Elections Bill

In 11 years, I have never once had a problem with my card until now—honestly.

The UK Elections Bill is highly complex and highly controversial. I am pleased that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee agrees with my assessment that legislative consent should not be granted.

The bill will have a profound impact on voters and electoral administrators in Scotland, not just in relation to holding UK general elections here but by putting pressure on us to act in a similar way. It is therefore important for the Scottish Parliament to have the opportunity to discuss it.

I am strongly opposed to several of the bill’s proposals for reserved elections. In particular, it is apparent to many people across the political spectrum that voter identification for UK general elections would disenfranchise a substantial number of people. I agree with Ruth Davidson—that is not something that members will often hear me say—on her description of the proposal as

“trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”.

I will not read the full quote, because, as you know, Presiding Officer, I do not believe in using bad language in the chamber, and Ms Davidson is very strong in her disagreement with the proposal.

Where is the need for such an expensive and disruptive change? What happened to promoting participation by our most vulnerable citizens? As the UK Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded, the evidence base

“simply is not good enough.”

The committee rightly called for a pause to allow “further research and consultation”.

The voter ID policy will, in effect, create another barrier for individuals going to a polling station. We would have completely different scenarios for devolved elections and elections for Westminster. Furthermore, the Tories should not be talking about the Electoral Commission, because part of the problem is that they have already ridden roughshod over it.

I am concerned by the bill’s proposal to require applications for postal votes for reserved elections to be renewed after three years. That is another example of people being disenfranchised. It would mean an end to voters being able to make one application for a postal vote for all elections. It represents a significant loss to many voters—our constituents. By unilaterally setting the period at three years for reserved elections, the UK Government is, in effect, pressuring us all to follow suit to avoid confusion for voters. That could be said about every single other aspect of the bill.

We should be proud of what devolution has already achieved in elections policy. For example, we have extended votes to foreign nationals and to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have developed the role of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which was vital in co-ordinating last May’s successful election.

We should not be obliged to adapt our law to whatever the UK Government considers to be appropriate, especially where there is no evidence base or compelling argument for a change. That is especially so in relation to the proposals from UK ministers to issue a statement directing the Electoral Commission’s work in overseeing elections. That seems to risk interference with the commission’s independence.

Indeed, as Louise Edwards, director of regulation at the commission, said to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee,

“The strategy and policy statement would put one political party—in essence, it would be one political party—in a privileged position of influence above all others and above all its political competitors. That is the point at which it would impact on confidence and on the integrity of elections, because it would impact on our independence.”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 18 November 2021; c 11.]

That is the director of regulation at the commission saying how difficult—impossible, in fact—the commission’s position will be made by this power grab by the UK Government.

Our legislative consent memorandum rejected the proposal that UK ministers should able to include devolved elections within the terms of the statement. It is a reflection of the lack of respect for devolution that runs through the bill that there would have been a simple requirement only to consult Scottish and Welsh ministers in relation to devolved elections. Our views could have been entirely ignored and there would have been no role at all for any of us in this building or for this Parliament.

Even with consent refused, any statement in relation to reserved elections could feed through to the commission’s handling of devolved votes. My Welsh counterpart and I therefore suggested placing a duty on UK ministers to consult us in relation to the statement in its entirety. Even that simple concession was rejected out of hand. I would be happy to hear what Mr Kerr has to say about that simple concession.

That is a massive overstatement. The commission has endorsed some of those things. As the member has already made clear from a sedentary position, he knows all about alternative facts.

My final major concern is that the bill casually seeks to replace our existing legislation on digital imprints. We were the first part of the UK to require an imprint to identify the source of electronic election material. By taking an extremely broad view of the internet service reservation—a view that we continue to contest—the UK Government is effectively trampling over a law already made by this Parliament.

The bill includes a number of changes, for example on undue influence and intimidation, where I can see merit in having something similar in Scotland. But, as I explained to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, there is no need to rush. The first major devolved election after the UK bill becomes law will be held in 2026. We should take time to assess the proposals and consult during this year on the best way forward. For me, that would ensure the opportunity for full consultation with stakeholders to find the best way for us here in Scotland to take our elections forward and it would allow us to have our own legislation at a later date, in time for our Scottish elections.

It is clear to me that this Parliament should consider its own legislation on these issues. We should not accept unsatisfactory and troubling reforms made at Westminster simply as a matter of administrative convenience. We should be very aware of some of the threats that the bill makes to the Electoral Commission.

