Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill: Stage 1

I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill, which is a single-issue bill that fixes an inadvertent gap in existing legislation.

In December 2024, the Scottish Parliament unanimously approved the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill at stage 3. That bill included provision that was intended to extend candidacy rights in Scottish Parliament and local government elections to all foreign nationals with limited leave to remain. Earlier this year, it was discovered that, regrettably, an error meant that Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain were unintentionally excluded from the extension of candidacy rights at local elections. As a result, those individuals do not currently have the right to stand as candidates in local government elections in Scotland. It is important to be clear that that is a limited and specific gap that applies only in relation to local government—there is no equivalent gap affecting members of this Parliament. The oversight affects only Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain who wish to stand for election to and hold office in local government.

The current situation is not what the Government intended, and it is clear that it was not the intention of Parliament in unanimously agreeing to the changes to candidacy rights in 2024. During the evidence sessions that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee had on the bill, administrators and academics agreed that there was no logical reason for a difference in rights between Commonwealth and other nationals. I do not believe that that difference should remain in place. The law should be changed to be clear and consistent in time for the local government elections in May next year. The bill will mean that Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain will have the same rights as all other foreign nationals who are resident in Scotland for the upcoming elections in May.

Thomas Kerr asked me a question on that the other week. It is important that we engage during the process of undertaking to legislate in this place. We go through a process of thorough consultation; we put out a consultation and ask questions to inform the legislation that we take forward. In this case, the consultation informed the legislation in a number of ways.

We initially intended to legislate to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for both Parliament and council elections. People responded to that and opposed it, and our decision in that regard was informed by the views of a range of organisations, which set out reasons why we should not do it. We reflected on those and changed our position.

Beyond that, in general terms, I think that it is beneficial when candidacy rights reflect those who are enfranchised. I think that that is a sensible approach, and that is why we have taken forward the legislation as we have.

However, I recognise that, in its stage 1 report, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee did not agree with the general principles of the bill. I have considered the committee’s recommendations and responded to them in writing. However, I reiterate that the bill deals with only a single issue: it fixes an oversight in legislation that affects a very specific, and small, cohort of people.

I will briefly address one of the committee’s recommendations in its stage 1 report—I should say that I am grateful to the committee for its scrutiny of the bill so far. I will make some observations on the committee’s recommendation that the Government reconsider its wider position on allowing those with limited leave to remain to stand for office in this country. First, the committee is asking the Government to reconsider not simply its position but the wider law on candidacy rights—a law on the statute book that was agreed to by Parliament.

The bill before Parliament today has the extremely narrow purpose of correcting an oversight in legislation that Parliament unanimously approved in 2024. It is not intended to revisit the broader policy framework governing candidacy rights. I remind members that the bill was introduced on an accelerated timescale because of the proximity of May’s elections. I maintain that it is not a vehicle for a substantial change to the law.

The Government would not propose or recommend making substantive changes to candidacy policy so close to an election. We are committed to upholding the Gould principle under which changes to electoral law are expected to be made at least six months prior to a major election.

However, as I set out in my response to the committee’s report, we will give consideration to its recommendation in that regard. I also note that the committee, and indeed the Parliament, is entitled to consider the wider policy on candidacy rights more generally. As I said to the committee in giving evidence and reiterated in my response to its report—and as I set out again today—should the committee choose to undertake work in this area, the Scottish Government will, of course, engage in the process. However, a wider assessment goes beyond the purpose of the specific bill before us, and we should remind ourselves that that is what we are considering today.

To make an assessment of how many people would be entitled to stand, we just need to look at the electoral roll, which is about 4 million people.

I think that the question that the member intended to ask was how many more people will be able to stand. We do not have that specific number, because this area is controlled at United Kingdom level, but we estimate that it would be a very small number indeed.

On the wider point of how many people might stand, which is probably the more fundamental point, we already know that a fairly small proportion of the overall population choose to stand in any election. In the 2022 local government elections, there were 2,548 candidates out of a total of 4 million people who might have been able to stand. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that the change that we seek to make today for a very small cohort of the population is not likely to lead to a massive upsurge in the number of people seeking to hold elected office.

