakeholders to find out what is the best way for us here in Scotland to make sure that we can actually take our elections forward and then for eventually to have our own legislation at a later date and time for our Scottish elections. It is clear to me that this Parliament should consider its own legislation on those issues. We should not accept unsatisfactory and troubling reforms made at Westminster simply as a matter of administrative convenience. We should be very aware of some of the threats made by the bill to the Electoral Commission. I look forward to hearing members' views across the chamber on the bill and, Presiding Officer, I move that motion in my name. Thank you Minister. I now call on Stephen Kerr to speak to move amendment 3009 point to Minister Kerr around six minutes. I doubt the fact that I move that amendment at the outset of my remarks. My goodness, the Minister is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to create constitutional issues around the digital imprint. The reality is that this is a reserved bill. This is about reserved issues of the UK Parliament. If the Minister feels strongly about this as he clearly does, he should be addressing those issues to his members of Parliament that attend the Parliament in Westminster. The bill that we are debating today is about strengthening British democracy. Like many colleagues across the chamber, I have stood in many elections. What I have learned over the years is that, regardless of the political context in which an election is being fought, listening to the thoughts and concerns of voters is at the heart of every British election. That is ultimately because democracy is about politicians being accountable to people and the people shaping the political direction of the country. On Mr Kerr's key theme there of listening to the electorate in his example, would it not be a case if we were talking about the respect for the devolved process that, while I was having these discussions with my Welsh counterpart and the UK Government, would they not have had the respect to listen to us and possibly give some ground in some of the many issues that we have problems with? Very often in our discussions the minister reminds me of his past profession as a salesperson, and I greatly respect that because I was also a salesperson. I think he is underselling his own ability to influence UK ministers by engaging with them. I think he is being very presumptious in the conclusions that he has arrived at as a result of the discussions that he has had. Let me return to my theme, listening to the voice of our constituents. That voice is the most effectively heard in the ballot box, and that is why the UK Government has a duty to ensure that UK-wide elections continue to be free and fair, and that is what this bill does. The area that has received the most coverage and attention from the minister this afternoon is the plant introduced voter ID to tackle election fraud, but that is not the only purpose of the bill. Neil Bibby I am very grateful that the member considers me to be ministerial material, addressing me as the minister. I look forward to the day, maybe, when that would be a reality. In answer to his question, there were examples of that at the last Scottish parliamentary election in the very city of voter persination. Frankly, such is the sacred way in which we should view the right of a citizen to exercise their vote. Protecting it in this way seems like a very good idea to me. I am really at a loss to understand how any democratic politician could object to the idea that we are protecting those badges of citizenship, namely the vote. Of course, the passport, which is another issue. I mentioned Ruth Davidson and her description of the idea of voter ID. Does the member agree with the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives and now in the House of Lords saying that trying to give voter ID is trying to give a solution to a problem that does not exist? Mr Kerr, I can give you some of the time back. Thank you. This will be new to members of the Scottish Nationalist Party, but it is possible in the Conservative Party for us to have honest differences of view. Something that never happens in the SNP because, of course, that is simply not allowed. You have to think what everybody gets told by the hierarchy, the high command of the Nationalist Government. That is not how the Conservative Party is, and I am very proud of that fact, by the way. However, there are so many issues that are positive about this bill. Regulations on voter ID, yes, improving accessibility for disabled voters, empowering British citizens who live overseas, but all those areas that are devolved remain devolved. I really do not know why the minister is getting so excited. It is my belief that those changes that the UK Government is introducing and proposing for UK general elections will strengthen British democracy. In 2014, a report titled, Electoral fraud in the UK, the electoral commission concluded, and I quote, based on the evidence that we gathered during the review, is that this risk, the introduction of voter ID, can be managed and therefore is therefore right to make this change for the sake of the benefits that will bring in terms of improving the security of the system. A similar requirement already exists in Northern Ireland, where ID to vote has been required since 2002, as well as in many other countries, including many other European countries. However, I thought that alone when I sold the benefits of all of this to the SNP who will follow anything that they think is being done in other European countries. For the Labour Party, it introduced voter ID requirements for Northern Ireland, and far from dissuading people from voting in the 2003 general election, what happened was that there was a higher turnout in Northern Ireland than there was in any other part of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that Labour on this issue is scraping the barrel as well. I do not know how much time I have got left. I have lost track of how long I have got. I have got lots more that I could say, and I am not going to be able to say it, but in all honesty, I would say to the members of the Scottish Parliament that this is a reserved bill dealing with reserved matters about UK general elections. There is no power grab from the UK Government. The only power grab that we witness in this Parliament are the antics of the SNP who gradually draw all power to themselves and then dispense it on the basis of grace and favour. That is really not the way that democracy works, and that is why I fully support the measures that are contained in this bill before the UK Parliament, which will, I repeat, strengthen our and increase the security of our democracy. One of the oldest in the world and one of the most successful in one of the most successful unions between countries in the history of the world. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 3009.1 for around five minutes, Mr Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. I think that that was a valiant effort from Mr Kerr there. Discrase is a word that is often overused in politics, but there is no other word to describe this election's bill and the motivations behind it. I am afraid that it represents a Trumpian attempt to rig democracy in favour of the Conservative Party, who are desperately trying to cling on to power. Stephen Kerr says that it strengthens our democracy. It is an attack on fundamental democratic freedoms aimed at stifling opposition and deterring participation in the democratic process. Tory MSPs would not defend the indefensible over Boris Johnson's parties in Downing the Street. You should not be defending the indefensible now, Mr Kerr. I think that I have been very public about what my views are on the first subject that you mentioned. I think that I have broadcast those to pretty much the entire United Kingdom. In terms of Trumpian, what is Trumpian about facilitating it so that all disabled people have a right to vote according to their needs? What is Trumpian about reducing undue influence and political finance and notional expenditure in this country? What is Trumpian about disqualifying people who intimidate candidates? That is enough, Mr Kerr. Mr Bibby. Trumpian, Mr Kerr, is suggesting that there is wide-scale voter ID fraud in this country, and whether there isn't. I asked you how many times were the convictions for voter impersonation in the 29 general election out of 59 million electors? How many cases was it? One out of 59 million. It is Trumpian to suggest that there is wide-scale voter fraud when that is the level of convictions that we saw in 2019. You are more likely to get struck