I look forward to hearing members’ views on the bill from across the chamber.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees not to consent to the UK Elections Bill, as it is for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on electoral law in relation to Scottish Parliament and local government elections; notes that the Scottish Government intends to consult on a number of electoral reforms later in 2022 with a view to bringing forward legislation; expresses its concern that proposals in the UK Elections Bill in relation to reserved elections risk disenfranchising voters, and threatening the independence of the Electoral Commission; notes that the proposal to require voter identification could infringe the human rights of people without a form of identification; supports the agreement of the Scottish Parliament Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to the Scottish Government’s position that legislative consent is required in relation to digital imprints in devolved elections, and opposes the moves by the UK Government to effectively replace existing Scottish legislation on digital imprints by applying an unacceptably broad interpretation of the internet services reservation.

On Mr Kerr’s key theme of listening to the electorate, is it not the case that, if there was respect for the process of devolution, the UK Government would, while I was having discussions with it and my Welsh counterpart, have respected and listened to us and possibly given some ground on some of the many issues that we have problems with?

In my speech, I mentioned Ruth Davidson and her description of the idea of voter ID. Does the member agree with the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who is now in the House of Lords? She said that the provisions on voter ID are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

I will add to Mr Bibby’s assertion. According to David Davis, 88 allegations of in-person voter fraud were made between 2015 and 2019, out of 153 million votes. That includes three separate general elections. I do not think that there is a problem of voter ID fraud.

Before we move to the open debate, I remind all members who want to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons.

Bob Doris joins us remotely.

Let me start where there is agreement. Various aspects of devolved competence on elections might need revision, including clarification in law of what constitutes undue influence on voters, notional expenditure in relation to the application of the rules on campaign expenditure at devolved elections, regulation of expenditure for political purposes and disqualification of offenders from holding elected office. The Scottish Government and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, of which I am deputy convener, agree on that.

The UK Government sought consent to address those matters within a Westminster bill that is, in other areas, highly controversial and should be rejected.

The majority position of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is that reforms should be agreed and implemented by Scotland’s Parliament, and consulted on by the Scottish Government, with a view to introducing Scottish legislation that takes account of that consultation. The committee agrees that the Scottish Government should not recommend legislative consent.

A dark shadow looms over the UK Elections Bill. That shadow is the intention to bring in photographic voter ID for voters in UK elections. I acknowledge that, under the current constitutional arrangements, that is wholly a matter for the UK Government. However, the ramifications for voters in Scottish elections might be significant and cannot be ignored by Scotland’s Parliament.

A policy to bring in voter ID suggests that electoral fraud is widespread in UK elections. However, research has shown that only 0.7 per cent of poll workers were concerned that there might have been electoral fraud at their polling stations—indeed, the issue was often confusion rather than actual fraud.

The case for reform has not been made and the result of voter ID pilots leads me to believe that a consequence—intentional or otherwise—of the approach would be voter suppression. Dr Alistair Clark, who is a reader in politics at Newcastle University, identified evidence from the pilots that showed that, in some areas, more than 30 per cent of voters who went to vote but were turned away did not return with their ID: they did not come back. In the pilots, 52.4 per cent of poll workers reported turning voters away because they did not have appropriate identification. More than 23 per cent of poll workers encountered people who came to the polling station but decided simply not to vote because they did not want to comply with voter ID verification requirements.

Voter ID for UK elections will be a barrier to groups that already experience barriers to voting and are least likely to vote in the first place. I will mention just four such groups: many disabled people, people from black and minority ethnic groups, younger voters and voters from our most deprived communities. The introduction of voter ID will be wholly counterproductive to our efforts to encourage people who do not vote to do so, and to encourage those who are not even registered to vote—many of whom are our most excluded citizens—to take the first step in engaging with the democratic process.

There should be no doubt that the bill will have an impact on devolved elections. It will cause unwelcome confusion and will alienate many voters. Many voters might be deterred from registering to vote and from casting their vote in devolved elections. The UK Government’s voter ID reforms have a whiff of voter disenfranchisement—deliberate or otherwise—about them. Our Parliament should have no association with a bill that is designed to deliver such disenfranchisement, so I support the Scottish Government’s rejection of the bill.

Could you bring your remarks to a close, please?

I remind members that we do not have any time in hand. Therefore, if members accept interventions, which is entirely up to them, they must accommodate that time in their own speeches.

