 The first item of business this afternoon is consideration of business motion 13550 in the name of Jofits Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting at a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Scottish election's reduction of voting age bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request speak button now and a call on Jofits Patrick to move motion number 13550. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I now put the question to the chamber. The question is the motion number 13550 in the name of Jofits Patrick be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on the Scottish Government response to the veil of leaving inquiry. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions by a call on Shona Robison. I am here today to present the Scottish Government's response to Lord McLean's veil of leaving hospital report. Before I do, I would like again to express the sorrow of this Government to the families of the 34 people who died at the veil of leaving hospital as a result of the sea drift outbreak. We all agree that this was a terrible tragedy that should never happen again. I accept Lord McLean's findings that there were failings at the veil of leaving, which significantly contributed to patients being ill and families losing their loved ones. I would also like to take the opportunity to again thank Lord McLean and his team for producing such a comprehensive report. Thanks also go to the patients and families for their perseverance in securing the inquiry and for their engagement with my officials as part of the implementation process. Although the inquiry focused on the veil of leaving hospital, it is clear that the recommendations have far-reaching implications up and down the country. That is why I accepted all 75 recommendations in Lord McLean's report and committed to taking the necessary steps to fully implement them. I met the patients and families earlier today and some of them are here in the gallery now, and I want to thank them for taking the time to do that. It is important that we collectively remember what happened to them should not have happened, so I hope that our response and commitment to continue to improve goes some way to assuring them of how seriously I take this. Our response today demonstrates that a lot of work and improvements have taken place in our NHS since the veil outbreak. However, more needs to be done than those points are reflected in our response. I am pleased that the response contains a forward from the CDIF Justice Group, which, when I read it, was a very salient reminder to me, as it will be to all of us going forward, why implementing Lord McLean's recommendations are important. I believe that it is only fit and proper to ensure that the serious nature of this event is reflected throughout our response. The response reflects that we do not take the seriousness of the tragedy lightly. The recommendations from Lord McLean's report have been grouped together, where we believe that they interlink and addressed under three chapters, oversight and leadership, preventing and controlling infection and professional practice. The final chapter is about our next steps to ensure that the recommendations are fully implemented. Lord McLean's report highlighted a number of failures, but it is also acknowledged that the Scottish Government and the NHS have made improvements since the outbreak, particularly around infection prevention and control. Those improvements are highlighted in our response. For example, we have established the healthcare environment inspectorate, the HGI, which provides an independent and rigorous scrutiny and assurance system of our hospitals. In addition to HGI inspections, a number of measures such as the work of the HAAI task force and the work of the Scottish patient safety programme have contributed to significant reductions in surgical mortality, MRSA cases and lower C diff rates in over 65s than ever before. The older people's acute hospitals inspections introduced in February 2012 measure hospital performance against national standards, guidance and best practice. It is reassuring that a number of the key areas that are considered by the inspections relate to issues highlighted by Lord McLean's report. Treating older people with compassion, dignity and respect, dementia and cognitive impairment, preventing and managing falls, nutritional and hydration care and prevention and management of pressure all sorts, all basic things that we would expect for ourselves and for our loved ones. We want to improve patients' experiences of health services, and that was enshrined in law through the Patients Rights Scotland Act 2011. The act also made a provision for the Charter of Patients Rights and Responsibilities to ensure that patients' rights are met and respected. The charter enabled the patient advice and support service to be established. That ensures that the public know that they can raise concerns, complain and feedback about the care that they have received so that we can continue to learn and improve. The Government is committed to making the necessary improvements that benefits patients across Scotland. Although I have highlighted some of the good work in place, there is still a journey ahead of us. I am very aware that more needs can be done to meet our ambition of having a world-class health service that is truly person-centred, safe and effective. In my statements in November, I stated that a number of actions would take place following publication of Lord McLean's report. I am pleased to say that an implementation group and reference group have been established, which includes representations from patients and families, the BMA, the RCN, public partners and the Health and Social Care Alliance. I wrote to all NHS boards asking that they assess themselves against the 65 recommendations for health boards. The initial summary of information shows that NHS boards were making good progress towards implementing the recommendations. The next stage is to quality assure the information and develop a process so that we know that the recommendations are being implemented. I am committed to developing a national approach to assuring nursing and midwifery care. Initiatives like the quality of care reviews being developed by Healthcare Improvement Scotland and our chief nursing officer's care assurance system will deliver real improvements for patients and staff. The Government has also introduced primary legislation on the duty of candour and willful neglect, and we are working with Healthcare Improvement Scotland to introduce secondary legislation, giving his powers to close wards to new admissions where they are deemed necessary. I would now like to outline the steps that we are going to take over the coming months. Lord McLean and his team are in the process of winding up the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry. That involves the inquiry team transferring files to national registers of Scotland, ensuring all data protection and other legislative procedures are adhered to and finalising the financial aspects of the inquiry. Lord McLean will therefore publish the final cost shortly once those processes are completed. Although the inquiry is being wound up, it is not the end of the process. A number of other actions will be taken to implement all of the recommendations. Work is continuing with NHS boards and the chief nursing officer has written again to them for an update progress report on their original assessments. This time round, each board must ensure that their area partnership forum, the area clinical forum and the local people involvement network consider and agree the response before returning it. That is one of a number of actions under the way to ensure that the recommendations are being implemented locally. I anticipate that all boards responses will be received by the end of August 2015. The implementation group is developing an action plan to take forward recommendations nationally. It will incorporate those recommendations not currently part of existing governance, scrutiny or improvement systems and will include the lead organisation responsible for each recommendation, the action that it will take and the timescale to complete it. The plan will also be considered and agreed by the reference group. I am pleased to inform colleagues that a dedicated page on the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry has been established on the Scottish Government website. It will be regularly updated as time goes on and set out the progress against implementing all 75 recommendations. I will also send the health and sport committee a short report on progress at the end of November. I am also committed to publishing the initial responses that were provided in January 2015 from all NHS boards once the analysis process had been completed. I can assure the Parliament that those responses have been published on the Scottish Government's website. A crucial part of the implementation process is for the patients and families to continue to be involved until they feel that it is completed. I am delighted that they are represented on the implementation and reference groups to work with us on making care more person-centred, safer and effective. I have received feedback that they are providing valuable input and support to both the implementation process and other key policy developments. Finally, I look forward to working with the patients and families and other stakeholders to implement the national action plan that is developed by the implementation group and will report progress to Parliament at the end of November. I would also like to thank everyone involved in the inquiry and to reiterate my commitment that we will learn lessons from it. I present to you the Scottish Government's response to the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry report. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement and tend to allow around about 20 minutes for questions. If members who wish to ask a question were to press the request speaker now, that would be helpful. Jenny Marra Presiding Officer, when our loved ones are admitted to hospital, we have trust and high expectations of the care that they will receive. When their condition deteriorates, not as a result of their medical condition, but from infection and circumstances that they cannot control, then that trust is broken. That 34 people lost their lives because they contracted an infection in the very place they had turned to in the hope that they would get better is very serious and tragic. I would associate myself today with the cabinet secretary's condolences for these families and our deepest sympathies with what happened. My colleague Jackie Baillie MSP cannot be with us today, but I am sure that it will be recognised across the chamber the compassionate and tireless support that she has given to the Vale of Leven families. Previously, she has asked the Scottish Government about compensation for the families, and I would ask the cabinet secretary if she could please update the chamber today on arrangements for this compensation. Presiding Officer, the rise of hospital-acquired infections like Cdiff and MRSA undermined during that period the confidence that we have in our NHS, and nowhere was that clearer than the Vale of Leven hospital. I recognise that this has been treated as a matter of great seriousness by the NHS board and the Scottish Government and the inquiry by Lord MacLean. Its conclusion and the Government's response to it is welcome today. Lord MacLean has offered 75 recommendations, all of which have been accepted and many have been acted on, but he says that there is one single major lesson to be learned that what happened at the Vale of Leven hospital to cause such personal suffering should never be allowed to happen again. I ask the cabinet secretary to give an assurance to the families of those who lost their lives that she is confident that practices are now in place in hospitals across Scotland that will prevent this, like Lord MacLean says, ever happening again. I thank Jenny Marra for her questions. I begin by recognising Jackie Baillie's role in the support particularly of the families and bringing many issues relating to the Vale of Leven tragedy to this chamber. On the issue of compensation, there has been a lot of progress made around the settlement of those claims that have obviously been taken forward by Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Obviously, the issue of compensation and the negotiation around that was a matter between the Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board and the families, or indeed the families representatives. I cannot say to Jenny Marra that those are at an advanced stage. She then asked about the assurance that this could never happen again. Absolutely, I can give that assurance. The particular circumstances that prevailed at the Vale of Leven have been well laid out in the inquiry. A lot has changed since then, and the way that we get notification of outbreaks now is dramatically different. For example, there are outbreaks—that is the nature of infections. We still have infections within our hospitals. They are a challenge, often brought in from the community. Therefore, we have to absolutely be vigilant, but it is what we then do. The response now is rapid in response to isolating patient concern, the alerts that go out, and the fact that I am told when there is an outbreak. It is very quickly brought under control. Those processes are very swift and very effective now. It is quite rightly that they should be, because, as I said earlier, infections continue to be a challenge. Those processes and alerts on the infection control teams and the way they work now was not the case at the Vale of Leven at that time. Therefore, I cannot give Jenny Marra the assurance that the processes and procedures and the swiftness of dealing with infection outbreaks now are very different and patient safety is at the foremost of that, and we should be assured by that. I thank the cabinet secretary advance sight of the statement. I also thank her for correcting her oral delivery—some of the rather sloppy grammar that I felt was evident in the draft. Even so, I found some of the paragraphs in the statement unhelpfully clumsy and, in some cases, impenetrable and unnecessarily so. I associate myself with the sentiments that she has expressed. In relation to the report, one of the recommendations regarding non-executive directors is vital to ensure that non-executive board members are able to fully discharge their governance role. We will continue to work with NHS boards and others to ensure that non-executives have access to appropriate training and development materials. In doing this, we will build on the excellent work that is already under way within boards across Scotland. I would like to know what that actually means. Is it now mandatory or voluntary for non-executive boards to receive the appropriate training that is identified here? There is a suggestion that, had non-executive directors been fully interrogating the systems that were in place, some of the deficiencies might have been highlighted. While the sentiment is expressed there, I would like to know specifically how much time and resource non-executive members have to give to the responsibility that arises from the recommendation. Cabinet Secretary, a lot of work has gone into supporting and enhancing the skill and confidence of non-executive members. There is an issue here, I think, generally and specifically. In a general sense, I think, our non-executs play a really important role in scrutinising and questioning what they see in front of them and what is brought to board meetings, for example. That is not just about infection control, it is about a whole range of matters. The role of our non-execs should be to ask questions and scrutinise, but they have to be well informed and supported and trained to be able to do that. That is why, in relation to infection control, absolutely they are expected and will be supported. That work is well under way to be able to discharge their role in asking the right questions about the information and data that is put in front of them, but also to be encouraged to walk the wards, to walk the hospitals and to speak to staff and to see for themselves. I can certainly furnish Jackson Carlaw with more of the detail of that, as that work is rolled out. I think that we have an absolute duty to support our non-execs. We bring them in for a specific purpose, because we want that external scrutiny. We want those other voices around the board table, but those voices are only as good as the information that they are able to have and to scrutinise. The role of the non-execs is critical and one that I am happy to keep Jackson Carlaw and others