by lightning three times than convict voter fraud in this country. No, I think that we have had enough at the moment. This is not about tackling voter fraud, this is about voter suppression. It is a red herring, it is a non-problem. The fact is that, yes, we are taking the bridge. Jim Fairlie. Just to add to Mr Bibby's assertion there, according to David Davis, 80 allegations of imperson voter fraud were made between 2015 and 2019 out of 153 million votes. That is including three separate general elections. I do not really think that there is a voter fraud ID problem. Neil Bibby. I completely agree with the member. This is about voter suppression, not tackling voter fraud. The fact is that for millions of people across the UK, voting is about to become a lot more difficult. About a quarter of voters have neither a passport nor a driving licence, in many cases because they simply cannot afford to. They will either have to spend money, they do not have to apply for one or apply and not to apply for a voter ID card in advance. Early trials in some areas led to hundreds of voters being turned away from polling stations. That should tell us to stop, because when those moves are rolled out, as the campaign group hands off our vote has said, millions of people are being locked out of our democracy. Of course, it cannot just be a coincidence that those most likely to fulfil of these new laws are overwhelmingly groups and likely to vote conservative. This bill cynically and brazenly will hit the young. It will hit those on low incomes and it will hit those from the most marginalised communities. The Electoral Reform Society has said that those plans could lead to disenfranchisement on a massive scale. Stephen Kerr talked about the impact on people with disabilities. It is an idea told us Parliament that voter ID requirements will disproportionately and negatively affect blind and partially sighted people. We should be encouraging people to vote, we should be encouraging them to engage in democracy and public life. People have rightly pointed out—I am really confused about your position here, because was it not your Government that introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland? So are you talking down Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland voters? The context in Northern Ireland is completely different. That was part of the peace process in 2002, so that is a completely different context. The Conservatives normally talk about wasting taxpayers' money. People have rightly pointed out that the measures will also be a complete waste of taxpayers' money. A Cabinet Office assessment reveals that it will cost £120 million over 10 years, at a time when the same Government cannot find the money to pay for a nurse's pay rise or fund services to tackle actual crime. We are going to spend £220 million on an unnecessary and undesirable voter ID scheme. That should be the priority for spending money on public services. The bill also threatens the integrity of our democracy by allowing foreign political donations to flood our political system. The Conservatives are opening the back door to big money donations from abroad with overseas donors and are now able to legally bankroll their campaigns from offshore tax havens. The bill also astonishingly politicises the Electoral Commission on Independent Democratic Watchdog. In an unprecedented move, the bill makes provisions for a power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, which will be drafted by government. The Electoral Commission is an independent overseer of our democracy. It is not for parties and ministers to direct its priorities, and we have heard what the Electoral Commission has told this Parliament. Furthermore, this election's bill is an attack on free and fair campaigning. That will not only deter people from voting, but it will deter, as the Labour amendment notes, from civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to engage and campaign in our democracy. It infringes on the rights of working people to organise politically and represents a deliberate attempt to silence the trade unions that have a historic relationship with the Labour Party. Remarkably, it gives the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to amend or remove the types of organisations that are allowed to campaign in elections across the UK. That is completely at odds with a level playing field or free and fair elections. Those issues that I have discussed are just the tip of the iceberg, Presiding Officer. That bill is shameful and shameless. It is straight out of the US Republican playbook, and that is an apt comparison, Presiding Officer, because it is surely that country above all else that has taught us most in recent years about the dangers of complacency in relation to the fundamentals of democracy. For those who might be tempted to Wait, opponents are exaggerating or being hysterical. That democracy in this country is safe and secure. I invite them to look across the Atlantic and see what happens when one political party starts to undermine the rules of the game and to abuse the power to try to rig democracy for itself. I am afraid that what time we are available has now been exhausted and therefore interventions will need to be accommodated in speeches. I call on Alex Cole-Hamilton for four minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy. Presiding Officer, I rise for the Liberal Democrats in support of the Government Motion and Labour Amendment and in opposition to the UK Government's elections bill. I'll tell you for why. Mary Walton Kraft, one of the most influential political thinkers that our islands have produced, famously argued for universal suffrage because of the simple fact that it gives us power over ourselves. Democracy gives each and every one of us the power over our own lives, our communities and, indeed, our country. For that reason, it has to be protected at all costs, so why Liberal Democrats across the United Kingdom are horrified by the implications that the elections bill will have for our country. At the last general election, over 2.5 million Scots turned out to vote. They did so to send politicians to Parliament to represent their interests, but it was to a Parliament that houses the representatives and ideas of our four nations. Presiding Officer, this practice is being put in grave jeopardy by this bill. The particularly startling measure that I will focus on first is voter identification. This is being introduced despite, as we have had several times in this debate, manifestly low levels of voter forward, and, indeed, just six cases of electoral forward at the last general election. A driving licence costs £34 to obtain. A passport will set you back £75, not to mention additional accessibility barriers that people will come up against. Furthermore, international research has shown time and time again the photo ID requirements disadvantaged marginalised groups. Graham Simpson himself, this very day, asked the topical question about the difficulties that people have had obtaining bus passes due to photo ID requirements. These are precisely the groups that have been historically and continually marginalised and pushed away from the democratic process. It could cost up to £18 million to place further exclusions on our democratic system. As the inspirational Stacey Abrams put it, we have heard rightly a lot about Republican politics in America. As she said of Republican politics, voter suppression works its might by first tripping and causing to stumble the unwanted voter, and then by convincing those who see the obstacle course to forfeit the race without even starting to run. Presiding Officer, we have to call it for what it is. This measure is nothing less than voter suppression. As Liberals, at the heart of our ideology is a belief in unfettered free speech and democracy. That is why my colleagues in Westminster have been tirelessly fighting to expand the reach of democracy and not to restrict it as this bill will do. They have voted against this bill at every turn. Alongside, they have fought various campaigns on this, such as broadening the scope of proportional representation, defending the Electoral Commission and preserving the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Presiding Officer, while the main focus of this debate is quite rightly the Orwellian nature of this bill, we should also be looking at the inner workings of a democracy here in Scotland. After all, no institution is perfect. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have noted for a while with concern that, in Holyrood, there is no process to recall an elected representative when it is appropriate to do so. I would like to take a moment to reiterate that call to introduce an active recall system here. Moreover, our party has campaigned for a new contempt of Parliament rule to ensure that Holyrood has the final say in the business of this Parliament. Democracy is not a feature that, once introduced to a country, becomes a permanent fixture. It is an active process and one that requires continual growth, enfranchisement and protection. That is why Scottish Liberal Democrats press for links between local governments and Holyrood to be strengthened to make sure that the democratically elected councils can properly implement the decisions that their local communities have elected them to do. It also should never be taken for granted. People around the world, particularly women and marginalised groups, have fought and died for it and continue to do so. As this bill makes blisteringly and painstakingly clear, we still have a fight on our hands in our democracy. While it may not have a direct impact on the chamber and on the building, it will directly impact on our constituents and the votes that they cast at the next general election. I will finish by saying that the UK election bill represents an existential threat to our democratic system. We need to provide solidarity and work hard with our neighbours across the United Kingdom to make sure that our democratic institutions, both here and the rest of the UK, remain uninhibited and far-reaching. That is the cornerstone of our society. Thank you. Before we move to the open debate, could I remind all members to check that they have, if they are wishing to speak in the debate, pressed the request to speak button? I now call Bob Doris, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Mord of Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start with the agreement. Various aspects of devolved competence for elections may benefit from revising. That includes matters such as clarification in the law of what constitutes undue influence on voters, on notional expenditure, on campaign expenditure, devolved elections on regulation of expenditure for political purposes and on the disqualification of offenders for holding elected offices. Both the Scottish Government and the Standards Committee on which I sit as deputy convener agreed with this. The UK Government sought consent to address those matters within Westminster legislation, legislation in which other areas are highly controversial and should be rejected. The majority position of the Standards Committee was that any reforms should be agreed and implemented in Scotland's Parliament, consulted on by the Scottish Government with a view to Scottish legislation taking account of that consultation. The committee agreeing with the Scottish Government should not recommend legislative consent. However, there is also a dark shadow which looms over the UK elections bill. That is the intention to bring in photographic ID to vote in UK elections now. I acknowledge that, under the current constitutional arrangements, it is wholly a matter for the UK Government. However, the ramifications for view voters in voting in Scottish elections may very well be significant. It cannot be ignored by Scotland's Parliament. In the first instance, bringing in voter ID suggests that electoral fraud is widespread in UK elections. However, research shows that only 0.7 per cent of poll workers were concerned that electoral fraud might have happened at their polling stations. Indeed, that was often due to confusion rather than actual fraud. The need for reform has not been made, and the results of pilots on voter ID lead me to believe that a consequent intentional or otherwise is simply voter suppression. Dr Alasdair Clark Rudin politics at Newcastle University identified an evidence from the pilot that showed that, in some areas, over 30 per cent of voters who went to vote but were turned away did not return to bring their ID. They did not come back. The pilot has also demonstrated that 52.4 per cent of poll workers reported turning voters away because they did not have appropriate identification. Over 23 per cent of poll workers encountered people coming to the polling station who decided simply not to vote because they wanted not to comply with voter ID verification requirements in themselves. Voter ID for UK elections will be a barrier for those groups who already have barriers to voting or who are least likely to vote in the first place, be that many disabled people come from black and minority ethnic groups, younger voters and voters from our most deprived communities who mentioned just four groups. It will be wholly counterproductive in our efforts to encourage those who do not vote to do so. For those not even registered to vote, many of our most excluded citizens to even take that first step in engaging with the democratic process. This will impact and devolved elections, have no doubt. It will cause unwelcome confusion and alienate many voters. Many voters may be deterred from registering to vote and deterred from casting their vote in devolved elections. As I can conclude, voter ID reforms have a whiff of voter disenfranchisement by the UK Government, deliberate or otherwise. Our Parliament should have no association with the bill designed to deliver such disenfranchisement, and I was supporting the Scottish Government's rejection of that this afternoon. Thank you. I now call Murdo Fraser to be followed by co-capt steward. Contrary to a lot of the nonsense that we have just heard in the last half hour in this chamber, what this debate is about is actually a fairly modest piece of legislation at Westminster. The elections bill, utilised by the SNP Government in this chamber, will try to make a grievance once again out of anything that happens in the House of Commons. What the bill does is propose a number of sensible improvements and modifications to the law around elections. It is curious. The area that the Scottish Government is objecting to in refusing the legislative consent memorandum is the changes on digital imprints. All the bill does is to improve a new UK-wide approach to that. I really struggle to see why the Scottish Government thinks that this whole bill should be defeated on the basis that there should be a distinct Scottish approach to the question of digital imprints, given that this is about fighting elections on a UK-wide basis. The issue of digital imprints is really just a fig leaf for the Scottish Government to object to what our other issues are popularly reserved to Westminster. The bill, for example, changes the law around overseas voters. Removing the arbitrary 15-year limit on voting rights, it will allow expatriate British citizens living elsewhere to vote in British parliamentary elections, as long as they retain their citizenship. All that does is bring Britain into line with other countries, including France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, India and the United States. Indeed, out of 115 countries in the world that allow overseas voting, two thirds allow all their citizens overseas to vote. All that does is bring Great Britain into line with mainstream democratic practice. It is fair to say that the most contentious part of the legislation—we have already heard this in this debate—has been the need for identification to be produced at polling stations. I think that one of the great positives of living in the United Kingdom is that we have never had, apart from the wartime, the requirement on citizens to be able and asked to prove their identity. Any of us can walk down the street knowing that we do not have to carry identity to prove who we are. We cannot be stopped by agents of the state who ask to prove our identity. In that we are unique in Europe as a country that allows that particular freedom, and it should rightly be cherished. There are also a whole range of transactions that we are required to do as citizens where we are asked to prove our identity. It has always struck me as anomalous that one of the single most important responsibilities and privileges that we have as citizens—namely, the right to vote and the privilege in voting for our political representatives and electing a Government—we can exercise that right with not being asked to prove our identity at all. Any person can currently turn up at a polling station and claim to be a particular individual and be handed a ballot paper that they can then complete and vote without any checks whatsoever after their identity. Alex Cole-Hamilton That is a very pleasant fiction that Murdoff Fraser is casting about our democracy, but is he not aware that, if you do not have your polling card, you will be required to produce ID at a polling station? There are