When we think of the cornerstones of democracy, a few things come to mind. In the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the concept is projected in the statement:

“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”

In a free and fair society, it is the will of the people that prevails, and it is the will of the people that the UK Elections Bill seeks to undermine.

In September 2021, a report that was published by the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights raised concerns about the introduction of voter ID. The committee stated:

“The Government must explain why they have concluded that a voter ID requirement at polling stations is necessary and proportionate given (i) the low number of reported cases of fraud at polling stations, (ii) the even lower number of convictions and cautions; (iii) the potential for the requirement to discriminate against certain groups; and (iv) the lack of any clear measures to combat potential discrimination faced by those groups, including disabled people and older people.”

I, too, am eagerly awaiting that explanation, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument that the proposals are, in fact, necessary and proportionate.

In a small number of pilots that were carried out at local elections in 2018 and 2019, more than 1,000 people were turned away for not having the right ID and subsequently did not come back.

I am afraid that I do not have time. I am going to plough through.

It does not take much to imagine how those numbers would soar if we were to scale up that approach in a local election. In fact, the Electoral Reform Society, citing the UK Government’s own statistics, says that 38 per cent of Asian voters, 31 per cent of people with mixed ethnicity and 48 per cent of black citizens do not currently hold any form of photo ID. Research that was carried out by the Cabinet Office found that it was also more common for respondents with disabilities to say that a requirement for photo ID would make them less likely to vote.

The information that I have given should be enough on its own to ensure that any person who is even remotely interested in preserving democracy and democratic integrity should denounce this bill for what it is: a tool of voter suppression that is guaranteed to affect the most marginalised communities in our society and, perhaps, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, the most bizarre case yet of Trumpian mimicry by the Conservatives.

I share the concerns that have been expressed by my friend in the Welsh Senedd, Rhys ab Owen. We have issued a joint statement setting out those concerns, and we would like to thank the #HandsOffOurVote campaign for its support in this area.

We have seen examples of measures to increase electoral participation such as extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds as well as to foreign nationals. Scotland has also introduced a fairer electoral system for local elections via the adoption of the single transferable vote. However, the Elections Bill signifies that the Tories would prefer to move in the opposite direction and force increased use of the already problematic first-past-the-post system, threaten the independence of the Electoral Commission and disenfranchise even more voters along the way.

In conclusion, one thing is clear in all of this: Westminster is not working for anyone right now. Amidst the shambolic display of disdain for the electorate that is currently being evidenced, the UK Government’s insistence on pursuing an authoritarian and hostile agenda poses the greatest risk of all to our most basic freedoms. As the human rights activist Loung Ung declared:

“Voting is not only our right—it is our power.”

We cannot let that power slip through our fingers.

I am delighted to speak in the debate. I was fortunate to be a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee when it considered the bill in detail.

The UK Elections Bill is first and foremost an attack on democracy by the UK Government—the UK Tory Government whose own Scottish party wants to change its own Prime Minister because it does not think that he has the moral authority to lead the UK. Belief in our democratic processes is of key importance to the governance of a healthy democracy.

In my short speech, I will focus on what I see as the main issue. There is no need for legislation on voter ID. Surely the need for any legislation should be evidence based, so let us look at that. Cases of voter fraud are almost non-existent, with just one conviction—that is one—and one caution being dealt out for personation offences at elections that were held in 2019.

Is the bill a tactic by Tories to secure their vote while shutting out citizens—particularly marginalised groups—from contributing to our democracy? Age UK has said that 500,000 older citizens would not vote if the scheme was introduced, and similar fears of disenfranchisement have been expressed by black, Asian and minority ethnic groups and disability groups.

It is estimated that between 2 and 4 per cent of the UK population do not have ID that would be suitable for the voting requirements under the bill, which represents 2.1 million people. Black and ethnic minority voters will be hugely affected by the plans; 48 per cent of black people in the UK do not hold a form of photo ID.

The bill is a serious threat to our efforts to build an open, inclusive and diverse democracy. At its heart, our democracy should make the voting process as easy as possible, but voter ID fundamentally makes the process harder.

In evidence sessions, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard from various groups about accessibility issues. Numerous disability advocacy groups spoke strongly against the principle of voter ID and talked about how it would impact on disabled voters, who already find the process difficult. Other evidence was about the need to focus on how we reach areas that have a high level of deprivation.