informed about. Stuart McMillan, by Richard Simpson. The cabinet secretary highlighted a number of the action points in her statement, but can the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government will ensure that health boards are implementing the recommendations made by Lord McLean? Happy to do that. As I said in my statement that I think that we need to do more than to ask the boards to provide an assessment against the 65 recommendations. We obviously did that, but what we need to do is to make sure that assurance systems are in place so that we know that what they are telling us is actually happening to the extent that it is. That is not to question whether or not boards are telling us the truth. It is just that we need to assure ourselves that that is the case. The chief nursing officer has written to NHS boards asking for a progress update report from them. As I said in my statement, this time it will be considered and agreed by each of the boards area partnership forum, the area clinical forum and, importantly, the public involvement network to ensure that what it says is in fact correct. The role of the implementation and reference groups are critical in being able to review which recommendations are currently scrutinised as part of existing governance and making sure that those efforts are focused. I think that the involvement of the families and patients in the implementation and reference groups is really important to provide that external assurance process. I hope that that gives Stuart McMillan some reassurance. Again, I am very happy to keep Parliament updated. The website will contain a lot of this information as it is populated as we get the information back. However, please be assured that that external assurance and rigorous investigation and probing of what boards are telling us will take place, and members should be assured of that. Can I welcome the cabinet secretary's decision to ensure that the next round of reports is signed off by the partnership and clinical forum and the people involvement networks? I think that that is very important and publishing the data by health board, which is really important too. My question, Presiding Officer, is in the light of the HAI reports on the elderly showing new record of cognitive assessment in 50% of patients and Scottish research showing that it is even worse where there is a diagnosis of dementia prior to admission. On reports on things like PVC bundles, which are repeated, she is going to give the HAI powers, but can she give the HIS-HIR task force teeth to enforce where they find that they have to make repeated requirements in successive reports? Of course, the reason that we have the HAI reports is that they are very rigorous. They do not pull any punches. They are very hard reading sometimes, and, of course, that is as it should be. If there are standards of care that are not as good as they should be, we need to know about that. I would say that some of the more recent reports that are coming back show significant improvements in the issues that were highlighted in reports previously. I made it very clear to chairs and thereby through them to the chief execs that I expected them not to wait for HAI reports to come on their facilities and wards within their hospital, but to look at those that have already been published and to learn the lessons and make sure and assure themselves and personally assure that what is going on within their wards and hospitals is up to the standard that it should be. Obviously, in terms of the task force and the oversight that we have, we will absolutely make sure that the issues that are raised, particularly those that are raised more often, are taken forward. We make sure that that happens across all of our board areas. I am happy to keep Parliament updated on that. I need to finish this part of the business by three o'clock. I have still got a number of members who wish to ask a question, so if you could keep it brief and a brief response, cabinet secretary, that would be helpful. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will go straight to the question. Can the cabinet secretary advise what progress is being made by the Scottish anti-microbial prescribing group? A lot of progress has been made by the anti-microbial prescribing group. I had, in response to Annette Milne, previously outlined the important progress that has been made and, indeed, the statistics that show the important work that has been happening. We are working with not just the group but Health Protection Scotland to reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics to combat the emergence of resistant organisms. There is a Scottish management of anti-microbial resistance action plan, which was a five-year plan that has now completed. Importantly, we are working closely with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations in relation to the UK five-year AMR strategy that was launched and published two years ago, which, in its first annual report, showed very good progress across all of the Administrations. I am happy to put a bit more detail of that on the record in order to save some time. The report highlighted in its recommendations the need to ensure that the staffing and the skills mix of staff is appropriate for each ward and that it is reviewed in response to increases in the level of activity and or the dependency in the ward. It went on to say that where a clinical profile of a group or ward of patients changes, there needs to be a review framework and process to ensure that that skills-based requirements are met. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with health boards on the feasibility of implementing such a review framework and process and what support can you give for that? Yes, a lot of work has gone on around this and particularly around getting the workforce planning tools correct around that, because it is not just about the staffing of a particular ward and the ratio, albeit that is important, but it is about the skill mix and it is about potentially changing levels of acuity in that ward. When I met the patient representatives earlier on today, that was one of the issues that emerged that there has to be the ability to respond quite quickly to that to make sure that the flexibility and the ability to increase staffing levels if required are there. That is an important piece of work, very central to the work that we are taking forward with boards. Again, we will make sure that information is on the website as we take it forward. I welcome the Scottish Government. We will give healthcare improvement Scotland powers to close wards to new admissions. A power hope will rarely be used given the significant fall on hospital-acquired infections, but is the Scottish Government confident that HIS will have access to suitable information till we are able to move swiftly to use that power in the likely event that is ever needed to be used? Yes. I say to Bob Doris that we hope that circumstances would very seldom arise when they would have to use that power, but we do believe that it was important recommendation and an important backstop, if you like. Of course, there are already powers that the infection control teams have around that, but that is an important additional power. Of course, they would have all the information required at their fingertips to be able to make those decisions. As we take forward the secondary legislation to put that in place, we will make sure that a guidance is there so that it can activate that very, very quickly. Rhoda Grant, followed by Richard Lyle. Can I ask what enforcement powers the Scottish Government are giving to the health environment inspectorate and when they will have those powers? HCI already have a great deal of powers, and it can be seen by the scope of their reports, and as I said earlier on to Richard Simpson, how hard-hitting those reports are that there is nothing holding them back from doing the work that they are doing, and they are doing a very good job. The secondary legislation that I have just referred to that will give the power of the closure of wards will be brought forward later this year, but what is important to recognise is that, as we sit here at the moment, the infection control teams have considerable powers to be able to react to infection outbreaks. As I said to Jenny Marra, there is an escalating set of responses to make sure that any outbreaks are brought swiftly under control, and there is nothing standing in the way of the action that will be taken by those infection control teams. I would not want people to think that, at the moment, there are not procedures that can respond very quickly to outbreaks. That is an additional power that will help as a backstop should HCI require to use it, and that will be brought forward later this year. I note that the cabinet secretary said that we will learn lessons from this inquiry. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what work has the Scottish Government done to look back at reports of recent years in patient care issues from elsewhere in the UK to ensure that lessons are learned here in Scotland? Yes. I think that I previously answered something along those lines to Richard Simpson that, following the publication of the Francis report and, more recently, the Morcombe report, what we have done is to write to all NHS boards to take account of the findings and to make sure that they assess themselves against those recommendations. Health Protection Scotland currently reviews reports outside of Scotland and provides relevant guidance if the report contains recommendations that are not already covered in Scotland. We should be assured that, wherever it happens, whether there is a report from another part of the UK or internationally, we will always look to see whether there are any lessons to apply to the health service here in Scotland. Thank you. That ends the statement from the cabinet secretary. My apologies to Dennis Robertson. The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on provisional outturn. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should be there for no interventions or interruptions. I will give the cabinet secretary a few moments to get himself started. I now call on John Swinney, Deputy First Minister, around 10 minutes. Presiding Officer, I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on implementation of the 2015-16 Scottish budget and to provide a statement on the provisional budget outturn for 2014-15 financial year. The recently announced additional summer budget, scheduled for 8 July, by the United Kingdom Government, is expected to set out further information about the UK's approach to future public expenditure. That will be followed by a comprehensive spending review conducted by the United Kingdom Government, which is likely to report in the autumn. The Scottish Government 2016-17 budget will be presented after the publication of the UK spending review, and I will laze with the finance committee on timings for the announcement of the budget once the date for the UK comprehensive spending review is made clear. Turning first, Presiding Officer, to this year's budget, I know that many in Parliament share my concern about the impact of the chancellor's announcement on 4 June that he is making further budget reductions in 2015-16. For Scotland, those amount to reductions of £91 million in our resource del budget and £16 million in our capital del budget, a total of £107 million. Those reductions should be seen in the context of the 9 per cent real-time reduction that we are already facing in our fiscal del budget over the current spending review period. I have already made clear my view that it is unacceptable for reductions to be imposed in this financial year to a budget that has already been agreed by the Scottish Parliament. I met the chancellor on 8 June and urged him to reconsider his approach both to the in-year cuts that he has just announced and his plans for future public expenditure. In parallel, the First Minister wrote on 4 June to all Scottish party leaders, inviting them to make similar representations to the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Government will continue to argue for an end to austerity and for a moderate increase in public expenditure on public services of 0.5 per cent a year in real terms between 2016-17 and 2019-20. That would allow us to continue to invest in our public services whilst ensuring the sustainability of the public finances. However, while we continue to pursue that case, we have to consider how we might meet the challenge presented by cuts to our budget this year and the prospect of further cuts to come. I confirm to Parliament that the Scottish Government will do everything possible to mitigate the impact of those cuts, and all decisions that we take will ensure that we continue to focus on our priorities of growing the economy, protecting public services and tackling inequality. We await clarity from the United Kingdom Government about the detail of their intentions, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that future cuts to departmental budgets will amount to around £24 billion, with a further £12 billion in cuts to welfare. The scale of those future challenges could require us to tackle some of the chancellor's 2015-16 budget reductions during this financial year. Those could be given effect at autumn or spring budget revision. I will consider the impact of the reductions in this year's budget in light of any further information provided by the UK budget on 8 July and advise Parliament of the actions that I intend to take to address this issue after the summer recess. Parliament should also be in no doubt, however, that, as we approach the 8 July UK budget, I will continue to make the firmest possible representations to the chancellor for a change in the UK Government's strategy. Furthermore, I will continue to stress the importance of proper and effective consultation with the Scottish Government and, indeed, other devolved administrations ahead of future budget announcements. I welcome members' support in those efforts. I now turn to the provisional outturn statement for financial year 2014-15. Today's outturn figures must be set in the context of continued UK Government reductions to the Scottish budget. Since 2010-11, the Scottish Government has managed a 25 per cent real terms cut to the capital budget, as part of dealing with the near 9 per cent real terms decline in discretionary public spending over this period. We have managed the issue while doing all that we can to boost the economy and invest in public services. Under the current devolution settlement, the Scottish Parliament is not allowed to overspend its budget. Attempting to spend the exact amount contained within the budget carries a considerably increased and difficult to justify risk of breaching the budget cap. As a consequence, I have consistently adopted a position of controlling public expenditure to ensure that I live within the budget cap but remain able to carry forward any spending power resources for use in a future year. That is now a common, and I would argue prudent, feature of the Scottish Government's financial strategy that drives the Parliament's annual budget process. In 2014-15, the Scottish Government has again demonstrated sound financial management. I can report to Parliament that within the fiscal departmental expenditure limit, the fiscal dell, the resources over which this Parliament has discretion, the provisional outturn for 2014-15 is expenditure of £28,598 million against a limit of £28,790 million. That means that there is an overall fiscal dell cash carry-forward of £151 million in resource spending and £41 million in capital spending. On resource, that reflects the carry-forward of budgets as part of our financial planning over the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. On capital, the £41 million reflects some movements in the profile of capital investment projects in 2014-15, such as the saving of £5.6 million in Glasgow's Fast Light programme and £16 million in housing capital receipts among a range of other changes. The full £41 million, along with the £151 million in resource spending, will be carried forward for reinvestment in 2015-16. There is also a provisional outturn of £12 million in respect of financial transactions, which are ring-fenced for loans and equity investment outside the public sector, which will be carried forward to support the investment programme in 2015-16. Overall, including the financial transactions, that means that we will be carrying forward 0.7 per cent of the total 2014-15 Her Majesty's Treasury budgets. My intention is that the full amount will be carried forward utilising the budget exchange facility that has been agreed by the devolved Administrations and Her Majesty's Treasury. That will ensure that there is no loss of spending power to the Scottish Parliament. As I have previously informed Parliament, at this stage, £150 million of the 2014-15 resource deal carry forward, together with a further £300 million of non-cash budget cover from Her Majesty's Treasury, has been earmarked as contingency, while the outcome of the Office of National Statistics classification review of the Aberdeen Western peripheral route non-profit distributing project is awaited. The Scottish Government remains committed to the NPD programme, which is supporting additional economic activity and is delivering benefits to communities across Scotland. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust believe that current project arrangements demonstrate consistency with the relevant classification guidelines. However, while the ONS review remains in progress, it is prudent to retain the contingency arrangements that are in place. The ONS operates independently, and I am therefore not in a position to advise when the process will finish, although the review is well underway. Turning to non-cash deal, based on the provisional outturned position expenditure, is lower than budget by £153 million. As the description suggests, those resources are not cash in nature. Rather, those provide budget cover for differences between estimated accounting adjustments and the final amounts that are calculated. For example, £30 million relates to a lower-than-expected write-down of the carrying value of the income-contingent repayment student loan book. That is essentially an accounting adjustment. When I reported those figures last year, some parties suggested that this money could be spent at my discretion on Scottish Government responsibilities. Let me be absolutely clear with the chamber that those non-cash figures are not resources that are available to fund other spending. That is not at my discretion. I wish it were, I wish it were not the case, but it is the basic fact of Government finance that under rules set by Her Majesty's Treasury over many years, such budget cannot be used to fund other services. Today's 2014-15 provisional outturn figures demonstrate once again the firm grip that this Government has on Scotland's public finances. For 2015-16, I have made clear that, in my view, it is unacceptable for reductions to be imposed in this financial year to a budget that has already been agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Thank you. The Deputy First Minister will now answer questions on issues raised in his statement and tend to lie around 20 minutes for questions, so it would be helpful if members were to press requests but now. I thank the Deputy First Minister for early sight of his statement today. The Scottish budget in 2007 was over £32 billion. The current budget now sits at £35.4 billion. Mr Swinney, on behalf of his Government, has for eight years now stated his commitment to social justice, rightly decrying previous Administrations and Governments for their failures in this regard. Mr Swinney may remember in his initial budget presentation in September 2013 that he made no specific mention of inequality. Indeed, at stage 1, he failed to mention inequality, although both Ian Gray and Michael McMachan raised the absence of a discernible long-term plan or strategy to reduce inequality and eradicate poverty. With Mr Gray pointing out then unchallenged £1 billion of anti-poverty programme missing since 2007. In that light, the Herald report today of the Centre of Constitutional Change Update for David Hume Institute makes sobering reading. Jim Eadie, from his own backbench, honourably commented this morning in the chamber on the implications arising from the report. It points out to the gap between super poor and super rich. The Government's statement today reveals evidence of a lack of ambition in dealing with it. Will the cabinet secretary explain why he was unable to better manage Government monies to ensure a proportion of his annual DEL underspend? Currently, £151 million was targeted to strategies designed to further protect the poorest nurse society. First of all, I see that Mr Pearson is now making an issue of the fact that the accusation that we had somehow abolished £1 billion worth of anti-poverty programme expenditure had gone unchallenged. I have to say that I have heard this point being challenged on countless occasions by the Government, because what the Government did when it came to office in 2007, actually in fact in my first budget in the autumn of 2007, was that the Government took the decision to ensure that those programmes that were previously delivered as part of the Fair Scotland fund were devolved to local government in one of the biggest acts of decentralisation that any Government has presided over. We gave local authorities the ability to adapt that expenditure to meet the challenge of inequality at local level in our communities. If local authorities have chosen to act in different ways in relation to that expenditure, then that is a matter of accountability for local authorities, but what this Government cannot be accused of is not equipping local authorities with the measures and the resources to enable them to act at local level to tackle those issues. On the wider question of the management of the 2014-15 budget, there are a range of different propositions that are advanced in the budget to tackle inequality, not least of which is the £100 million that the Scottish Government has taken forward which I have provided for to ensure that we do what we can and I stress that it is that we do what we can to deal with the implications of the welfare reforms of the United Kingdom Government. If it was not for the case that the Government had taken the steps that we had taken, there would be 500,000 low-income households paying more in council tax because of the cut to the council tax benefit scheme that was imposed by the Conservative Government. I simply ask Mr Pearson to reflect on some of those examples, but at least of which is the Government's economic agenda, which has been focused on getting people into employment. We have, of course, in Scotland the highest employment rate of any country within the United Kingdom, and we have just seen a 14,000 increase in the number of people in employment, which I think demonstrates the effect of the Government's focus on boosting employment within Scotland. The Government will continue to support that agenda of encouraging the creation of employment opportunities and tackling inequality at the heart of its programme. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement and for the advance copy. The £192 million cash underspend, which the Deputy First Minister is carrying forward into the current year, rather puts into context the in-year budget reduction of £107 million that he has exercised about nearly twice as much. In all his complaints about UK austerity, there is no mention of the super austerity that would hit us with the SNP's policy of full fiscal autonomy. I ask the Deputy First Minister three questions. First, can he confirm that he has had Barnett consequentials for 2015-16, now totaling £242 million, so that, even with a reduction of £107 million, the Scottish budget has seen a net increase of £135 million? Secondly, the department with the largest underspend is infrastructure, investment and cities. Can the Deputy First Minister provide more detail on how the sum has arrived at? Lastly, the Deputy First Minister mentioned his flagship NDP programme. Can he tell us how much was invested under NDP in 2014-15? First of all, I welcome Mordo Fraser to his post as the Conservative finance spokesperson, and I look forward to debating those issues with him in the months and the years to come. Secondly, there is a rather fundamental difference between the £192 million of resources that the Government is carrying forward into 2015-16 and the reduction in our budget of £107 million, which has been applied in-year by the Conservative Government. The difference is that we will be able to spend the £192 million that we are carrying forward. That will remain part of our spending power. We have lost the £107 million in spending power, so it is a very simple concept to grasp that the sensible management of our public finances to ensure that we comply with the treasury requirement to live within the budget cap enables the Government to carry forward a limited amount of resources to spend in this current financial year. However, the Conservative Government has removed £107 million from our budget once and for all. It will not return according to the current proposition of the chancellor. I hear Mr Johnson muttering about the Barnett consequentials. All the discussion about the Barnett consequentials has to be considered within the context of the 9 per cent real-terms reduction in the budget that the Government is wrestling with. It is all very well for Mr Johnson and Mr Fraser to cherry-pick different elements of the budget position. It is my duty to inform Parliament of the comprehensive position, as I always do, and not succumb to the Conservative cherry-picking tendency on this issue. On the question of the infrastructure budget, there are a number of factors that Mr Fraser will imagine—a number of factors that contribute in different ways. The rail services have been an underspend given the fact that the costs of the mobilisation for the Commonwealth Games and the franchise were not as great as we had estimated that they would be. There has been some overspends on the roads maintenance budget to ensure that we did more roads maintenance, which I thought might go down quite well with Mr Johnson and Mr Fraser, and a variety of other factors that come together to relate to the overall infrastructure budget. On the NPD projects, I do not think that I have a precise number to hand in front of me today, although I am now thinking twice about that statement. In the course of this year, the NPD expenditure is roughly—I cannot give a precise number today, but, if I rhyme off, there is expenditure on the Wraith, the M73 and the M74M8 improvements at Wraith, which took me on a few detours the other day that I went through it. I would have missed a peripheral route to name just two projects that are taking their course with a variety of the blood transfusion service as another project that is under way. I will happily write to Mr Fraser with the comprehensive explanation of the NPD expenditure for this year. I just say to members that I need to finish this session at 15.30. I do have a number of people who wish to ask questions, so could I ask their brief questions and fairly brief answers? I wonder if the cabinet secretary would advise that, in terms of the budget that is carried forward from the underspend, that that will be utilised to fund public services and benefit the people of Scotland. If he, like me, finds it quite telling that the Conservative Party seems to think that it is fine to take money away from public services in Scotland, but not so much to invest in those public services? I assure Mr MacDonald that the resources that are being carried forward will be used to support public services. A substantial proportion of that is already factored into the budget. In order to save the cost of a stamp, since we are being so efficient to Mr Fraser, there are £614 million being deployed on NPD programmes and £428 million being deployed on regulatory asset-based enhancements for the rail network in the current financial year, giving a total additional capital expenditure because of those two channels of over £1 billion in 2014-15. Will there be any follow-up by John Mason? I thank the Deputy First Minister for an advanced site of his statement. I do not want to wish to intrude in the private spat between Murdo Fraser and John Swinney, mainly because I do not have to defend these matters any more. I just observe that £107 million Westminster Conservative cut is punishment, but apparently almost double that amount is prudent. I would just wish to observe in the contrast between the two. On the NPD programme and the ONS review, there is a serious question. Does he have an estimate of the level of contingency that he may require if the outcome is not to his favour? Can he give me an indication as to how confident he is that the conclusion of that review will find favour with the Government? The first point is just to reiterate, because I think that it needs to be reiterated having heard Mr Rennies. I thought that my expression was crystal clear to the Conservatives, but the difference between £192 million is that we can continue to spend that money. The £107 million that we cannot spend because it has been taken away from us is just as simple as that. With the £192 million that remains in our control to be able to be deployed in future projects, £107 million that we have lost will not get it back unless the chancellor changes his mind so that we cannot spend that money. On the issue of the ONS review, my officials have engaged it substantively with the ONS in the process that is being undertaken. The contingency that we have put in place for 2014 is essentially a potential contingency of £450 million, £150 million from the Scottish Government, £300 million in non-cast contingency provision from the United Kingdom Government. My view at this stage—I have to say to Mr Rennie that it is offered in the spirit of openness to Parliament—that I do not think that that will be required, even if a decision is unfavourable towards us. As he will appreciate, I have to make a provision to enable us to live within the resources that are available to us, but I do not think that that level of provision would be required if a decision was to be unfavourable towards us. I believe that we have taken all considered steps that could be taken to ensure the private sector classification of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, but I respect the fact that that is a matter for judgement, ultimately, by the Office for National Statistics, and their word on this matter is final. John Mason is full by Malcolm Tism. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary shares my frustration that, after he has spent hours and hours setting a budget with an overall budget cut of 9 per cent since 2010, the finance committee has spent hours and hours, as have other committees, then we face this in-year reduction of £107 million. Surely no organisation, be it charity, company or government, should be making cuts like this in the financial year? I think that, bluntly, it is bad practice and it leads to governments having to review and reconsider priorities that have been carefully evaluated by, not just, and with the greatest respect, the finance committee does this process very diligently, but other committees of Parliament looking at different portfolio questions have undertaken that exercise into the bargain. I think that it is bad practice. It is obviously a point that I have made clear that we object to, and I can assure Mr Mason that we will do all that we can to mitigate the effects of such actions. Malcolm Tism is full by Kenneth Gibson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and, indeed, murder of president, Willie Rennie for preempting my questions on the infrastructure budget and the ONS review, but since I have a particular interest in the latter, since the North West Partnership Centre, which will serve my constituency, is delayed by it, could he go into a bit more detail? I think that this is the first time that it has come up in the chamber about the precise issue around the ONS and how it would have been classified under his assumptions and how it may be classified if the worst comes to the worst. The issue is the application of new accounting regulations by Eurostat in what is called ESA 10, which is a set of accounting rules that looks at a whole variety of different questions, some of which touch on the classification of projects and how they affect the total volume of debt that is carried by individual member states of the European Union. The origins of this process are designed to provide a comparable estimate of the level of debt that is carried country by country across the European Union so that the levels of debt can be assessed on a comparable basis. Those definitions, frankly, are constantly changing and they are not only constantly changing, but they are also the subject of reinterpretation. The issues broadly relate to the issues of governance of the projects as to whether they are in fact controlled by the public sector or controlled by the private sector. Secondly, the acceptability of the approach to profit capping, which is implicit in the NPD programme. Those are really the issues that have been explored. They are part of the efforts of the Government to put in place a more ffiscally sustainable approach to investment in our public estate, which is more affordable and more efficient than PFI, which strips out what we consider to be the unhealthy profits that were implicit in PFI. That is the Government's approach to trying to tackle that issue and to secure investment in our public estate. In his statement, the cabinet secretary mentioned that he met the chancellor and asked him to reconsider the approach to in-year cuts and his plans for future public spending. I commend him for securing a £70 million reduction in the cuts that he proposed. He added that the First Minister wrote on 4 June to all Opposition leaders asking him to make similar representations. Can I ask what the response has been? I am not aware of responses from Opposition leaders to that point, but I can assure Mr Gibson that the Government will be very clear in articulating its concerns and its opposition to those changes. I feel that somebody ought to point out that being within 0.1% of a budget is not only very prudent but is also extraordinary good cash management. My constituents on the other hand will be very concerned to know what you are able to do to continue capital expenditure on flood schemes, road schemes and others within my constituency. Will you give me some assurance as to what we will be able to do in the future? The capital budget from the United Kingdom Government totals for £2,0142.778 billion. It will decrease to £2.693 billion in 2015-16. However, as a consequence of the additional investment streams that the Government has put in place, the total capital budget for Scotland in 2014-15 was just above £4 billion, but it will in fact be £4.5 billion in 2015-16, despite a reduction from the UK Government. That is because of the investment that we are making through the regulatory asset base, through the NPD programme and other measures. I can assure Mr Dawn of the Government's absolute commitment to maintaining capital expenditure as a central part of how we deliver economic recovery in Scotland. Pressure is on public services now. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether underspend on resource del, which he does have discretion over, has gone up or down this year? The change in the resource del position has been slightly higher than it was last year. It is £151 million compared to £144 million last year, so it is a difference of £7 million since 2013-14. The Deputy First Minister confirmed that the Scottish Government will continue to do all that it can to mitigate the impact of the welfare cuts on the Scottish people. Yes, we will do all that we can. Although, as I said in my original answers, we are now spending about £100 million on welfare reform mitigation measures, that the requirement, because of the changes in welfare reform, will become ever more significant in the years to come. Of course, the Government will do all that it can within its budget process to protect individuals, but we have to make those choices within the resources that are available to us. That ends the statement from the Deputy First Minister. The next item of business is a stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. I will give a few moments for members to change positions. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, SP Bill 66A revised, marshaled list, SP Bill 66AML revised and the groupings, SP Bill 66AG. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division then will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any groups of amendments should press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group, please. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1 power to make provision in connection with legal capacity of detained 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. I call amendment 5, in the name of Alison McInnes, in a group on its own. I ask Alison McInnes to move and speak to amendment 5, please. Ms McInnes, could you move your microphone now? Today, members will rightly celebrate the fact that we will finally grant 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote at Scottish and local elections from next May. We all agree that this is long overdue, but with this opportunity I believe comes some obligations both moral and legal. The bill will not extend a franchise to every 16 and 17-year-old. As it stands, around 100 young people held in young offender institutions would still be denied the right to vote. Those young people are already amongst the most disengaged youths in our society. We know that to reduce offending, reoffending, we must do more to ensure that offenders are equipped and prepared to rejoin our communities. Part of that is to ensure that they are more aware of their responsibilities as citizens. Why, then, are we choosing today to reinforce the sense that they are alienated and we have given up on them? Why are we saying that their rights don't count? My amendment 5 would enable Scottish ministers to lift a blanket ban on their voting by amending its source, section 3 of the representation of the People's Act 1983. Thereafter, through regulations and following consultation, my amendment would enable ministers to make their own ECHR compliant arrangements and decide which young people in penal institutions should be granted the vote. That might be based on considerations, including the nature of the offence, the length of time that they have been sentenced to or the time that they have left remaining. The UK and Scotland's blanket ban on prisoner voting isn't legal, isn't fair and isn't progressive. It is shamefully unique amongst developed democracies in Europe and has been repeatedly found by the courts to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. That Parliament's founding principle of respect for human rights enshrined in section 292D of the Scotland Act 1998 requires us to ensure that when we pass legislation it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, if the bill were passed without the inclusion of my amendment, Parliament risks doing just that. In amending section 2 on the voting age, it is not clear what, if anything, in the section 30 order prevents this Parliament from also displaying section 3. Of course, we should remember that the 1983 act is silent on 16 and 17-year-olds. That is why it is so important that this amendment is debated and that this Parliament's competence and obligations in this area are put to the test. The cabinet secretary will no doubt seek to persuade Parliament to vote against my amendment, conveniently relying on the view that the section 30 order is drawn narrowly. It is a plausible agreement and it has some merit, but in responding, the cabinet secretary must not only rely on that rather timid argument, he must also explain why the Government is satisfied that the bill does not contravene ECHR. Today is an opportunity to be bold, to take a different approach and to show that Scotland upholds everyone's human rights, even when some might find it distasteful. Many thanks. I call Elaine Murray to be followed by Annabelle Goldie. There is a debate to be had regarding whether some offenders in custody should be eligible to vote in elections and the criteria for eligibility, for example short-term prisoners or offenders coming to the end of their sentence as part of their rehabilitation programme. There is also a strong argument that says that where someone has seriously infringed the laws of the country, part of the punishment involved in being imprisoned is a suspension for a part or all of the period of detention of the right to vote for who makes those laws. However, this bill is not the vehicle for rehearsing those arguments. This bill is about 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote next year. Amendment 5 would enable the franchise to be open to 16 and 17-year-old offenders in prison, but not to older offenders in prison. I suspect that that could be the basis of human rights challenge or the basis of an argument on an age discrimination with regard to the offenders over the age of 18 who will not be able to vote unlike the younger offenders. We will therefore vote against this amendment while agreeing that the issue of whether all offenders in prison should be disenfranchised for the entire period of imprisonment does need to be thoroughly examined at another forum. Many thanks. Annabelle Gaulty Presiding Officer, thank you very much. I think the amendment from Alison McKinnis raises two issues. One, the technical issue to which you referred about human rights and the other a more general issue of principle to which Elaine Murray was referring. On the technical issue, my recollection is that this was exhaustively and comprehensively investigated at the time of lowering the age for the independence referendum, and reassurances were given that such a proposal was compliant. Therefore, I consider that that is not a well-founded argument. The issue of general principle is an important one. It is quite simply this issue of whether somebody who has had their liberty removed from them because they have offended against society and the courts have seen fit to detain such a person, whether it is reasonable that one of the consequences of that should be a suspension of their right to vote. In my opinion and the opinion of my party that is a reasonable view to take and I think it is also a view supported by the broader spectrum of public opinion, so for that reason my party will not be supporting this amendment. Many thanks. Deputy First Minister. Presiding Officer, the issue of prisoner voting is determined, defined and constrained by the terms of the representation of the People's Act 1983, section 3 of which provides that a convicted person detained in a penal institution in pursuance of their sentence is legally incapable of voting in any election in the United Kingdom. The Scotland Act 1998 modification of schedules 4 and 5 and transfer of functions to the Scottish ministers, etc. Order 2015 does not give the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence to order section 3 of that act, or to make any other provision about when someone is or is not legally incapable of voting. It therefore remains outwith legislative competence for the Scottish Parliament to make provision in respect of participation in elections for people of any age, which is the issue that Dr Murray raised, who is in prison in pursuance of a sentence. Existing United Kingdom law determines that entitlement. As a consequence of that explanation, I hope that it is understood by Parliament, that even if Parliament considered this to be a desirable thing to do, it would be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament to act in that respect. On the basis of that point and on the basis of the policy question, the Scottish Government opposes the amendment that has been advanced by Alison McInnes. Alison McInnes asked me to consider the issues about the compatibility with human rights legislation, and it is a very important question that she raises. I understand the arguments put forward by Alison McInnes and others with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, but I do think that there are very strong and clearly stated arguments as to why this bill is entirely compatible with ECHR. The Scotland Act 1998, section 29d, provides that any provision in an act of the Scottish Parliament that is not ECHR compliant is outwith competence. Provision must be ECHR compliant to be within competence. However, the bill does not contain any such provision because, apart from the bill before Parliament today, does not contain any such provision that is outwith competence, because, apart from the reduction in voting age, the franchise is a reserved matter. The narrowness of the section 30 order, about which I make no complaint, I should add, constrains Parliament to consider the issue and associated provisions of reducing the voting age, does not provide Parliament with a general power to amend the eligibility and the questions of franchise, which remain a reserved matter in terms of section 3 of the representation of the People Act 1983. In addition to that, the bill, as introduced, has attracted a certificate of legislative competence from both the Scottish Government and, more importantly, from the Presiding Officer in this respect. The bill does not and cannot make any provision that interferes with reserved matters in relation to prisoner voting. That matter is reserved by section 3 of the representation of the People's Act and its effects. The Scottish Parliament does not have the necessary powers to change the position on prisoner voting. Once the remaining powers in relation to the Scottish Parliamentary Elections and local elections are devolved to Parliament through the Smith process—the subject of the Scotland bill currently being considered by the House of Commons—it will be for the Scottish Parliament to consider whether to change the current position in relation to prisoner voting. However, the Scottish Government has no proposals to amend the rules on prisoner voting and, as a consequence, the Government, on the basis of two points, on the point of policy that I have just set out and the point of legislative competence, the Government opposes the amendment that has been advanced by Alison MacKinnon. Many thanks. I now ask Alison MacKinnon to wind up and indicate if you intend to press or withdraw, please. The section 30 order hands this Parliament the power to legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds, not just some 16 and 17-year-olds. The Law Society does not agree with Mr Swinney's interpretation of whether or not it is competent to use the section 30 order to do this, and it is appropriate, I think, to test it. Following a meeting just earlier this month with Liberty, the First Minister said that Scotland and the United Kingdom have a strong record on human rights, but when it comes to prisoner voting, that is simply not true. We are not just stubbornly trailing behind international best practice. Scotland and the United Kingdom are breaking international law, and the SNP and other parties in this chamber should not pick and choose which human rights to uphold and which to brush under the carpet because they might generate uncomfortable headlines. Ms Goldie mentioned the petition for judicial review following the independence referendum franchise act and said that it had been properly tested. That is a different issue, because the ruling that went all the way up to the Supreme Court made it quite clear that the ruling from Europe did not relate to referendums that were limited to elections. It is not good enough to blame a legal catch-22. We need to break the impasse. Mr Swinney uses a reductive argument, a circular argument, that says that we are not allowed to make laws that do not comply, and therefore, if we have made a law, it does comply. That is not sensible at all, though I am just closing. I appeal to the First Minister and, indeed, a justice secretary. Do not be timid about this. Do the right thing. Do the progressive thing. Vote for this amendment. If need be, allow the courts to decide if we have overstepped the scope of this section 30 order. Scotland will be the better for it. We will have shown that this Parliament is prepared to stand up for human rights and to take a different approach. I hear sedentary interventions that say, take away the rights of all 16 and 17-year-olds. They will not, because we have seen before that when there is a challenge to such a piece of legislation, it has expedited all the way through the courts within weeks. Ms McInnes, do you intend to press? Yes, I will press. Thank you. The question then is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, since this is the first division of the stage. I suspend for five minutes. Order. We will now proceed with the division on amendment 5. This is a 32nd division. Members should cast their votes now, please. Order, please. The result of the vote on amendment 5 is yes, 8, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Sorry, yes. I will read that again. The result of the vote on amendment 5 is yes, 8, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. That then brings us to group 2, persons in relation to whom duty to promote awareness and provide assistance applies. I call amendment 1 in the name of the Deputy First Minister, group with amendments 2, 3 and 4. Deputy First Minister, could you please move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group? Those amendments arise from evidence given to the Devolution Further Powers Committee by the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland, Celsus. While welcoming the provision at section 15 of the bill to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that looked after children were aware of and given