The point that I was making is that we are considering a very narrow area today, and it is important—indeed, it is incumbent on us—to try to fix mistakes when they arise, which is what the bill seeks to do. Failing to address the issue ahead of May’s election would risk confusion.

Rejecting the bill would mean that a Canadian citizen with limited leave to remain would not be able to stand in the election next May, but an American citizen with the same leave to remain could; an Australian citizen with limited leave to remain would not be able to stand, but an Indonesian citizen with the same leave to remain could; and a New Zealand citizen with limited leave to remain would not be able to stand, but a Philippines citizen with the same leave to remain could. If the bill is not passed, urgent action will be required to change election guidance to make that clear.

The issue of foreign interference in elections was discussed during the evidence sessions on the original bill—the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill. I understand and recognise that it is important that we are alive to the reality that there are those who would seek to undermine our democracy, but let us be clear and serious about the fact that there is no evidence that our candidacy rules have opened the door to interference in Scotland.

The fundamental point is that the change that we are seeking to make now is what was expected. People were proceeding on the basis and the understanding that those with limited leave to remain, whether they were Commonwealth citizens or nationals of another country, would be able to stand. To respond to the member’s question, that is why we need to do this now. I go back to the point that there is no evidence to suggest that our candidacy rules have opened the door to significant foreign interference in Scotland.

Actually, I was surprised that Ms Baillie was surprised, because she has been standing in elections for an awful long time—I say that respectfully.

She thought she was checked. Well, I do not know what Ms Baillie is worried about if she thinks she should be checked. I have every faith that, although Ms Baillie is here to hold me robustly to account, she is probably not here to undermine democracy.

I do treat the matter seriously, but the point that I was making, respectfully, is that I was genuinely surprised that Ms Baillie was surprised, because that has been a feature of our electoral system for a long, long time. The member says that people should be checked. This is not directly related to this specific bill but is a wider issue, but I have said in response to the committee’s report that the Government will give consideration to that matter. We have a consultation coming on wider changes to electoral law, and we will consider the matter as part of that. That is what I will do—

I agree that it is very big of me to do that. That is the type of person I am. If a recommendation is made, I will consider it. That is what we are going to do.

I return to the bill. On concerns about foreign interference, I reiterate the point that the bill relates to enabling Commonwealth citizens to stand for election. Commonwealth countries are our friends and allies. On the idea that enabling people from the various countries of the Commonwealth to stand for election is going to undermine our democracy, I would say that I am starting from a very different place from people who have such a perspective. The fundamental point, of course, is that I see no justification at all for there being a difference in rights between Commonwealth citizens and those from non-Commonwealth countries.

We are also not alone in taking this approach. Since 2019, the UK Government has signed five reciprocal treaties with countries that allow—

The treaties allow the citizens of those countries to stand in local government elections in the UK. Those are in place across the UK, and what we are doing here is not unique.

I heard Ms Baillie say that it applies to five countries—I have just said that it applies to five countries. Yes, it is five countries. The point that I would make—[Interruption.]

The point that I would make is that, if we were not to pass the bill and we were not compliant with wider treaty obligations, we would need to think through alternative primary legislation, which we do not have time to pass between now and the elections.

I look forward to hearing what members have to say, and I am sure that we will have a full, thorough and frank debate. I look forward to responding to comments at the end of the debate.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill.

I wish to add some personal thoughts, given what has just happened in First Minister’s question time. This absolutely underlines the importance of committees reviewing legislation. The personalisation of the questions that were directed at the First Minister earlier shows the lack of understanding of how the Parliament operates. This is a committee report. I have found the process uncomfortable. I have questioned my role in it, and I have questioned how I conducted myself. I take my role as an MSP and a committee convener extremely seriously. As far as I am aware, neither Mr Findlay nor Mr Offord has had the responsibility of being a committee convener, and I hope that they never do. I note that neither of them was part of the committee deliberations.

I am pleased to speak on the general principles of the bill on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. As the minister has said, it is a very short bill that intends to fix an error. Its principles, which I will touch on later, were considered and debated when the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill went through the Parliament in the previous parliamentary session. Despite that, the new bill still must be robustly scrutinised. We took evidence from three panels of witnesses: electoral administrators, academics and, finally, the minister. We are very grateful to all those who provided evidence to us.