We need to undertake and support initiatives that encourage people to vote. That is not just a personal view of mine. On 13 December last year, the UK Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said:

“The introduction of the voter ID requirement will remove an element of the trust inherent in the current system between state and individual, and make it more difficult to vote. We are concerned that the evidence to support the voter ID requirement simply is not good enough.”

This Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee noted:

“There was significant concern among Committee members that there could be up to 150,000-200,000 voters in Scotland”

alone

“without the forms of identification that the Bill proposes would be required ... to cast a vote. The Committee is concerned that this will mainly affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds or disabled people and could act as an additional barrier to those voters.”

Proposed changes on voter ID and postal votes for reserved elections will also cause widespread confusion for Scottish voters. There is a danger that inconsistency between reserved and devolved elections on voter ID rules might impose even greater stress, confusion and cost on voters. Further confusion will be caused by the need for postal voters in UK Parliament elections to reapply every three years, whereas the requirement to reapply is only every five years in Scotland. The Scottish Government could face pressure to align the devolved voting system to match the reserved system, which would represent indirect interference in devolved elections by the UK Government.

Today, the whole Scottish Parliament—except the Tories—is against the bill. The move to voter ID is counterproductive and a barrier to a vibrant democracy and it should be resisted.

I call Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by Stephanie Callaghan. Given the fact that the debate has been truncated, Stephanie Callaghan will be the last speaker in the open debate.

You should probably bring your remarks to a close, Ms Hamilton.

I add my thanks to my colleague George Adam for securing this important Scottish Government debate.

Despite the stark divide between my politics and those of the Conservative Party, I have always thought that we share a universal bond when it comes to upholding the fundamental right to vote. However, with the passage of the UK Elections Bill through the House of Commons, even that last bastion of consensus has been irrevocably undermined.

Across the world, throughout the modern age, people have fought, and even died, for the right to vote. As a young student in Hamilton, I door knocked on local streets to persuade people to register to vote. I am truly saddened by the attempt to reverse many years of hard-fought democratic progress. Such progress was demonstrated here in Scotland when we extended the election franchise to 16 and 17-years-olds and to refugees. The UK Elections BiIl undermines Scotland’s progress of democracy by seeking to suppress votes and reduce the franchise to address a problem that, as many others have said, does not really exist.

As other members have pointed out, in 2019, there was only one conviction and one caution relating to proven voter fraud, but the bill risks disenfranchising millions of voters, including people with disabilities and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as younger and older voters. It is nothing short of disgusting.

Many such points have been repeated, but they are very important, such as Age UK stating that 500,000 older citizens would not vote or the fact that up to 2.1 million people are without suitable ID. It is shameful that the digitally excluded, the vulnerable and many of those who are already living on the very edges of our society should be marginalised further. Yes, some things need attention when it comes to conducting UK elections, but one of those things should not be to exclude voters.

If the Tories were truly serious about wanting to improve our voting system, why do they not look at ways to ensure that the 9 million people who are currently missing from the electoral roll in the UK are brought into the democratic process? If they wish to protect our democracy, why do they not propose banning anonymous political party donations and investigating dark money? Why not implement the findings of the 2020 Russia report?

It is noted in the motion, and it has been mentioned many times, that the bill would give UK ministers new powers over the work of the Electoral Commission, risking the independence of the election watchdog at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low. That is far from okay, for all the reasons that others have mentioned.

As with others, my concerns about the bill are heightened by the wider legislative agenda that the UK Government is pursuing. Its agenda is on a collision course with a whole series of democratic freedoms, from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill to proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems as though the Tories are attempting a full frontal assault on our democracy while we are distracted by the hypocrisy and lies that are coming from all the partying in Downing Street. However, that is not going unnoticed.

The UK Elections Bill is horrific. It is a serious attack on our democratic traditions. I fully support the Scottish Government’s motion and the Labour amendment. It saddens me that any member in this chamber should wish the Scottish Parliament to consent to such flawed legislation. The constituents we represent, particularly those who are directly impacted by the discredited Elections Bill, are counting on us to protect their voting rights and they are counting on us to resist this retrograde legislation. We in this chamber should not let them down.

Will Donald Cameron give way?

Where to start, Presiding Officer, with everything that we have heard in the chamber today?