assistance with the appropriate arrangements to register as local government electors, Celsus argued that the duty should be extended. Section 15 of the bill currently covers those young people who are looked after by a local authority under the terms of section 17.6 of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. Celsus suggested that this should be extended to include young people who were formally looked after and are now either continuing in the care placement or are receiving aftercare services. Having considered this issue, including during its oral evidence session on 23 April, the committee in its stage 1 report expressed sympathy for the proposed extension of provision. However, the committee felt that consideration should be given as to how the local authority could be expected to deliver on such a duty. During the stage 1 debate, I said that Scottish Government officials would discuss the issue with COSLA to determine whether there was a proportionate and practical approach that could assist while avoiding unreasonable burdens on local authorities. I am pleased to say that COSLA has since informed that local authorities would be happy and principle to support young people continuing in care or having left care in registering to vote. However, like the committee, COSLA were keen to ensure that the extended duty should be framed in a way that recognises the practicalities of delivering aftercare and that a count should be taken of any practical issues with the delivery of the duty. The amendments that we have lodged for consideration by the Parliament at stage 3 are designed to extend the duty to the relevant group of young people while allowing local authorities themselves to decide how best to put that into practice. Having promoted awareness of the relevant registration arrangements among the relevant group, it will be for the local authority to take such action as the authority considers necessary to help them to register. Our discussions with COSLA have identified the need for clear and practical advice in this area, and we have agreed to help to develop such advice in consultation with local authorities, Celsus and others. Statutory guidance on corporate parenting duties under the Children and Young People Act will be published next month. The guidance has been produced in close collaboration with local authorities and relevant stakeholders, and I would expect the guidance on electoral registration to be produced in a similar manner. It is right that, where there is an identified need for assistance to ensure that young people are able to register to vote, assistance is given to them. In this particular case, and as Celsus said, where young people are in receipt of aftercare services, it is consistent with the intention of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 that the advice, guidance and assistance referred to in the act should include help for the young people concerned to register as local government electors. It is also right that, for those arrangements to be effective, we need to make sure that local authorities can deliver, and so, subject to Parliament's approval of those amendments, the Scottish Government will work with all those concerned to develop effective guidance. I therefore move amendment 1. Thank you very much. We welcome those amendments because I think that they do clarify the duty of local authorities to advise and assist looked after children in using their right to vote, and they do so in a proportionate and practical way. As the cabinet secretary said, Celsus provided very detailed evidence to the devolution committee, noting among other things that last year local authorities varied considerably in the extent to which they helped looked after young people, who live in quite complicated situations. In doing that, they did not intend to suggest that any councils were other than keen to be helpful and to provide appropriate assistance. I think that what the cabinet secretary, the Deputy First Minister, has described is an appropriate approach. It does leave discretion with local authorities and allow young people who have moved on, but will still benefit from advice and assistance to access that. Voting may not always be a young person's highest priority, for example, in moving into a new tenancy, but having access to those citizenship rights can help to address the issue of disadvantage that those young people often face. Many thanks. I welcome the productive outcome that has been achieved as a consequence of the input of Celsus and the agreement across the Parliament to Jamie. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendments 2, 3 and 4, all in the name of the Deputy First Minister and all previously debated. I invite the Deputy First Minister to move amendments 2, 3 and 4 on block, please. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 2, 3 and 4? No member objects. Therefore, the question is that amendments 2, 3 and 4 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, and that ends consideration of amendments. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 13529, in the name of John Swinney, on the Scottish Elections Reduction of Voting Age Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please, and I call on John Swinney to speak to it and move the motion. Deputy First Minister, 10 minutes or so, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Scottish Elections Reduction of Voting Age Bill. This is the final legislative step in the process to give 16 and 17-year-olds a vote permanently in Scottish elections. I would like to start by thanking everyone who has been involved in getting us to this particular stage. In particular, the thorough and detailed scrutiny by the Devolution Further Powers Committee has been invaluable in shaping that important legislation. I am especially grateful to the convener, the committee members and the clerks for their constructive and helpful contributions, particularly given the challenging timescales that we have all been working to. The section 30 order transferred the necessary powers to allow this Parliament to consider whether to lower the voting age that came into force on 20 March this year. Less than two weeks later, I introduced this bill and the committee started its examination of our proposals that morning. Members will know the importance of giving electoral registration officers sufficient time to put in place the arrangements to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote next May. That gave us our deadline for getting the legislation in place, and subject to this afternoon's vote, we will meet that deadline. In the development of this bill, we have sought details to use from experts in electoral administration and child protection. We have listened carefully to the range of views expressed and, where it was appropriate to do so, we have amended our proposals accordingly. We have taken on-board detailed comments from registration officers and the Electoral Commission on the technical aspects of the bill, and sought advice from experts in data protection and child protection to ensure that the bill's provisions address any concerns that were advanced. We also worked closely with Cabinet Office to develop a solution allowing young voters to enter their details online in the same way as older voters. That will ensure that the registration process is consistent for all electors and that young people have the same experience as other voters. This co-operation builds on the pragmatic approach that both Governments took to the discussions to agree the detailed terms of the section 3063 order, which transferred the necessary powers for the Scottish Parliament to lower the voting age. Like the bill, the section 30 order was developed and agreed to a challenging timetable. At this stage, I want to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his officials for the way in which they have assisted us in meeting this challenging timetable. It is not often that the narrative of co-operation between our two administrations is celebrated in this chamber, but let me be the one to celebrate it this afternoon to acknowledge the co-operation that has existed to enable us to undertake this reform and to do it in a timescale that has enabled electoral registration to be undertaken in the professional and thorough manner that all of us expect and require to be undertaken. While I agree with him in regard to the timescale and the co-operation that has existed, does he agree that it is regrettable that the juxtaposition today is that, while this Parliament will legislate to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in Scottish elections, it looks like the UK Government will resist efforts to give those same 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the upcoming EU referendum? I think that that is regrettable, but I am trying to be charitable this afternoon, as is my want. I think that the whole experience of enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the independence referendum last September, which has been acknowledged firstly to be an enormous political decision and secondly to be a political responsibility that was taken immensely seriously by the young people who were able to vote in the referendum. Rather than vindicating and strengthening the argument to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in elections, it is a real missed opportunity from the part of the right to kingdom government not to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the EU referendum, which, of course, is a matter like the independence referendum, which is inextricably linked to the future of the country, and therefore an issue in which young people will have more than a significant interest. Continued constructive engagement with all those involved in the process to date has allowed us to take forward the bill to a tight timetable in order to ensure that the legislation will be in place to allow details of young voters to be collected during the 2015 household canvas. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved for their willingness to engage and share their knowledge and expertise. It has been a long-standing policy of this Government to lower the voting age to 16 where we can, and that policy now has, I am pleased to say, cross-party support across the chamber. I am delighted to have reached consensus on the principle. Building on that, I have been impressed by the thoughtful and passionate contributions that young people have made to the debate on the current proposals to extend the franchise permanently. It is those contributions that have made the case for extending the franchise, and Scotland's young people can and should be extremely proud of that fact. The bill provides a detailed, workable and practical framework that allows young voters to register for and vote in Scottish elections. As far as possible, we have tried to replicate the effect of the arrangements that were put in place at the referendum. We have taken particular care to ensure that the legislation strikes an appropriate balance between maintaining an effective, secure and transparent electoral registration process and the clear need to ensure that data on the youngest voters is protected. I believe that the bill before us today achieves that balance. The majority of the amendments that the Scottish Government brought forward at stage 2 were as a result of comments from stakeholders. For example, we brought forward an amendment at stage 2 to ensure that no date of birth will be printed on a household canvas form in respect of a 14 or 15-year-old. That responded to concerns raised by Registration Officers and the Information Commissioner's office and strengthens the protection of information available on young people. Additionally, I am pleased to say that our discussions with Celsis and Who Cares Scotland before the bill was introduced have led to the inclusion of a new duty on local authorities to promote awareness of and facilitate registration amongst looked-after children, a duty that, of course, has been extended to include young people in receipt of aftercare and continuing care as a result of the amendments that Parliament has already agreed to this afternoon. The next household canvas, which Scottish electoral registration officers will begin in August of this year, will see young voters being asked to register for Scottish elections for the first time. We have worked closely with the UK Government and the Electoral Commission to ensure that the registration routes for young people, either online or using a paper form, are clear, intelligible and easy to understand. We will continue to work closely with all those involved to ensure that the collection of data on young voters is as efficient and effective as possible and that the arrangements set out in the bill translate into a workable registration framework. Finally, I would like to return to the issue of political literacy, which has been the subject of much discussion during the bill's parliamentary passage. Young people in Scotland have shown that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of voting. I agree wholeheartedly with those in Parliament and elsewhere who have argued that young people deserve access to information on political events and that information should be presented in a balanced, dispassionate manner. Information like this will help young people in the choices that they have to make. Political literacy is and should be a normal part of the school experience for young people. The current curriculum for excellence framework ensures that this is the case by providing a framework for young people to develop political literacy skills through a balanced mixture of learning across the curriculum and through other activities such as discussions and debate, mock-up elections and inviting visitors into schools. Education Scotland is in the process of reviewing its political literacy education resources for teachers. That is due for release in September and is designed to bring new and innovative ideas to the teaching of participation in democracy. I welcome the important work that Education Scotland has done on political literacy so far and look forward to seeing the refreshed guidance when it is published. During the stage 1 debate, I indicated that I would consider whether there was anything further that the Scottish Government could do in this area. Political literacy is a crucial issue and I am keen that we do everything that we can to get it right for those young people who will vote for the first time in May 2016. I was stalked by the contribution that was made by Annabel Goldie and also by my colleague Rob Gibson during the stage 1 debate on the inconsistency of the approach that was apparent around the country. I am therefore pleased to say that Scottish Government officials will be meeting interested groups to discuss and agree the best way forward to achieve greater consistency in this respect. I expect this approach to include the associations of directors of education, Education Scotland, the Electoral Commission and Electoral Administrations. I am confident that, with all of the relevant experts around the table, we can proactively agree a way forward that ensures consistency and clarity of approach across Scotland. I will maintain a close interest in the work of that area to ensure that that is in fact the case and I will be keen to ensure that that commands all parties' support across the parliamentary chamber. The bill marks the final stage in the process to lower the voting age to 16 in Scottish elections. The engagement witnessed among young voters at the referendum and the thoughtfulness and the intelligence with which the debate was conducted are a testament to all of Scotland's young people. I fully support the extension of the franchise and hope that we will see a UK-wide lowering of the voting age. Presiding Officer, this bill is a moment in the history of Scotland and I am proud that our country will lead the way in engaging young people in our democracy. I move that Parliament agrees the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill and that it will be passed this afternoon. The bill is notable in delivering a significant degree of change with a minimum of fuss and a maximum of agreement. It has also been delivered quickly in parliamentary terms. It is only three weeks since we debated the bill at stage 1 and only a week since the devolution committee agreed amendments at stage 2 without division. Indeed, it is less than three months since the bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament and less than five months since the power to bring forward such a bill was devolved by a section 30 order at Westminster. That speed reflects a cross-party consensus in support of the principle of votes at 16. It also