The bill has been introduced because of a drafting error. It does not help that the law in this area is unnecessarily cluttered. That, in itself, carries an increased risk of legislative reform becoming, in part, a story of mistakes waiting to happen. As a letter that the committee received from the Electoral Commission Scotland explains, the electoral framework is

“fragmented, outdated and increasingly complex, spread across at least 25 major statutes and is the responsibility of three legislatures”.

It is in that context that the error in the 2025 act occurred. I am pleased to note that the minister accepts, in principle, the clear case for consolidating electoral law into one clear statute that everyone can rely on, as we recommended in our stage 1 report.

Before discussing the central aim of the bill, I will touch on two general issues about elections that were raised in evidence. First, witnesses told us that enforcement of the rules relating to the nomination process relies in large part on the good faith of candidates. Electoral administrators usually accept nomination forms at face value without further compliance checks.

Secondly, witnesses reminded us that we live in a time of growing geopolitical tension and that, in some respects, the rules of the game in electoral politics are under ever-increased challenge. International actors increasingly have the tools and motivation to intervene in domestic public affairs. On whether the current arrangements for verifying candidates’ eligibility remain fit for purpose, I welcome the Scottish Government’s willingness to reconsider those as part of its consultation on electoral reform, which will be published later this year.

I think that that was the point that Jackie Baillie was considering. Like her, I was surprised to learn that that does not happen, because I know the stress of filling out those forms correctly and how my agent felt when she delivered my forms to the local authority.

I will now turn to the main point of the bill. It intends to put Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain on an equal footing as candidates in Scottish local elections. The committee accepted that there is a logical case for doing so. Professor Toby James told us that

“the inconsistency”

in the law

“does represent an inequality”.

Nevertheless, the bill has prompted us to reopen the discussion on the principle of extending candidacy rights, given our duty, under the standing orders, to question the principles of the bill. We concluded that we did not support the general principles of the bill, because we did not accept the premise that there should be a general right for non-UK citizens with limited leave to remain to be councillors or MSPs.

What led us to that view? First, Scotland’s approach to candidacy rights for foreign nationals appears to be unusual by international standards. Professor Alistair Clark told us that he had tried to find other countries that extended candidacy rights to those without a permanent right of residence but, in the data sets that he had looked at, he had

“struggled to find any such countries”.—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 8 October 2026; c 5, 11.]

Secondly, the committee did not discern a clear evidence base to justify extending candidacy rights to people with limited leave to remain when the 2025 reforms were introduced.

We also heard that the right to be represented does not directly correlate to the right to be a representative. MSPs and local councillors are elected to serve all constituents, regardless of their constituents’ eligibility to be candidates.

Finally, we live in a time when confidence in politicians and state institutions is fragile. Governments looking to reform electoral law must take the public with them. The consultation on electoral reform that preceded the 2025 act showed that 77 per cent of respondents disagreed with extending candidacy rights to people with limited leave to remain.

I believe that what the committee has done is listen to and reflect on the evidence that we were given. I could turn that around, but I think that that was the important conversation that we had in the committee.

For the reasons that I have set out, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government reconsider its position on allowing foreign nationals with limited leave to remain to stand in Scottish Parliament and local government elections.

In session 6, I was one of the MSPs who voted in favour of the changes to candidacy rights. However, we can sometimes choose to exhibit strength as individuals and humility as parliamentarians by reflecting on and revisiting our decisions. I hope that that goes some way to explaining my response to Q Manivannan’s second intervention.

The minister’s response to the committee indicated an openness to reflect, too. He framed that as being in response to any further scrutiny that the committee may undertake. I suggest to him that there is space for the Scottish Government, within its resources, to do the necessary work here, including in its upcoming new consultation on electoral reform.

I want to end with a clear message. This Parliament has benefited from having representatives with different voices and different life experiences, and so have council chambers across Scotland. I know that, personally, I have, too. The committee strongly supports the principle that our elected representatives should be diverse and, collectively, should look like the communities that they represent. I therefore look forward to listening to the views of the rest of the MSPs in this debate.

14:58

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way, like I did for him?

Will the member take an intervention?