I have known Donald Cameron since he entered Parliament in 2016. He is a decent person, but he has to understand that it is not only SNP members and the Scottish Government who are saying these things; it is the whole chamber, across the parties—everyone bar the Conservatives. If someone was to take a cold, hard look at the issue, they would have to ask why, in the times in which we live, every single political party bar the Conservatives was agreed on the issue. It is logical to say that the bill is an attack on devolution and on what we have all stood for over all these years.

Let us all remember that it is for the Scottish Parliament to decide how we address devolved elections. If something comes out from our consultation on Scottish Parliament elections, which we will undertake later on this year, we will look at that for future election bills.

I have a few points to make before I go any further.

The issue of voter ID has—rightly—taken up the vast bulk of the debate, because the bill will result in a type of voter suppression, as Neil Bibby said. Someone who had voted at the same polling station for 30 years would turn up there for Scottish Parliament and local elections to find a completely different process from that of a Westminster election held at the same polling station. Let us not forget that the UK Government has still not told us when the UK election would be—it might be close in time to one of ours.

On voter ID, let us talk about intimidation and suppression.

Mr Bibby illustrates my point. That situation would cause total confusion for the electorate and even more difficulty for the administrators who would have to deal with it.

The UK Government is bringing in the might of the United Kingdom civil service to create a voter ID system in response to three people being tried in 2019, of whom only one was convicted—three were charged, and one was convicted. That seems a lot of bother to go to for one individual. That individual might be sitting at home, watching this debate and saying, “Job done! I have managed to spend millions of pounds of UK money.”

Although the bill is limited to UK elections, as I said, it risks causing chaos in devolved by-elections.

Let me get some myth busters across. On engagement with UK ministers, I acknowledge that UK Government ministers have kept us informed during the development of the bill, but setting out what they intend to do without any room for debate is not collaboration in any shape or form. The UK Government has a take-it-or-leave-it approach. The barely stated message is that the devolved Parliaments should adopt the changes to avoid voter confusion and administrative challenges. That is not what I believe negotiation to be.

On working across the UK, I am not opposed to developing common election approaches across the UK, where that will bring benefits for voters and the administrators. There was constructive work between the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments as part of preparations to hold elections safely last year.

I have had several helpful discussions with the Welsh minister responsible for elections policy. We agree on the bill. It is the UK Government that is creating difference and divergence and that is unilaterally making radical changes to electoral law and pressuring all of us to follow suit.

Yes. I was just about to talk about Mr Kerr.

With his hyperbole and overstated points, Mr Kerr once again behaves as if he is at Westminster. We take a more common, normal approach in the Scottish Parliament.

Stephen Kerr told us in his opening speech to listen to the electorate. He also said that I was understating my ability to sell our position to the UK Government. The problem for Mr Kerr is that no one is listening to him, and they will not change their minds. He still has not said whether he agrees with Ruth Davidson, who said that this is an attempt to solve a problem that is not actually there.

Mr Bibby made a passionate speech—as we are competitors in Paisley, it is not often that either of us has said that about the other. He said that voter ID is voter suppression.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has members from both houses of the UK Parliament, said:

“Elections must be both secure and accessible ... Any discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to vote would fall foul of article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights if there was no objective and reasonable justification for the measures imposed. Introducing a voter ID requirement would be a breach of article 14 as read with article 3 of protocol 1 unless it is both necessary and proportionate.”

Even Westminster committees have severe reservations about voter ID.

As I said, the SNP and Labour take the same position on this. I have worked with my Welsh colleague Mick Antoniw MS, the Welsh Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution. In a debate in the Senedd last week that was very similar to this one, he said:

“I have previously expressed my grave concerns about provisions in the UK Government’s Elections Bill which are a shameless attempt at voter suppression. Through the requirement for voter ID, the Conservative Party is brazenly seeking to limit participation in elections and to change the law for partisan advantage.”—[Record of Proceedings, Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament, 26 January 2022]

The Conservatives have managed to unite—with the exception of themselves—not just this Parliament, but the Welsh Parliament, where it has been said that the bill is an absolute attack on those who want to go out to vote. If the Conservative Party was being reasonable and showing common sense, it would surely say to us that it would look at the matter again.

Alex Cole-Hamilton explained much of the threat—

—that the bill represents to our democracy, given the provisions on voter ID.

This has been a good debate. It has shown that this Parliament has a voice and that it is shouting towards Westminster that we do not want anything to do with the UK Elections Bill. When it comes to changing votes for our elections, it will be this Parliament—this place—that decides.