means of identifying who is voting and who is not. Murdoff Fraser That is absolute nonsense. I have attended many polling stations over the years, with or without polling cards. Not once have I been asked to provide identity and I have seen many other people turn up and give their name and address and be handing a voting slip. The risk is a very small one because the only risk is that the polling clerk might know personally the individual involved and realise that the person in the front of them is not entitled to receive their ballot paper. I ask people to prove their identity at polling stations. It seems an entirely sensible and reasonable provision to help to avoid fraud. Neil Bibby raised earlier the issue of the scale of fraud. The problem is that we have no idea what the scale of fraud is in voting. It is almost impossible to calculate what the scale of fraud might be. It is highly unlikely that an individual who has not voted in an election will take the time to check the mark register afterwards to see if a vote has been cast in their name. An individual, or any political group, might quite easily find out those who are on the voting register. They might be away at the time of an election. They might be indisposed or simply those who never vote and try and fraudulently exercise their votes to try and influence the outcome of an election. Mr Fraser, could you bring your marks to the close please? Fine, thank you. We have seen that in Northern Ireland. A voter photo ID introduced in 2013. Indeed, there is no negative impact on the turnout in elections in Northern Ireland. There is nothing at all wrong with the bill. There is yet another grievance from the SNP Government. I remind members that we do not have any time in hand. If members wish, which is entirely up to them to accept interventions, they must accommodate that in their own speeches. We think of the cornerstones of democracy. A few things come to mind. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the concept is projected in the statement. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. In a free and fair society, it is the will of the people that prevails and it is the will of the people that this UK elections bill seeks to undermine. In September 2021, a report published by the UK Parliament's joint committee on human rights raised concerns about the introduction of voter ID. The committee stated that the Government must explain why it has concluded that a voter ID requirement at polling stations is necessary and proportionate, given the low number of reported cases of fraud at polling stations. The even lower number of convictions and cautions, the potential for the requirement to discriminate against certain groups and the lack of any clear measures to combat discrimination faced by those groups. I too am eagerly awaiting this explanation and I am yet to hear a single convincing argument that those proposals are in fact necessary and proportionate. In a small number of pilots carried out in 2018 and 2019 local elections, over 1,000 people were turned away for not having the right ID and subsequently did not come back. It does not take much to imagine how those numbers would soar if we were to scale this up to a general election. In fact, the Electoral Reform Society, citing the UK Government's own stats, says that 38 per cent of Asian voters, 31 per cent of people with mixed ethnicity and 48 per cent of Black citizens do not currently hold any form of photo ID. Research carries out by the Cabinet Office found that it was also more common for respondents with disabilities to say that a requirement for photo ID would make them less likely to vote. The information alone that I have given should be enough for any person to that is even remotely interested in preserving democracy, democratic integrity, rather to denounce this bill for what it is, a tool of voter suppression guaranteed to affect the most marginalised communities in our society and perhaps, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, the most bizarre case of Trumpian mimic rape by the Conservatives yet. It is apparent that I share the concerns of my friend in the Welsh Senate, Rhys Ab Oen, member of the Senate, and we have both issued joint statements and we would like to thank hands-off our vote campaign for their support in this area. We have seen examples of measures to increase electoral participation, such as extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, as well as to foreign nationals. Scotland has also introduced a fairer electoral system for local elections via the adoption of a single transferable vote. However, the election bill signifies that the Tories would prefer to move in the opposite direction, forcing increased levels of already problematic first-pass-the-post system, threatening the independence of the electoral commission and disenfranchising even more voters along the way. In conclusion, in all of this, one thing is clear, Westminster is not working for anyone right now, but admits the shambolic display of disdain for the electorate currently being evidence, the UK Government's insistence on pursuing an authoritarian hostile agenda poses the greatest risk of all from our most basic freedoms as human rights activists Luann Ung declared, that voting is not only our right, it is our power, and we cannot let this power slip through our fingers. I believe that this debate today is crucial in showing that this Parliament does not support the UK Government's proposed changes to make elections less accessible and, quite simply, less fair. I am hoping that today this Parliament will unite with one notable exception and agree with the views already supported by parliamentarians in the Welsh Parliament who debated this issue last week. With the exception of the Welsh Tories, the parties in Wales united to condemn the UK elections bill and make it clear that no legitimate voters should be turned away from a ballot box, a view that I hope is supported by all across this chamber, apart from sadly the Scottish Tories who continue to take their orders from the Johnson Government. There is a deep hypocrisy from the Scottish Tory party here today. They are today supporting backward moves to introduce voter ID and the real aim of this is to rig elections. The bill being brought forward by the UK Government is nothing short of a shameful attempt to undermine democracy and further alienate those most difficult to reach to engage in our country's politics. Surely anyone who believes in the basic principles of democracy could not support moves that will make it more difficult for people to vote. It is a saddening state of affairs that highlights how low politics have sunk in this country that we are having to debate the question of moves that equate to voter suppression. I find it shocking that the Tories have come here today and told this Parliament that it should simply listen to what it is told by the UK Parliament. It is clear that the Tory party has no respect for the people of Scotland or for the views of its elected Parliament. Perhaps that is why they are also bringing forward the voter ID rules. They do not trust democracy—sorry, four minutes. However, that said, perhaps the Tories should listen to the view of one of their own Conservative colleagues from the UK Parliament. David Davis MP said, and I quote, Voter ID is an illiberal solution in pursuit of a non-existent problem and yet another unnecessary ID card approach from the Government. I agree with David Davis on this and there is more. The former Conservative Attorney General, Dominic Greave, has said that these rules threaten to create a two-tier electorate and discourage participation by the least advantaged. They might also want to listen to the view of the electoral reform society, who have said that the UK Government plans to spend millions banning people who do not have ID from voting, and this is nothing more than an expensive distraction. Data from the Electoral Commission demonstrates that, in 2019, only one individual was convicted for using someone else's vote at a polling station. On top of that, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has previously warned that voter ID requirements will have a disproportionate impact on older people, people with disabilities and those from ethnic minority communities. I fully believe that all elections should be open, accessible and not have measures in place that disenfranchise groups of voters. We have a long-standing history of democracy in this country, and I will not support Tory moves to undermine our democracy for their own political gains. In conclusion, I warned them, neither will the public, nor will the people of Scotland, when