The 77 per cent figure has come up quite a few times. It relates to the consultation responses, from which it is clear that the main concern was about people not being able to remain for the whole parliamentary session. The changes that Labour has made to immigration law mean that many people have to wait 10 years before they can even apply for indefinite leave to remain. Ten years is equivalent to two council terms. When it comes to the 77 per cent figure, the concern that was raised is actually being addressed—sadly, in a way that we would not like it to be addressed—by the cruel policies of Labour immigration law.

I might misquote the member slightly, but I agree with him that although there is an understandable rationale or logic for seeking to correct the legislation, the committee has made wider recommendations. Does he not consider that it would be perfectly possible for us to pass this straightforward and narrow bill to correct the mistake? Then, by all manner of means, if Parliament wanted to reconsider how it approaches the matter, it would be well capable of doing so.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

I share the member’s concern about foreign interference in elections. In recent years, we have seen that much of that has been through cyberattacks, misinformation and disinformation online. Should we not consider that issue when it comes to members of the Parliament changing their views because of pressure on social media—pressure that is coming from a far-right campaign that in many ways is racist?

Given that we are not even a year into this session of Parliament and a member has left, does Alex Cole-Hamilton recognise that we can never be sure that someone will be able to carry out five years of service, no matter what their background is?

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a serving councillor in Dundee City Council.

Due to our shared history and long imperial past, Scotland still lives with the legacy of the Commonwealth, an association of 56 countries around the globe. The benefits of that association were enjoyed in Glasgow this summer, with the successful Commonwealth games, which brought together more than 2,700 athletes from across the globe and gave 177 of our athletes the rare opportunity to perform and compete under our own flag, the saltire. The games also gave us the opportunity to demonstrate the shared values and ethos that hold the Commonwealth together.

I am also proud of the fact that, over the history of the Parliament, we have taken steps to extend the franchise to those who live and work here, and who choose Scotland as their home. In 2020, voting rights were extended to 16-year-olds, and the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Foreign Nationals) Act 2022 ensured that UK Government treaties were followed in order to give nationals from Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain the right to stand for election here.

To give members a flavour of the discussion four years ago, I will read an extract—which I found last night—from the Official Report of the debate back in June 2022. Unfortunately, the member who said this is not currently in the chamber. That member said:

“I would like to mention the importance of helping and supporting people to become candidates for election, including the citizens who will be impacted by the bill and others. It is important that we facilitate that so that people—our friends and neighbours and others in our communities, including those from other countries—feel that they can stand for election. It is incumbent on us, who enjoy the privilege of elected office, particularly in this place, to make that possible.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; c 90.]

Just for the record, those words were spoken by the Parliament’s very own Stephen Kerr MSP. I am sure that he will stand by his words today.

The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 gave foreign nationals with limited leave to remain in the UK the right to stand for election in Scotland, but, as has been said repeatedly, it failed to include Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain the same right. That is the anomaly that the bill seeks to rectify. At present, as the minister has indicated, that means that an American with limited leave to remain can stand in a Scottish election in May but a Canadian in the same circumstances cannot. To someone like me, with deep ties to Canada—a country that was built by Scots and where many of my relatives displaced themselves many decades ago—that does not seem fair.

Unlike members at Holyrood, councillors have to live or work in the council area that they seek to represent, so it matters that our council chambers fully represent all the people who live in those communities.

That is an anomaly that has been pointed out.

If someone is standing as a councillor, certainly for the Scottish National Party, they have to pledge to serve the full term. It is not just that they have to be eligible; they also need to make a commitment to serve the party. The anomaly has to be rectified.

We know that we have to do better in securing fully representative cohorts of candidates. It is still the case in Scotland that only 35 per cent of serving councillors are women and only 2 per cent are from black, Asian or minority ethnic communities. We need to make sure that our communities are fully represented, so I encourage all Commonwealth citizens to become involved in politics and play their part.

Councils work better when all voices are represented around the table. In this sometimes jaded world, it sometimes takes someone from somewhere else to remind us of how amazing where we live is. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to spend some time with Leticia Gonzalez, a Welsh-Argentinian member of the Welsh Senedd for Plaid Cymru. Her passion and enthusiasm for Cardiff were breathtaking.

The passion for an adopted home is palpable. As a councillor, I was lucky enough to be able to attend citizenship ceremonies at which the pride of new Scots shone through. Witnessing someone who wants to make Scotland their home and who wants to make their contribution to the place that they now call home is heartwarming. Sometimes, hostility towards our country comes from closer to home.