reflects a shared objective of bringing in the new law in time for the Scottish Parliament elections in May of next year. Both aspects are important. It would have been unfortunate to agree the principle but then not to deliver in time for the election. It is also important to note that a consensus across parties in support of this measure reflects a wider consensus among those invited by the devolution committee to offer their views on the bill. Witnesses all at something to say whether on the specific aspects of their areas of expertise are in general an endorsement of the principle of extending the franchise. None of them opposed the basic premise or identified any significant flaw in the way in which Scottish ministers proposed to proceed. The issues that were unclear at the outset have largely been addressed in ways that have allowed the consensus to be maintained. Thanks are due to our variety of people to the clerks and to my fellow members of the committee who have helped to take this forward so quickly to the range of witnesses who provided such clear and positive evidence, in particular the electoral registration officers who ensured that the practical issues were addressed and the young people who reminded us of the fundamental purposes of the change and indeed to all of those involved in getting the bill to this point today. Although the change enacted by the bill is very substantial, the bill itself is a modest piece of legislation. It consists of a series of modifications to the representation of the People Act 1983 and the representation of the People Scotland regulations 2001. Three out of its 12 and a half pages deal with service declarations. Young people who live with parents or guardians in the armed forces, the civil service of the British Council, are enfranchised by this route up to the date of their 18th birthday. That is important. It is not contentious, at least not in the context of the bill, but it will be interesting to see if it promotes discussion among young people living in services accommodation overseas, for example, where those from Scotland will have a vote at the age of 16, but those from elsewhere will not. That may add a little pressure in support of extending the franchise for the United Kingdom and other elections in the future. I welcome what Mr Swinney had to say today about initiatives in the area of political literacy. I think that that is a welcome approach. I hope that, in pursuit of cross-party support for his initiative, he will be able to report back on progress in achieving agreement among those involved with providing education and support for our young people in this area. Much of the bill is focused on striking the right balance between protecting the privacy of young people and enabling parties and candidates to canvass everyone who is entitled to vote at a given election. With a few amendments at stage 2, that balance has now been struck, where privacy clearly comes first until very nearly the age of 16, but inclusion in the process on the same terms as other voters comes for those who will reach 16 before or during the election campaign in question. That is important and essentially reflects the judgment that, since 16 is now the voting age, it should also be the point at which some of the protections offered to children should be replaced by adult responsibilities. The bill also provides for young people who have to show a local connection in order to register other than their current residence and those who have to register anonymously. Those provisions are important to allow vulnerable young people to participate but with the right level of protection. The issue of awareness among looked-after children and young people who have been looked after and have a right to continuing support has now also been addressed. The bill addresses the franchise only in respect of the age of attainment and makes an alteration there and there alone. That was what was agreed by the Smith commission and devolved under the section 30 order in January. As the Deputy First Minister said, that is not contentious. There will, of course, be other potential changes in the franchise, such as the one highlighted by Alison McInnes this afternoon. She was right to highlight the issue of voting in the context of rehabilitation of offenders, as Elaine Murray also did. Of course, the general power to alter the franchise lies elsewhere. It is an issue to which we may return in the context of penal policy, but the legal constraints are clear. The bill itself then is brief and to the point that commands broad support, but it also raises other issues that need to be acknowledged. The bill has its roots in the referendum campaign last year, although, of course, other countries have had votes at 16 for some time. The referendum generated, as has been said, a lot of interest among young people on both sides of the debate, but it is important to say that that was also true of all age groups in the population. We have decided, or we will decide at the end of today, to reject the argument that young people who are old enough to pay taxes have not lived enough or learned enough to pass judgement on the issues at elections to this place or to local councils. It is important that we send out the right signal today that we are truly an inclusive Parliament. We should therefore also reject the misguided view that our growing number of older voters have forgotten too much or lived too long to have a stake in the future of our country. In passing this bill, we should celebrate the democratic participation of all our citizens, the 100,000, 16 and 17-year-olds, the million over 65s and everyone in between. We are extending the franchise precisely because we know from experience that democracy works. For the same reason, we should indeed champion the case for votes at 16 in the referendum on the membership of the European Union and for making the franchise for that referendum as inclusive as possible. Scotland has led the way in the context of the devolved powers of this place many times, not least on smoking in public places, 10 years ago. Today, we are leading the way again, and I have no doubt that others will follow that example. Thank you. Many thanks, and I now call on Annabelle Goldie. Six minutes please, Ms Goldie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Stage 3 debate of any bill is a matter of procedural importance, but it is also the case that, while some legislation is highly contentious, other bills such as this one are not. This afternoon, we have a bill that is important, uncontroversial, enjoying consensus and requiring only technical amendments. None of that should diminish for one moment the significance of what the bill is doing, so it is worth repeating that this is an important development for our young people and for democracy. The process that began with the Smith commission agreement and, as the Deputy First Minister indicated, proceeded with the joint co-operation of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Governments. I thank him for his constructive remarks about the Westminster Government and about the Secretary of State for Scotland. All of that has enabled the bill to do something very important, which is to pass in time in order for electoral registration officers to be able to do their job. I think that it is worth stepping back for a moment to the independence referendum, not just because I liked the result, but because there were unsung heroes, and I think that we should acknowledge the role of electoral registration officers, of the Electoral Commission and of schools in securing a considerable level of registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. Our individual electoral registration roll-out was delayed to begin from September 2014, later than the rest of the UK, to avoid conflicting with the referendum, and it will be completed by the end of this year. However, we have to continue to monitor the effectiveness of registration of young people, in particular in order for the extension of the franchise to be effective. I thought that the Deputy First Minister's amendments in that respect were very welcome. There are a number of continuing issues arising. In most cases, the national insurance number is a primary method of verifying identity. However, for younger voters, clearly the ERO will have to look at local authority education data or request additional identity data from the young person seeking registration. In relation to the bill in the stage 1 debate, I touched upon the role of schools, something to which the Deputy First Minister alluded. We have long believed that it is important to increase the turnout in elections among younger voters, and this is no different whether the voting age is set at 16 or 18. However, it is clear that many who will be 16 at the time of the next election to this Parliament are still in school, and what we do now in education can and will have very immediate effects. I thank the Deputy First Minister for expanding how he sees the role of Education Scotland in that respect. Members will recall my reference to the very helpful—yes, of course, Deputy First Minister. I am grateful to be Scotland. Can I just use this opportunity of the point that we raised about the political literacy issues to reinforce a commitment that I made in my opening remarks, which Mr MacDonald mentioned, that I think that it is important that this work is undertaken in a fashion that commands cross-party support in the parliamentary chamber, because it is in all of our interests that we have a well-informed, dispassionately advised group of young people able to form their own views in these processes. We will put in place a process to ensure that satisfaction can be achieved across political parties. Annabelle Goldie? I would hope and anticipate that such cross-party agreement would be possible, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that everyone has agreed that there is a core job to be done here. What matters to those young people is that somehow or other we pull together the components of doing that job. Members will recall that the spice research disclosed divergent approaches of engagement between schools and pupils in the referendum. This side of the chamber believes in local autonomy and in the autonomy of schools and teachers, but it is not healthy for our democracy to have such variation and approach depending largely on local authority attitude and where you happen to live. Again, members will recall that part of that divergence was that 25 out of 32 schools had developed guidance. How head teachers and staff should approach the matter. Many took a lead from the Association of Directors in Education Scotland and Education Scotland's guidance documents. In some cases, divergence and guidance reflect to specific approaches. Renfrewshire did not permit debates in schools within hours. There were organised hustings events around the area. That avoided clashes with examination diets and ensured access was available to young voters. Approaches were also different on whether debates were outside with outside speakers were encouraged as well as whether or not there were mock votes. There were also differences approach to activities and you need to run up to the referendum. The period of period of period, 18 local authorities placed no additional restrictions in 14 doing so. I simply mention this, Presiding Officer, to say that this is vital. It is quite a challenging area of policy and one where, in the interests of our young people, some kind of harmonised approach should be built. To reassure the Deputy First Minister, I would hope that there could be a cross-party approach to this because I think that we can improve on what happened for the independence referendum. I think that none of this is insurmountable. It does require leadership and guidance and it would be quite wrong to put that exclusively at the feet of the Scottish Government. Other agencies have to play their role. This bill heralds an exciting era for our young people. I think that it is an opportunity for them to continue their high level of engagement and topical affairs that we saw with the independence referendum. I have much pleasure in confirming my party's support for the bill at decision time. Many thanks. We now turn to the open debate. Speeches of up to five minutes please. Bruce Crawford to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is not normal for the convener of the committee in the stage 3 process to speak as the convener and you will find out later in my speech. I am certainly not speaking as the convener in a way that is slightly controversial, shall we say. However, when we start off in the mode of the convener by thanking, first of all, the clerking team, particularly Heather Galway, who helped us to steer the bill through as quickly as we possibly could in the timescales, which Lewis MacDonald recognised in his contribution and without their help and guidance, I am not sure what he would have got there. Let me thank the Government as well, who obviously picked up on a number of issues from our committee report, reflected on those and responded in a very positive way, particularly as John Swinney has already alluded to in the arena of political literacy. That was a very important area for the committee. We want to make sure that there is a great deal of much more consistency. In that respect, I am certainly delighted with the response made today by the Cabinet Secretary and pleased Education Scotland is revising its guidance. There have been many times since the Scottish Parliament came into being 16 years ago that I felt so very proud of the progressive nature of this institution. Legislation and land reform, though smoking in public places, scrapping of graduation taxations, climate change equal marriage, to name but a few of the fantastic changes that we made to our country that we should celebrate. Tonight at 5 o'clock will be another one of these moments when we pass the legislation to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections to this place and to Scotland's local authorities. We will make a bit of history by joining a small band of other countries in giving the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and help to give a lead to the rest of the world. Another had any doubts that it was the right thing to do to extend the franchise until a meeting with a 16-year-old person just last week. As many of my colleagues were aware, last week we had the Scottish Youth Parliament stand in the garden lobby to bring MSPs up to date with their work. As you do, you go along, you have a chat, you get the obligatory photograph taken. Kat, a member of my staff, was there to take the photograph of me standing alongside an SIP member. As we departed the stand, I commented that I would send out the image as soon as I could on Twitter. At that stage, I heard the member of the SIP in discussion with my member of staff under the words, while I show him how to use his Twitter account, does he know how to do it? I know that I have got my best pass, but I think that I still have my full faculties around me, but for the briefest of moments I wondered about the wisdom of giving the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Joking aside, my conviction that we should in Fried Chai 16 and 17-year-olds was turned into a burning desire as a result of the fantastic response of Scotland's young people in last year's referendum. If anyone had any doubts before the referendum about the wisdom of extending the franchise, those doubts were in the main, swept away by the enthusiastic engagement of our young people in deciding Scotland's future. At that stage, I want to say to the Conservative Party in Scotland, well done, for making the journey from opposition to vote 16 to now fully endorsing the rights of our young people to be heard, at least in Scotland. I know that the Scottish Conservatives will find it difficult to publicly state that you would support the extension of franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the forthcoming EU referendum, but I hope that quietly behind the scenes you are doing your best to persuade the Prime Minister to change the direction of the UK government in this regard. We will see what happens later on this afternoon in the House of Commons, because Stephen Gethans from the SNP has put an amendment down to that regard. However, I began to realise just how deeply entrenched would Conservative views at Westminster, when I heard John Ridwyd MP commenting on BBC Radio 4 that politically active teenagers were a myth. After meeting with so many 16 and 17-year-olds, I have got to strongly disagree with that statement. It does not reflect reality, and I can all advise it to visit places like Fort William and Levenmouth, where the Further Devolution