they realise what is intended here. The UK elections bill is first and foremost an attack on democracy by the UK Government. The UK Tory Government, whose own Scottish Party wants to change its own Prime Minister, because it does not think that he has a moral authority to lead the UK. Belief in our democratic processes is of key importance to the governance of a healthy democracy. I want to focus on what I see the main issue in this sort of speech today. On voter ID, there is no need for legislation. Surely any legislation should be evidenced based. Let's have a look at that. Cases of voter fraud are almost non-existent, with just one conviction and one caution being dealt for pernation offences that elections held in 2019. Is this a Tory tactic to secure their vote, while shutting out citizens, particularly marginalised groups from coming to meeting to our democracy? Age UK has said that 500,000 older citizens would not vote if the scheme was introduced 500,000. Similar fears of disenfranchisement have been expressed by BAME and disabled groups. It is estimated that between 2 and 4 per cent of the population do not have ID that would be suitable for voting requirements under the bill. That is 2.1 million people. Black and ethnic minority voters are also hugely affected by those plans, with 48 per cent of black people in the UK currently not holding a form of photo ID. That is a serious sector of efforts in building an open, inclusive and diverse democracy. Our democracy at its heart should make the voting process as easy as possible. Voter ID fundamentally makes this process harder. In the evidence sessions to the Standards Committee, we heard from various groups regarding accessibility issues. Numerous disability advocacy groups spoke very strongly against the principle of voter ID and how that would impact on disabled voters who already find the process difficult. Similarly, another evidence given to the committee, there was a need to focus on how we reach areas where there was a high level of deprivation. We need to undertake and support initiatives that encourage people to vote. That is not just a personal view of mine. The UK Public Affairs Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said in 13 December that the introduction of the voter ID requirement will remove an element of the trust inherent in the current system between state and individual and make it more difficult to vote. We are concerned that the evidence to support the voter ID requirement simply is not good enough. The UK Parliament Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Scottish Parliament Standards Committee, noted that there was a significant concern among committee members that there could be up to 150,000 to 200,000 voters in Scotland alone without the forms of ID that the bill proposes that would be required to cast a vote. The committee is concerned that that will mainly affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds or disabled people and could act as an initial barrier to those voters. Post-vote changes on voter ID and postal votes for reserved relations will also spread wide confusion for Scottish voters. There is a danger that the inconsistent voter ID rules between reserved and devolved elections may impose even greater stress, confusion and cost in voters in Scotland. Further confusion will be caused by the need for postal voters in UK Parliament elections to reply every three years, whereas in Scotland it is only every five years. The Scottish Government could face pressure to align the devolved voting system to match the reserved system. That represents indirect interference in devolved elections by the UK Government. The whole Parliament today, the whole Parliament, acceptatories are against this bill. At this move is counterproductive and a barrier to vibrant democracy and should be resisted. Elections are one of the cornerstones of our democracy. None of us would be here in this place without them. They are not the only thing that matters for this or any other Parliament, but that is not what we are here to discuss today. We are here talking about the UK elections bill, which, as others have already said, is complex and controversial and is certainly not something that we can or should support. This flagship piece of Tory legislation will introduce voter ID in general elections, grant British citizens living overseas the right to vote and make a number of other changes to the way that elections are run. It runs utterly counter to the direction of travel of Scottish legislation on electoral reform. Here, we are working to make the Scottish franchise as inclusive as possible, enabling as many people as possible to exercise their right to have a say in how they are governed. In Westminster, the Conservatives want to exclude more from having a say in who runs the country that they live in. I have serious equalities and human rights concerns about this bill. Most significantly, the voter ID requirements for UK Parliament elections will apply in Scotland. As Neil Bibby has clearly stated, approved forms of voter ID currently all carry a cost. This is restrictive, not enabling. Yes, there is the free electoral identity card that will be available on application from local electoral registration officers, but this is another hurdle to participation for many people, mostly those who are already vulnerable or marginalised and excluded from voting. We know that people who are eligible to vote are not always able to exercise their right because of current registration processes. Why put another barrier in the way? One answer to this is perhaps the UK Government knows that the people who will be excluded because of these measures are very unlikely to vote for them—voter suppression, as we have heard. We have also heard that electoral fraud is very low in the UK—just 164 cases with one conviction in the 2019 general election. With such low rates, it is unclear what else the driver might be. Earlier, George Adam quoted Ruth Davidson. I will use more of that quote. She said, last year, I think that it is total bollocks, and I think that it is trying to give a solution to a problem that does not exist. I extend my solidarity to polling station staff, who will, if this measure is introduced, have to deal with checking voter ID documents. Not a job many of us would relish, I am sure. I am also of the view that those who live here should have a say about how they are governed, which is in line with our commitment to residents-based franchise rather than a citizenship-based franchise. Why should those who have chosen to leave the UK and make their lives elsewhere continue to have more say in what happens here than those who live and work here? Others have highlighted several other concerns with the proposed bill—postal vote changes, digital imprint changes and so on. The last point I will make is one on the independence of the Electoral Commission to quote the commission's own words on the bill. The existence of an independent regulator is fundamental to maintaining confidence in our electoral system. That is particularly important when the laws that govern elections are made by a small subset of the parties that stand in elections. The commission's independence must be clear for voters and campaigners to see. As currently drafted, the provisions in part 3 of the bill are not consistent with the Electoral Commission operating as an independent regulator—not consistent. We cannot endorse the bill. We must stand firm in the face of a UK Government that is determined to ignore us, our Parliament and our wishes, and we must withhold legislative consent. Without a doubt, I believe that we need to build more confidence among the electorate that the elections are carried out in the highest level of transparency and safeguarded against fraud. I disagree with Neil Bibby's point. I disagree with Neil Bibby regarding the point that there is only one incident of voter fraud. That is one too many, Mr Bibby. The election bill puts voters at the heart. I am not sure why Members find that funny, but this is about safeguarding electoral fraud. The election bill puts voters at the heart of Britain's democracy by supporting voters to make free and informed choices at elections. We all know that. I cannot see why the SNP would object to bringing the UK in line with other countries who do the same. An important part of that is ensuring that the electoral services, be they registering to vote, applying for the absent vote or applying for a voter card, are as convenient and accessible as possible. I will give way to Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful to the member for giving way. She talks about stamping out electoral