You must conclude.

Let us correct the anomaly through the bill. My party’s nationalism has always been civic, not ethnic. My good friend Alyn Smith used to say, “If you’re here, you’re one of us,” and I agree with him.

I will close with some words from Maurice Lindsay, the broadcaster and poet, who wrote in “Speaking of Scotland”:

“Scotland’s a sense of change, an endlessbecoming for which there was never a kindof wholeness or ultimate category.Scotland’s an attitude of mind.”

Our nationalism is civic. Please support the bill at stage 1 and be inclusive.

I kindly ask members to stick to time. I am afraid that we have no time in hand for the debate. I call Kate Campbell.

15:35

I was not intending to speak in this debate because, honestly, I thought that it was going to be a non-event. I read the report: the bill is just correcting a drafting error in previous legislation that was unanimously supported by all parties in 2024, during the previous parliamentary session. Obviously, we have one additional party this session, but still—I thought that the bill was uncontroversial. So, I was pretty surprised to learn that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommendation was that the bill risks

“undermining trust in the democratic process.”

I cannot get my head around that.

The facts are that the law was changed but a drafting error meant that it was not changed for everyone. Previously, people had to have indefinite leave to remain in order to stand for office. The agreement was unanimous—I say it again: it was unanimous—that the law should be changed so that candidacy rights would be extended to include people with limited leave to remain. In error, Commonwealth citizens were not included in the new rules about who could stand in local government elections. That has resulted in the bizarre situation whereby an Angolan citizen resident in Scotland with limited leave to remain can stand for election but a Ghanaian citizen cannot. An American can, but not a Canadian; someone from the Solomon Islands can, but someone from the Marshall Islands cannot. All that we are meant to be doing today is correcting that fundamental inequality.

I disagree with the view set out by the committee that we should not allow people who have limited leave to remain to stand for election. I will go on to explain why. I also think that the point should be made that the committee’s logic is flawed. Far from entrenching the policy and principle that people with limited leave to remain should be allowed to stand for election, not passing the bill would entrench an inequality. The bill would not change the law for MSPs or for people with limited leave to remain who come from all the countries in the whole world, apart from the 53 Commonwealth ones. Those rights were agreed on in 2024—I say it again—unanimously.

We should not forget that the primary reason that the law was changed was to embed the Scottish Government’s principles to align with the “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy: 2024” and have meaningful integration from day 1.

I will take an intervention from Thomas Kerr.

Indeed—at the start of my speech, I made the point that there is an additional party now but that I still found the controversy a little strange.

The principle of meaningful integration from day 1 was to empower individuals who have chosen to make Scotland their home and encourage them to participate fully in the democratic process. The secondary benefit was that it would help encourage diversity, so that our political representation could look more like the communities that we are meant to reflect. I will let you in on a little secret, guys—we are not doing great at that at the moment.

What has changed since 2024? What has convinced those who supported the principles of integration, participation and representation to about-turn on a policy so uncontroversial that not only was it voted for unanimously back in 2024, but there were not even any abstentions? Is it the arrival of Reform in our Parliament? Is it the media storm that Reform has managed to kick up? I seriously hope not. I am looking at the Labour Party, in particular, when I say that.

Is it the—frankly—cruel changes that the UK Government is making to immigration rules? Far from supporting integration—

I will.

I agree. I read the committee report and I found lots to disagree with in it, which is why I am standing here, making this speech in support of the bill. We should certainly listen to what committees say, but it is part of democracy that, when we disagree with them, we should take them to task.

I am disappointed by the position that Labour is taking, and I am also disappointed that, since 2024, its new rules have made it harder for people to get indefinite leave to remain. Those rules make most people’s wait longer. It used to be five years, but it is now 10 years, and that is just to start the application. Some people will be waiting for decades before they can get indefinite leave to remain. That means that there will be more people with limited leave to remain. They may have settled in their communities, opened businesses, started families and built lives around the communities that they live in, and they should be able to represent those communities. They should be encouraged to represent those communities—and, frankly, we need them, because we are failing to represent those communities at the moment, given how utterly undiverse we are.