Committee visited and spoke to so many young people. The committee found that our young people had immersed themselves in the campaign every bit as much as the older generations, but perhaps with even more vigor and energy. Louise Cameron, a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, reflected on the issue at one of the Further Devolution Committee oral evidence sessions, when she stated, "...we have disproven all the arguments against votes at 16. It would be a great thing for the UK system to vote at 16 as well. Mr Cameron needs to seriously consider his priorities and have that discussion quite. I couldn't have agreed more with Louise, and it's perhaps fitting to leave the last word with her." I now call Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Alison McKinnon. As the culmination of a bill, but also the culmination of a campaign, as far as parliamentary elections are concerned, I think that we should certainly pay tribute to Bruce Crawford's committee, but also for the Government and the way that they have responded to their recommendations. For example, I amended the bill to protect the personal information of young people on the register and, as the cabinet secretary said, taking advice from experts in data protection and child protection. That has gone on for a long time in terms of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. There has been a coalition of diverse groups, but perhaps we should pay special tribute to the Scottish Youth Parliament, who in many issues have proved themselves to be great campaigners, not least on that particular issue. As we know, the independence referendum marked the first time that the vote was extended to 16 and 17-year-olds and saw 80 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds registered and 75 per cent of them turning out. As Bruce Crawford said, that probably explains the transformation of the debate in Scotland and anyone who had doubts before the referendum, as far as I can see, does not have doubts anymore. What a contrast to what is happening, as we speak, in the House of Commons, I just happened to catch a little bit of the debate before I went in for the finance statement. There was a Conservative MP saying, well, we cannot give votes to 16 and 17-year-olds because they keep changing their mind. Well, I am sorry to say that you do not need to remind Labour members that it is not just 16 and 17-year-olds who change their mind when it comes to parliamentary elections. Going back to the referendum, the devolution committee received more than 1,000 responses from many of them who took part. Just to quote one of them, Louise Cameron, she said, the experience of the referendum was absolutely great. It has helped us to disprove all the arguments against votes at 16, and I think that that is the case. I think that the result is already that more young people are getting involved in politics, and I believe that that will continue as this bill is implemented. We can point to evidence from practice as well as theory. If I can just do—I have two quotes here, perhaps I have only got time to do the one based on practice—Dr Jan Eichhorn of Edinburgh University, I think that she gave this evidence to the committee. All measures of increased political engagement have outlasted the referendum itself. I am applied to the general election context, even for the 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland. Comparing them with their English counterparts, we found that 61 per cent said that they had talked about how the UK is governed with members of their family in the past three months, while only 37 per cent of their English peers report the same. I was going to do a more theoretical quote from a book called Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945 by Mark Franklin in 2004, and he was arguing on theoretical grounds that, in fact, 15 or 16 is the best age in terms of starting to vote. I could give you a bit of extra time if you needed it. I know, but I have a few other things to say. If I have time at the end, I will do that quote, but I really want to go on to say that now, of course, the key to the success of the implementation of the bill is increasing further the level of awareness among the young population about their right to vote and the need to make an informed decision. Again, I note that the Electoral Commission outlined to the committee its plans to work with the electoral registration officers on public awareness campaigns. Of course, that will include greater emphasis on awareness-raising through social media as well as through partnership working with a range of organisations. Clearly, it is the future that we need to look to. After today, the bill is certainly going to pass in half an hour's time. Apart from the short term—I think that, in the longer terms—we need to look to using the bill as a catalyst for further political or citizenship education, whatever we want to call it, in schools. I was very pleased to hear what the cabinet secretary said about that. Today, I have devoted some of my speech at stage 1 to this, and I think that I talked about updated political education. However, as the cabinet secretary reminded us, the bill is already embedded within the curriculum for excellence, so I think that the announcements today about refreshed guidance and more consistency are entirely welcome and should address some of the concerns that are expressed at stage 1 on this matter. It is one of those occasions when all parties in the chamber are united. I think that we can all feel very proud that we are leading the way in the UK on this matter, and who knows perhaps we can even hope that, when our colleagues in the other Parliament read about this debate, they themselves will be inspired, perhaps at roundabout the same time, to also vote for 16 and 17-year-olds in the European referendum. Thank you. I now call Alison McInnes to be followed by Stuart Maxwell. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm like the Deputy First Minister. I'm delighted that both of Scotland's Governments work together to extend the voting franchise. The prompt co-operation means that around 100,000 more young people will be able to decide as soon as next May who will best represent them. It's right that 16 and 17-year-olds will once again, after last year, be trusted to have a say on the future of their local communities and the direction of their country. Some folk perhaps think that lowering the voting age by two years may not sound like much, but it is such a defining period in one's life. At 16 and 17, you would be leaving school, going to college, planning for university, taking on an apprenticeship or entering the world of work, and even compared to 18 and 19-year-olds, they will use public services differently and access separate services entirely and therefore often have very different priorities and different perspectives. I think that it's fundamentally unfair of course that at present the liability to pay tax is not accompanied by the right to elect those who collect and spend your contributions. As children in Scotland observed, it's clear that by this stage in life, young people have a stake in society and are significantly and directly affected by the policies and decisions of political parties. It's important that our democratic processes reflect that. Young people shouldn't be forced to depend on older voters to represent their distinct interests and varied values. By fostering an interest at an earlier age, we have an opportunity in the long term to reverse the trend of waning turnouts. Of course, it's to be hoped that the engagement that we will see will in a wee while lead to a greater diversity in our council chambers and indeed in this Parliament itself. In the lead-up to the referendum, the Scottish Youth Parliament highlighted the thoughts of one 18-year-old from Dundee in my own region, and they said, at the age of 16, I knew much more than my parents about voting systems and UK politics because I learned about it every day in school. If you can nurture the interests and politics sparked by schools and teachers and show them that their opinions matter, you'll have a citizen who understands and uses their right to vote and I couldn't agree more about that. Of course, the bill is only the start of a process to ensure that teenagers are registered, educated and informed, and legislative reform must be accompanied by a strategy to increase awareness and political literacy. I welcome the comments from the Deputy First Minister on the way forward on that. Young Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament and Youth Link Scotland and their joint submission to the committee highlighted that all young people, no matter where they live, should have equal access to high quality and well-resourced political and civic education. I know that many schools in my north-east region held mature class discussions and hotly contested mock independence referendums. However, as we heard at stage one, such provision was inconsistent across the country, so there is work to be done to ensure that every local authority is fully engaged with that task. At turning to my amendment this afternoon, I'm disappointed but not surprised that the Government weren't able to support my amendment. I accepted reluctance to test whether it was competent to use the section 30 order to do this. I think that there is a sense that we must be cautious about it, but I suppose that what I was disappointed was that Mr Swinney also rejects it as an aspiration. He said that he didn't support it in policy terms. The SNP likes to paint itself as progressive, but in reality it's not always the case. I do hope that it's something that we can return to. I think that it's something that we will have to return to. We know that we're not complying with international law on this. The kind of legal impasse that we have here about whose turn it is to fix it needs to be fixed. If we can get our heads together on something like this and move things forward, then surely we can also get our heads together between the two parliaments and sort this out if there's a will to do so. I hope that the bill is only the start and that further legislative changes at Westminster and Holyrood follow to ensure that all our young people always have the right to assay on the issues that affect them. We, as Liberal Democrats like many others in the chamber, have campaigned for this for many years and I'm very proud to vote for this bill today. Thank you very much. Our final open debate speaker before I turn to closing speeches is Stuart Macthill. I begin by joining the convener and I believe Lewis MacDonald earlier in thanking our clerks, advisers, SPICE and those who gave evidence to the committee. It was most helpful to all of us in examining the bill. I believe that we are here today debating the legislation to reduce the voting age, not because a Government or politicians decided that this is what we should do. We're here because 16 and 17-year-olds have demanded the right to take part in the democratic process. They have demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that they are as capable as any other citizen of this country when it comes to voting in elections and even referendums. Anyone who was involved in last year's independence referendum knows that it was self-evident that 16 and 17-year-olds were passionate, articulate, well-informed and worthy participants in that debate. In passing, I note that Japan has just only yesterday lowered the voting age to 18. I'm sure that it's a welcome step for young people in Japan and perhaps it will be too long before they get around to following our example on 16 and 17-year-olds. There are different positions around the world on this, but the trend, I think, is obvious to lower the voting age certainly to 18 and now beyond in many other countries, apart from Scotland, to 16 and 17-year-olds. Prior to the referendum, we lived in a time of declining democratic participation, particularly among younger people, yet Scotland has changed in a way unique, I believe, amongst Western nations. We now live in a society where people are engaged and excited about politics. 16 and 17-year-olds have been at the heart of that positive change, and it's only logical for the Scottish Parliament to now enshrine their voting rights for all future elections over which we have control. That phrase over which we have control is very important, because it's unfortunate to say the least that the logical and reasonable position of extending the voting franchise is not one that is held universally. Many of our younger, first-time voters were engaged participants in the independence referendum, only to have the vote denied to them in the recent general election. The UK Government's refusal to allow votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the upcoming referendum on EU membership is just another example, I believe, of the diverging political cultures north and south of the border. That has been clearly demonstrated by a recent University of Edinburgh study, which found that two thirds of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland would have been very likely to vote in the general election had they been given the opportunity to do so. However, only 39 per cent of the same group said the same in the rest of the UK. That study also concluded that Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds were better informed, more likely to discuss politics with their family, and more likely to have engaged directly with their member of Parliament than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. The message, therefore, is clear. If you want to rejuvenate democratic participation and increase engagement, then governments must take an open and inclusive approach to the voting franchise. It is clear to everyone that the referendum campaign empowered and educated the Scottish electorate like never before. Therefore, I believe that the work undertaken by the Scottish Parliament's devolution committee has been very constructive in developing a strong evidence-based approach to the benefits of extending the voting franchise to our younger citizens. During our evidence sessions, we heard directly from young people themselves, as well as those involved in administering elections and compiling registers. I was pleased that the evidence gathered during those sessions led to a general statement of support from the committee for the legislation. However, the committee also found that we need to improve the manner in which colleges and schools approach the discussion of election issues. I know that others have mentioned it, but it was an area where we found variation in practice across the country, and it is something that needs to be resolved so that all young people are free to debate and to discuss current affairs even during an election period. I very much welcome the comments by the Deputy First Minister in his opening speech this afternoon. I think that that is a very welcome move and a positive move, and hopefully we will resolve the issue for future elections. It is clear that Scotland's future success is dependent on the active participation of our younger citizens. We need their engagement, their intellect, their passion and their interest in improving society for everyone's benefit if we are to succeed as a country. Their inclusion in the voting franchise is a natural extension of the progressive and inclusive politics that flourished during the independence campaign, and I hope that today we will show our faith in them by passing the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. 16 and 17-year-olds have already proven that they can make an important contribution to our national debate. Therefore, my final point is addressed to them. Do not be discouraged by Westminster blocking your right to vote. Your voice in this debate is welcome. It is valued, and it will be heard. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches in our call-on. Annabelle Goldie, up to five minutes please. Thank you very much. Deputy Presiding Officer, phrases like this has been a spirited debate and a contentious debate, and the debate of high emotion hardly seem appropriate. It has been a passionate debate, and I have respected the clear enthusiasm, the sentiment that has been obvious for many contributors on this issue and their genuine pleasure at having secured such a change to the franchise in Scotland for Scottish Parliament and local government elections. The issues that emerged in a chronology or sequence of their own, Deputy Presiding Officer, are the process that began with the Smith agreement in the section 30 order. I have to say that this is not a phrase that I often use about debates in this Parliament. There were some sweet moments, and the Deputy First Minister himself was the architect of one of those sweet moments, with his fulsome praise for the United Kingdom Government and for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am very welcome for the present, maybe for the future. It might be a precedent, I live in hope. To be fair, Lewis Macdonald referred to the smoothness of the progress of the bill. As we have discussed, that was important because of the timetable and the work that will now fall in electoral registration officers. Again, I would join in the praise to the committee that looked at the bill and to my friend the parliamentary deity sitting so patiently up there at the back as convener of that committee. I think that his phrase was, this is a bit of history, and indeed that is exactly what it is. A number of contributors commented on the new lexicon, which is the political literacy. I suppose a phrase, apposite in its own way, descriptive, seems a bit sexless. Maybe we could come up with something snazzier than that. Nonetheless, the concept is vitally important. Of course, I am indebted to the Deputy First Minister for the comments that he made about that, comments that were echoed by others. I might observe, Deputy Presiding Officer, that if political literacy is the jargon that we are going to use, let that not detract from good old-fashioned literacy and numeracy, which is a deputy First Minister knows or so dear to the heart of my party. Malcolm Chisholm, in a thoughtful contribution, referred to the longer-term implications of what all that means. I thought that that was an interesting and reflective contribution. It could be a catalyst for more education in schools, something obviously conceived in the mind of the Deputy First Minister. I was struck by Mr Chisholm's spirit of ambitious adventure when he suggested that we might even proselytise to Westminster on their discussions and the merits of lowering the voting age. Let me say in all seriousness that the model that has been deployed in this Parliament, both the independence referendum franchise and on this issue, is just that. I think that it is a model. I think that it is a very good example of how to deal with legislation, and others in another place will have to come to their decision about the franchise for other elections. On this broad theme of political literacy, Alison McInnes also mentioned the need to resolve these inconsistencies of approach, and I think that we have all been reassured by what the Deputy First Minister was saying on that front. We all recognise that this is an issue, as I said in my own contribution, not an issue that is by any means insurmountable, but it will need focus and it will need wise leadership and guidance to make sure that we try and iron out these particular rucks in the material. I thought that there were some very positive contributions about legacy. What are we hoping will be the outcome of all of this? Lewis MacDonald, for example, highlighted what he hoped would be better engagement by young people with the political process. He hoped for heightened interest, and specifically mentioned the youth Parliament. Bruce Crawford cited evidence of the referendum, which I think that we would all agree with as indicating that levels of engagement by young people are very encouraging. On the question of legacy, Alison McInnes looked ahead to the future and said that she hoped that there would be improved turnout and, perhaps even as we get to our local authority elections, improved turnout there. I think that that is something that we would all welcome, because that has been an area of concern for many, not just in the political arena, but for those in the wider electorate. Ms Gordon, could you dot a close please? Thank you. I was trying to pad this out as best I could, Deputy Presiding Officer, but if you tell me I must close, that is music to my ears. It has been a good debate, and it has been a pleasure to take part in it. Many thanks, and I now call on Duncan McNeill up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I echo the comments from the Deputy First Minister and indeed others. I thank all who have brought this bill in on time to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish elections, the Devolution and Further Powers Committee, which I was not on at that time, so I can clearly express fulsome congratulations to the convener and that committee for all the hard work and speedy work that it did, described by Lewis MacDonald as the minimum of fuss and the maximum gain. I think that sums up achieving what they did indeed in a very short period of time. The other issues that have been mentioned—indeed, again, my Deputy First Minister and Annabelle Goldie and others—is the whole question. It sounds a bit, I do not know, political literacy. I think that it is welcome to hear that and recognise that, while achieving the vote, there is about sustaining engagement, which is just as important. Lewis MacDonald reminded us that, as well as new young people registering, there was a whole lot of other people who registered in and around that referendum, who expressed an interest in politics. I will make a case here for the Scottish Parliament and the legacy over the past 15 or 16 years with its political education programme, which has allowed tens of thousands of young people, some of them who visited this Parliament many years ago, who were voters in the referendum, recognising this place, as we all wanted it to be, the focus of political discussion in Scotland and, of course, their Parliament, open, inclusive and available to all, including young people. Bob Doris. Thank you for giving me a little bit of the opportunity to draw the Parliament's attention to the fact that we met a number of 16 and 17-year-olds today in Parliament, who were young carers and put on record the vital role and contribution that they make to society. Will Duncan McNeill agree with me that he is a powerful example of why 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland should be able to vote in Scotland's elections? Bob Doris makes a very, very good point, as Bruce Crawford did in terms of the Scottish Youth Parliament and its contribution. I think that Malcolm Chisholm mentioned his role in campaigning. Of course, again, as I continue to make the point for the committees of the Parliament, the level engagement that we have had today, as with the folk of young carers, making representation on the care bill that is going through Parliament today, the young people who made representation and worked with us to develop our report on access to community support, and the young people who we had access to discussing the very difficult situation of poverty and inequality. All of those young people have worked very, very hard indeed. In previous debates, people have reflected on the words of young people and expressed through words their desire to participate fully in our democracy here in Scotland. However, what won them, the demand that was referred to by Stuart Maxwell? It is a gift of all, but it is not a gift that was given. They made the demand, but it was not their words that were powerful, but their actions that were powerful. Throughout that process, they did not just register to vote in record numbers, they participated in the campaigns, acted in both sides of the debate, joined political parties sometimes as a consequence and have remained active since in other areas. They have made the case in action louder than words and deserve the result that they will receive tonight when this Parliament votes to give them the vote that they have demanded. We need to ensure that. The other one of the committees in the wider, broader one, Bruce, when we mentioned the devolution of further powers committees, we discussed today greatly—I do not think that it is any secret, although I think that it was in private session, but there is work going on to bring about from that committee a citizen's guide, that is what it is called, a citizen's guide to this whole process. I think that that could be very useful in sustaining that engagement and indeed not just for young people but for the whole population of Scotland, for the new situation that we find ourselves in, with a new demographic bringing younger and more vibrancy to our democratic process and true balance with that knowledge that our older voters have. I look forward to passing that along with everybody else into a lot tonight to give those young people the vote. Thank you, Ms McNeill. Can I call on John Swinney to wind up the debate? Presiding Officer, can I begin with one of the remarks that my colleague Stuart Maxwell made, which I think was, in a sense, captures the sense of this debate tonight. It was not the case that Parliament had come to the conclusion after taking a lot of evidence and considered persuasion that it had come to the view that it was now right to enable young people to be able to vote in elections. Sixteen and seventeen-year-olds in Scotland have argued for this, aspired for this and have delivered it. It is their achievement of winning that argument convincingly. To get to the point where all political parties are signed up to that position is a particular achievement for the young people of Scotland that there is the climate of the debate that we have today. In getting to that point, we have received from young people in Scotland across a whole range of different interventions. A lot of representation is on this point. Whether it has been from the Scottish Youth Parliament, which I have to say to Parliament, has been one of the great innovations of Parliament. I met some of the members of the Scottish Youth Parliament this morning in advance of today's debate. The organisations such as Young Scot who were also participating in the discussions that I had this morning and NUS Scotland, all of whom have given comprehensive evidence to the Parliamentary Committee to inform the debate and to marshal the argument why it was right and appropriate for young people to be able to exercise their right to vote in parliamentary and local authority elections within Scotland. That right has been aspired to and delivered by the energy and the commitment of young people in our society today. I thought that Duncan McNeill raised another interesting factor and implication of all that. It has not just been about young people essentially turning up to vote on a particular day. It is about a degree of participation that, frankly, many of us have not seen in our country for some considerable time. That is something about which we should be enormously encouraged as a country. Young people believe that they have an active and participative role to perform in our society, not just on the particular Thursday that happens to be that we all turn up to vote in elections, but also to participate in formulating some of the wider thinking about the direction of our country. If we look at some of the issues that Parliament addresses and considers, almost invariably our deliberations are informed by the input, the view and the perspective of younger people being able to contribute in that way. We should look back on the whole process of how we have arrived at the situation that 16 and 17-year-olds are going to be able to acquire the right to vote in Scottish and local authority elections by unanimity of this Parliament in just a few minutes' time. I recognise that that has been created by the aspiration and the willingness of participation in our democratic and civic process by the young people of Scotland. I think that we should, across the spectrum, unreservedly welcome that point. It leads, of course, on to a further challenge for us, because we should not allow it just to stop here, and we have to find the other ways that Malcolm Chishol made this point in his contribution of how we encourage and motivate young people to be very active participants and engage participants in a wide variety of different elements within the democratic process. Over the course of the exchanges in the debate today, I think that the one issue where there has been some further additional new thinking has been on the question of political literacy. I hear what Annabelle Goldie says about the terminology. I suspect that I would prefer a different term, because I find it rather difficult to say political literacy without pausing for too long. Perhaps we will work on a different term, but I am determined to make sure that we do the proper work that is required to make sure that we have a much more consistent approach on the question than the one that Annabelle Goldie expressed to Parliament during the stage 1 proceedings, which I think best was inconsistent to be charitable across the country, and it needs to be more consistent. I would like to make two final points in concluding the debate. One of them is about the process, the political process that we have gone through here. There are more Conservative members here for the debate, but I am sure that Ms Goldie will share with them the generous remarks that I was making about the Secretary of State for Scotland and the process earlier on. It goes to show that where political will exists on both sides to make progress on the devolution of powers and responsibilities can actually happen in a pretty straightforward, orderly fashion. I simply put on record my hope that, as we go through the further stages of the devolution of responsibilities under the Scotland Bill, we perhaps try to learn the lessons of the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill and apply that to some of the processes that, at the outset, look to me as if they are heading for pretty tortuous discussions in advancing the way in which we can devolve responsibilities to this Parliament in a way that is more efficient and more effective and enables us to make the necessary progress on acquiring the powers and the responsibilities where the evidence and the information and the consensus of stakeholder opinion enables us to get there in a quicker and a more decisive fashion. That will be an approach taken forward by the Scottish Government, but I do hope that we can see some of that from the eraethau Cymru. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister and I share the view that positive intergovernmental relations will be very important to the period ahead, but for the avoidance of doubt will he confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland to pass the section 30 order forward so quickly and efficiently is not the same as the Secretary of State for Scotland to be. I am not sure whether I have followed Mr Macdonald's point, but I do not think that there was. I am pretty sure that all of this was done under Mr Mundell's stewardship, but I am not going to get distracted on this particular point. I am sure that the record will speak for itself, but I do hope that we have. I am not sure whether that was Lewis Macdonald trying to salvage something for Alistair Carmichael, but if it was, it would have been a good luck term. I think that it is important that good intergovernmental work can speed up the process. The final point that I want to make is that, as we have been debating the issue, and as Parliament is about to vote unanimously to extend the vote to 60 and 17-year-olds, I am led to believe that the House of Commons voted by 310 votes to 265 votes against extending the voting franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds in the EU referendum. That is clearly a democratic decision for the House of Commons to arrive at, and it is their entitlement to do so. I think that it is something that illustrates the different political culture and different political debate that is going on in Scotland today. We have to look at that debate in a fashion that allows us on this question. We are going to come to a different conclusion. I think that there are plenty of other issues on which we can come to different conclusions. Members of Parliament need to think about the basis on which we are taking our decisions, the things that are influencing, the questions that are influencing our decisions, the factors and the evidence and the attitudes that provide within the community in Scotland that say that it is absolutely a total given that 16 and 17-year-olds should be voting in parliamentary and local authority elections, and to recognise that has been different to the prevailing culture elsewhere within the United Kingdom. Simply reflect that different simple political culture in the decisions that we arrive at and which we are about to take in Parliament this afternoon. That concludes the debate on the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 13529 in the name of John Swinney on the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to and the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill is passed. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.