fraud. However, how many cases of electoral fraud should we stamp out by disenfranchising many dozens more people who will be inhibited or deterred or stopped from registering to vote and cannot access some of the barriers that her party intends to bring forward? I would ask Alex Cole-Hamilton what alternative methods he has to stamp out voter fraud in, for example, Edinburgh and Leith. However, the UK Government is committed to increasing participation, which addresses his point in our democracy and empowering all those eligible to vote to do so in a secure, efficient and effective way. In a short time that I have today, I briefly want to touch on voter identification and the fraud prevention. I want to turn to the voter ID itself. Back in 2016, Sir Eric Pickles undertook this independent review on electoral fraud. His final report includes recommendations about how the Government can prevent such crimes in the UK and one of which was the introduction of voter ID. If we look at the statistics, around 98 per cent of people eligible to vote held some form of voter ID, a stat that the SNP or Labour cannot deny. As we all know, voters in Northern Ireland, as I have mentioned before, already provide an approved piece of voter ID before receiving a ballot paper, a measure first introduced by the Labour Government in 2003. The Electoral Commission at the time said, since the introduction of voter ID in Northern Ireland, that there has been no reported cases of persnation, voters' confidence that elections are well run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain and there is virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations. As my colleague Stephen Kerr said, it is not unusual and many other countries across Europe already implement similar policies. I am surprised that the SNP is not jumping on the EU bandwagon. In fact, the majority of EU countries require voters to produce ID at the polling station at a point that the SNP must reflect on, surely. To address the concerns of a few members in the chamber regarding individuals who currently don't hold a voter ID, it has been established that the costs will be covered. Obtaining an ID will be covered within this bill, and the bill amends the representation of the peoples at 1983 to allow that to take place. To prevent people without photographic ID from losing their right to vote, local authorities will provide that photo ID. We must also address the significant concern of postal voting fraud, which remains a great concern to voters more than the polling station fraud. The Electoral Commission's Winter Tracker is an annual UK-wide survey designed to provide an overview of public sentiment towards the process of voting in democracy within the UK. Overall, 90 per cent of those surveyed at polling stations were fairly safe from voter fraud, yet the equivalent figure from postal voting was just 68 per cent, with 21 per cent who thought that postal voting was not safe from fraud. That is a significant point. I see the time, Presiding Officer. I do not know if I have extra time. I think that you should probably bring your remarks to close, please, Ms Alton. To conclude, it is about bringing confidence in the electorate that fraud is being kept to a minimum. I support the amendment in my party's name. I now call Stephanie Callaghan, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you. I add my thanks to my colleague George Adams for bringing this important Scottish Government debate today. Despite the stark divide between my own politics and that of the Conservative Party, I have always thought that we shared a universal bond when it comes to upholding the fundamental right to vote. However, with the passage of the elections bill through the House of Commons, even this last bastion of consensus has been irrevocably undermined. Across the model, throughout the modern age, people have fought and even died for their right to vote. As a young student myself in Hamilton, I do not knock my local streets to persuade people to register to vote, and I am truly saddened by this attempt to revend many, many years of hard-fought democratic process. Such progress is demonstrated right here in Scotland, where we extended the election franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and to refugees, but this UK election bill undermined Scotland's progress of democracy by seeking to suppress votes and reduce the franchise to address a problem that really does not exist, as many have said today already. As others have pointed out, there was only one conviction and one caution relating to the proven voter fraud in 2019, yet this bill risks disenfranchising millions of voters, people with disabilities and from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as younger and older voters, and it really is nothing short of disgusting. Many points such as this have been repeated, but they are really, really important points. Age UK stated that 500,000 older citizens would not vote up to 2.1 million people without suitable ID. It is utterly shameful that the digitally excluded, the vulnerable and many already living in the very edges of our society should be marginalised further. Yes, some things do need attention when it comes to conducting UK elections, but it is not voted exclusion. If the Tories were truly serious about wanting to improve our voting system, how about looking for ways to ensure that the 9 million people who are currently missing from the electoral role in the UK are brought into the democratic process? If they wish to protect our democracy, why not propose banning anonymous political party donations and investigating dark money? Or implementing the findings of the 2020 Russia report, which is noted in the motion and mentioned many times today, the bill would give UK ministers new powers over the work of the electoral commission, risking the independence of the election's watchdog at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low already. That is far from okay for all the reasons others have mentioned. Like others, my concerns over the bill are further heightened by the wider legislative agenda that the UK Government are pursuing, a legislative agenda that is in a coalition course with a whole series of democratic freedoms from the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill to propose reforms of the Human Rights Act. It seems that the Tories are attempting a full, frontal assault on our democracy, while we are distracted by the hypocrisy and the lies that are coming from all the party in its downing state. However, that has not gone unnoticed. The UK election's bill is horrific, and it is a serious attack on our democratic traditions. I fully support the Scottish Government motion and the Labour amendment, and it saddens me that any member in the chamber should wish the Scottish Parliament to consent to such flawed legislation. In closing, the constituents that we represent particularly those directly impacted by the discredited election bill are counting on us to protect their voting rights. They are counting on us to resist this retrograde legislation. We in this chamber should not let them down. Thank you. We will now move to closing speeches. I call on Martin Whitfield to wind up for Scottish Labour up to four minutes, please, Mr Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to close both for Labour, but with my other hat as a convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. It's a great pleasure indeed to follow Stephanie Callaghan's speech, and I would just like to reiterate the fact that she raised the risk of marginalising those that exist at the very edge of our society, the very people who need this place, the very people who need Westminster and indeed the very people who are at risk of being excluded. I welcome the Scottish Government's motion today, and in particular the confirmation of the consultation to start at the end of this year with regard to the electoral reforms that will come before this place, hopefully towards the end of the session. I'm also grateful for the comments of the report of my committee, which, given the nature of this debate, I would urge everyone both within and out with this Parliament to read, because it deals in detail with what is a complex piece of legislation that at times does stray across the devolved authorities, but does also deal with those that are reserved matters. It's two aspects of that, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I would like to deal with. The first is in relation to the introduction of a strategy and policy statement in respect of the Electoral Commission. We have heard quotes from representatives of the commission that came before our committee