What has changed? I—

I am afraid that the member must come to a conclusion.

I am coming to a conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer.

What has changed? I really hope that the answer is not a slow creep of capitulation to the culture wars that are being waged by a small number of very vocal people in this chamber, because, if that is what we are witnessing today, trust in our democracy is seriously at risk.

15:41

I have been really disappointed by much of the rhetoric around this debate. When I first came to this place, in 2021, I knew that I was going to disagree with some people. I was prepared for the fact that my views are not universal and I knew that debate was going to happen, that it would often be robust, and that there would be times when arguments were difficult to hear as well as to understand. However, I did not expect to be standing here five years later and frequently having to call out blatant racism from colleagues who are here to represent everyone who lives in their constituencies. I cannot separate the change of tone on the issue from the mentions of “strangers” and banning religious headdresses that we have heard since the election in May.

The bill corrects a drafting error in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025. I remember the bill that became that act going through Parliament in the previous session. Why there was a drafting error and why the bill that we are discussing today is not the first bill that corrects an act that we have had to vote on during my time here, or, indeed, in the past 12 months, are valid questions that I reckon some should be reflecting on.

However, the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill went through unanimously and it gave people rights on the basis of which they may have taken life decisions. In many cases, those people have lived here for years, paid taxes and worked hard, and they will have played a part in returning the 129 people who sit in this chamber. Some of those people may even be stepping up to work hard for their communities as a local councillor next year, and they will be putting themselves forward for election knowing the kind of insidious rhetoric that they are going to expose themselves to. They do not deserve to have the rug pulled out from under them. They deserve only our support and encouragement.

I turn to the earlier comments from the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. In response to an important point from Q Manivannan, she noted that a right to vote should not necessarily correlate with a right to stand, and she was echoed by Jackie Baillie. I reflect that we have all sat here and listened to those members’ comments. I ask those who are listening to this debate to ask themselves whether, if they had limited leave to remain, they would have confidence that they were represented by this Parliament as things stand, never mind in a future where their right to come here had been taken away.

That brings me to a huge piece of context that has been missing from some of the arguments that have been made. Whatever members’ views are on the checks and balances that exist in paperwork when someone puts themselves forward for election, another strong check and balance exists, and that is that people still have to vote for them. Generally, a party has to vet them, and they then have to convince the people they want to represent that they are the one that those people should vote for. They will be subject to hustings, correspondence and media scrutiny. Even in the case of the regional list, the party has to decide that they deserve to be in a position to be elected.

Parties that were in this place at the time when the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill was considered are giving different excuses for their heel turns and different reasons why a simple correction to a bill that was passed unanimously is worth their taking the matter up at First Minister’s question time and putting out deeply concerned statements. That is a response to a far-right campaign that has, as we heard earlier today, been whipped up largely to have a go at a minority ethnic member of this Parliament—one of our colleagues—who not only deserves respect and courtesy as a genuinely lovely, hard-working, friendly and intelligent person, but is also due those things under the code of conduct that we are all subject to.

I encourage all members to think very hard about their principles, to be clear in their own minds about what their views are and to decide which of their beliefs are real. This will not be the last culture war that the Parliament is dragged into and it will not be the last time that colleagues wonder whether it is just easier to give in, due to social media pressure, but if that is what is going to drive a member’s decision making, they should not be here.

We move to closing speeches.

15:45

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

Minister, Ms MacDougall is not taking an intervention.

Will the member take an intervention?

She is not having a debate.

Can we not have comments from sedentary positions, please?

The member acknowledges that the bill has been produced in order to fix an error. She must accept that we could fix that error, and the work that she talks about could still happen.

I call the minister, Jamie Hepburn, to respond to the debate.

15:55

This has been a lively debate, and I am grateful to members for their contributions. Although the provisions in the bill are very limited—I reiterate that point—I understand that there are a variety of views among members across the chamber on the wider policy that underpins the change that it seeks to make. I accept that, but I reiterate what I said earlier: the bill has been introduced for one single, simple purpose, which is to correct an oversight in existing legislation.