about the risk that this poses, both to the genuine independence of the Electoral Commission, but also, and perhaps more frighteningly, to the view that those outwith may hold as to the independence of the Electoral Commission. I think it is vitally important that there is an organisation that sits out with the political parties, that sits out with the executive, that can monitor and oversee elections, and at the final part reassure people who may be disappointed in the result that it was fair. One aspect of this statement relates to what is known as the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, and indeed the makeup of that committee at Westminster. All of a very tiny, almost nerdy point, the fact that there is an attempt here to alter the makeup of that committee, I find extremely concerning. It's hidden within the Bill, but to a number of people who have looked at it, including those that the committee heard evidence from, this is of great concern going forward. The other aspect is with regard to the consultative nature of bodies here. Under the Scottish Elections Reform Act 2020, the Act conferred financial responsibility from the Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body here within the Parliament, and indeed there is a question about how relevantly and how frequently the SPCB are consulted, and indeed it is important, and I quote this as my own personal view, it is important that the SPCB have a role in this because of their overriding role with regard to the finance points of Scottish elections. The second aspect in the short time that I have available is in relation to imprints, the nature of that phrase stamped on electronic advertising, comments and quotes to point out where it originates from. The Bill proposes that this should exist at all times rather than just during election periods, and that it itself was dealt with within the report, and I would urge people to read it, but there is very seriously a question about why this matter is being dealt with. The power to take down from the internet is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. The power to deal with imprints is devolved. Indeed, there is legislation in this Scottish Parliament to deal with imprints in election periods, and I think it would be beneficial for those in Westminster to look more clearly and with more clarity at what is and is not devolved. Finally, the committee, as we have heard from the deputy convener, was in agreement with the proposal. There are some members of the committee that stepped out of agreement, and that is contained in our report, and I would urge people to look at it. However, to the substance of what we have heard today, this is an appalling piece of legislation and needs to be looked at again. At the heart of this debate is the matter of our electoral democracy and ensuring that we not only maintain its integrity, but we also look at ways in which we can continuously enhance it, and that is important. This is about improvement. In my view, this is what this bill does in a number of ways, some of which have already been outlined. It puts voters at the heart of our democracy by supporting them to make free and informed choices at election, and I think that that will strengthen the delivery of UK Parliament general elections. It is disappointing, but not surprising that the SNP has decided to oppose the bill and refuse consent. We are used to the manufacturing of artificial rows with government of the UK and then opposing legislative consent. However, some of the arguments that have been made against this bill are tenuous to say the least, and I hope to address some of them. On the matter of introducing voter identification, I believe that these provisions will reduce voter fraud. As some have said, many have said, occurrences of voter fraud are rare, but they are hard to detect, they do exist and they are dangerous, and low conviction rates do not indicate the absence of a problem. That should not be a statement that is controversial in this Parliament. We have seen instances of voter fraud, for example in the recent Scottish parliamentary election in the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. That is in large part due to the fact that the existing test of saying your name and address at the polling station is inadequate and antiquated. Far from seeking to disenfranchise voters, as some have argued today, the changes being brought in are commonplace in many countries around the world. We have heard many adjectives today—Trumpian Orwellian, voter suppression, rigging elections, power grab, attack on democracy—and, frankly, they demean the members who have used those expressions. That is a bill that removes restrictions on those who can act as a companion to a disabled voter at a polling station. That is a bill that requires local returning officers to provide support for a wider range of needs. As Murdo Fraser said, that is a bill that brings in rules about overseas voting and bringing the UK into line with international practice. To describe it as disenfranchisement is absurd. On voter ID, according to the IFF research, around 98 per cent of the adult population have access to an eligible form of ID. Young people, mentioned by Neil Bibby, 99 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds have access to ID. The bill enforces local authorities to provide photo ID for free, stating that no charge should be made for the issue of an electoral identity document. Everyone who is able to vote will, of course, still be able to vote under the legislation. The Government did pilot studies in 2018 and 2019 on that, and it showed thousands of voters getting turned away, so it is certain that it does not stand up to scrutiny. To describe it as disenfranchisement is ridiculous. Those are the facts, and he should be not content with the scam-rungering that he has suggested. For those on the SNP benches, there is no little irony in their position. The party is so enthusiastic about vaccine passports, where you show not just your ID, but personal medical information. It is so unenthusiastic about voter ID. Perhaps they should reflect on that. There are other matters in the legislation that deserve mention. There are new measures on cracking down on intimidation tactics that are used against campaigners and candidates at election time. I am sure that everyone in the chamber and elsewhere will have stories or experiences of this. It is absolutely the case, so that impacts everyone, activists of all political stripes. It is therefore right that action is taken to not only deter people who may carry out acts of intimidation but ensure that they are unable to be a part of our important democratic process. Can I address the concern that was raised about the independence of the Electoral Commission? In speech from Martin Whitfield, which was a rare glimmer of light, frankly, in what was a rather depressing debate, we believe that the Electoral Commission, of course, plays an important and impartial role in overseeing our democratic process. However, this bill, as is already the case for other Government bodies, seeks to increase the commission's accountability to Parliament, not the other way around. I believe that I do not have time, but I have three seconds left. The introduction of a strategy and policy statement will be produced in consultation not only with the Electoral Commission but with the devolved administrations and approved by Parliament. In summing up, this is a bill that enhances our democracy and ensures that elections are more robust. On voter ID it brings us into line with many other countries who already require people to present ID to reduce fraud. On improving the accountability of the commission, it ensures that it receives a similar level of scrutiny to other public bodies. It seeks to deter those who wish to attack our democracy, and it is a proportionate attempt to address the various issues that have been left unchanged for far too long. I now call on the minister, George Adam, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. Please take us to decision time, minister. Okay, thank you, Presiding Officer. Where to start, Presiding Officer, and everything we've heard within this chamber today? Mr Cameron, I've known since he came into this chamber in 2016. He is a decent person, but he has to understand that this is not just the SNP in the chamber that is saying this. It's not just the Scottish National, it's not just the Scottish Government that is saying this. It's the whole chamber, it's cross-party, it's everyone here by the Conservatives. If anyone has a cold hard look at themselves, they have to ask themselves why in the times that we're living in, that every single political party by the Conservatives are agreeing in this issue. You would have to say that it's logical that you say that this is an attack on devolution and what we've all stood for these years. Let's all remember that it's for the Scottish Parliament to decide how we address the elections that are devolved. If there is something that comes across in the consultation that the Scottish Government has later on this year, then that is something that we will look at for Scottish Government elections and future election bills at a later date. I've got a few points to make before I go any further, Mr Kerr. When we look at voter ID, which, Presiding Officer, has been the vast bulk of this debate, because quite rightly it is the main part of the debate that this bill that is actually ensuring that it is, as Mr Bibby says, is a type of voter suppression. You're in a situation where someone who has voted in the same polling station for about 30 years will turn up at a Scottish and a local election and then it will be a completely different process when they go to the same polling station at Westminster. Let's not confirm that the UK Government still hasn't told us when they would actually have a UK election and it might be close to one of her own at that case as well. On voter ID, let's talk about the idea of intimidation and suppression. Yes, quite happy? Neil Bibby. Of course there has been an issue in the sick domain last year when you had in-air drain shots Westminster parliamentary by-election happening on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections. You would need voter ID for one, but you wouldn't need one for the other. Indeed, minister. Mr Bibby actually highlights my point, because on that situation you would have total confusion by the electorate. Those that have to actually, the public administrators that have to actually deal with it, it would cause even more difficulty for them. But on voter ID, we are sitting here. The UK Government is bringing the might of the United Kingdom civil servants down to create a whole voter ID system for a case where in 2019 there were three people that were actually convicted of causing any forms of intimidation, of which one was convicted, three were charged and one was convicted. That seems like an awful lot of bother to go to for that one individual. That one individual must be sitting at home at the moment, possibly watching this saying, job done. I've managed to spend millions of UK money in order to do this. But even though this is limited to UK elections, as I've already said, it risks causing chaos and devolved by-elections. Can I just get over some of the myth busters that we've got here? Engagement with UK ministers, I acknowledge that the UK Government ministers have kept us informed during the development of this bill, but setting out what you intend to do without any room for debate is not collaboration in any shape or form. The UK Government's approach is one of take it or leave it. But with barely unstated messages that devolve Parliament should adopt its changes to avoid confusion amongst voters and administrative challenges, that is not negotiation as far as I believe it is, Presiding Officer. Cross-working across the UK, I am not opposed to developing common approaches across the UK in relation to elections. Will is a benefit for voters and administration. Indeed, there was constructive work across the UK Welsh and Scottish Governments in preparation to hold the election safely last year. I have several very helpful discussions with the Welsh minister responsible for elections policy, and we are in agreement on this bill. It is the UK Government creating the divergence and the difference here. It is the UK Government that is unilaterally making radical changes to electoral law and creating pressure for us all to follow suit. The minister has lost all sense of proportion to work himself up into this rage about a digital input. Once again, Mr Kerr believes that he is at Westminster with his great hyperbole and overstated points of view. We have a more common normal approach here in the Scottish Parliament. If he listened to Stephen Kerr, he said that he listened to an electorate when he said in his opening speech that he also said that I was understelling my abilities to sell our position to the UK Government, the whole problem is if no one is listening to Mr Kerr, they will not change their mind. He still has not said whether he agrees with Ruth Davidson where he says that he is trying to solve a problem that is not actually there. Mr Bibby, in a very passionate speech, it is not often as competitors and paisley that either of us have said that, but he said that voter ID was voter suppression. Both houses of the House of Parliament just joint committee on human rights said that elections must be held by both secure and accessible. Any discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to vote would fall full of article 14 ECHR if there was no objective and reasonable justification for the measures imposed. Introducing a voter ID requirement would be a breach of article 14 as read with article 3 of protocol 1 unless it is necessary and proportionate. Even the committees in Westminster have severe reservations about voter ID. On that issue, as I have already said, both SNP and Labour are on the same position. I have worked with my colleague down in Wales, where Mr Mick Antaway of MS Welsh Consul General and Minister for Constitution said in a very similar debate last week, on 26 January. I have previously expressed my grave concerns about provisions in the UK Government's election bill, which are a shameless attempt at voter suppression through the requirement for voter ID. The Conservative Party is brazenly seeking to limit participation in elections to change the law for parties and advantage. The Conservatives have managed to not just unite this chamber, but to unite the chamber in Wales, apart from themselves, and to say that that is an absolute attack on those who want to go out to vote. Surely if the Conservative Party had been reasonable, it would say to us that it would think that this is obviously something that it would look at and say in all common sense. Alex Cole-Hamilton explained much of the threat that we have to our democracy and voter ID. I just want to say in closing that today has been a good debate. It has shown that this Parliament's voice is going forward and is shouting towards Westminster that we do not want anything to do with our UK elections bill. When it comes to changing votes for our own elections, it will be this Parliament and this place that it decides. That concludes the debate on the UK elections bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I ask Keith Brown to move motion number 2975 on Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill UK legislation. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is an announcement by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on Town Centres and Retail. I call on Clare Baker, convener of the committee, to make the announcement. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As convener of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, I wish to highlight the committee's inquiry into Scotland's town centres and the changing nature of retail that is launched today. Our town centres have traditionally been the heartbeat of our communities, bringing people together to live, work, shop and socialise, but changing retail trends, including the growth in e-commerce and the expansion of retail parts, combined with the impact of the pandemic and the lockdown, are all creating a difficult trading environment that is placing many traditional town centres under pressure and under threat. Our inquiry is seeking to bring forward recommendations to demonstrate how Scotland's town centres can thrive in this post-pandemic world and be vibrant, resilient and accessible places that meet the economic, social and environmental needs of our communities. I encourage members to share details of the inquiry with interested stakeholders, including businesses and networks in their constituencies and regions, whose input will be of great value. I encourage them to respond to the call for evidence, which will run until mid-March, with the aim of producing a report with recommendations by Parliament's summer recess. Thank you. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Stephen Care is agreed to, then the amendment in the name of Neil Bibby will fall? The first question is that amendment 3009.2 in the name of Stephen Care, which seeks to amend motion 3009 in the name of George Adam on UK elections bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.