I have to say that Julie MacDougall, very much like Mark Simpson, seemed very reticent to engage in any actual debate. I understood that Reform UK members were here to shake the Parliament to its foundations. If they are seeking to do that, they might want to try engaging in some form of interaction when we are having a debate. Although I agreed with Julie MacDougall when she said that there should be consistency in the law, I would simply put to her the point that it seems rather inconsistent to have a position whereby some foreign nationals with limited leave to remain will be able to stand in the council elections next year while a very small cohort who are Commonwealth nationals will not have the same right. That seems inconsistent to me, and the way in which we can resolve that is by passing the bill today.

I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton that it seems surprising that the bill should have caused such a furore, given that it is a very simple proposition to fix a mistake. The bill is printed on four pages—if we strip out its title, the blank page that we always seem to need to include in any bill, for some inexplicable reason, and the names of those who have signed it, it comes to one page of A4 to fix a simple mistake.

Its purpose is to ensure that the law operates as Parliament intended when it unanimously passed the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill in 2024. I hear it said, and it is true, that Reform UK was not elected to Parliament as a party in the previous session. However, the party has on its benches a representative who was elected in the previous session, and, if ever there was a member who was engaged in consideration of that bill at that time, it is Graham Simpson. He was fully engaged in that regard, although he seems rather less involved in this session—he seems to be hidden away by Reform UK these days, for some reason. He voted in favour of the bill, too, and we should get that on the record.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, in its stage 1 report, noted that it disagrees with the underlying policy on candidacy law relating to people with limited leave to remain. As I have set out, the Government will, as members would expect, consider the report that the committee has produced. Nonetheless, I go back to the point that I made in my opening remarks, which I also made at the committee and set out in my response to the report: if the committee wants to look at the issue again, the Government will engage with that process. Mr Eagle says that he is going to propose a bill—if he does so, it is incumbent on the Government to engage with that process, too.

However, we are in the chamber today to discuss one issue: the candidacy rights in local government elections for Commonwealth citizens with limited leave to remain. The bill that is before Parliament today seeks to bring the law into line with the stated intention of a bill for which Parliament voted unanimously less than two years ago. The bill before us does not seek to address the wider merits or otherwise of aspects of our candidacy law; it is about making sure that the law is clear and consistent ahead of the May 2027 local government elections.

I will turn to some of the issues that were raised during the debate. Jenni Minto talked about the challenge presented by the cluttered landscape of elections legislation, which ranges across a large number of different acts passed by different Parliaments. I recognise that, and I agree that it is a challenge. We have responded to the report that the committee produced, and we will give some consideration to that task. I should say, however, that doing so would be no small undertaking. Indeed, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, leading on the UK Government’s Representation of the People Bill, which is currently going through the UK Parliament, said in a debate that

“A full-scale consolidation and simplification would need an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation, which would be the job of more than one Parliament to achieve.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2026; Vol 859, c 1057.]

We should, therefore, go into that with our eyes wide open.

On checks on nomination forms, which Jackie Baillie raised, I have already said that we will consult on that. However, I go back to the point that I made earlier: although the number of candidates in previous council elections is a small proportion of the overall population of Scotland, it would be no small undertaking for returning officers to check the nomination forms of, say, 2,548 candidates, which is the number who stood in 2022. Again, we should go into that proposal with our eyes wide open, because that would be a significant task for returning officers.

As an aside, on the great concern that opening up candidacy rights will lead to a big upsurge in the number of candidates, I note that, in 2007, when candidacy rights were more restricted, there were more candidates for local government than in the most recent election, in 2022.

The next line that is written here in my notes is on public trust in politics, so I turn to that. I absolutely agree with Lorna Slater’s point. Nathan Gill, as the leader of Reform UK in Wales, utterly breached public trust in politics. As far as I am aware, he is a UK national, and he is now serving time in jail for the crime that he committed, acting as an agent for Russia.

I could also mention, as an aside, that the Good Law Project has shown that, since 2010, the Conservatives have accepted £3.5 million from donors with links to Russia, including some after the invasion of Ukraine—but perhaps I will not mention that.

Tim Eagle said that we should not pass the bill, because it will entrench the issue. That is not the most convincing argument; otherwise, we would say that any bill that we tried to take forward would entrench something into the law. We are able to come back to and reconsider the law—that is what we do. We know that laws can be changed. Mr Cole-Hamilton suggested that he might lodge an amendment to introduce a form of review clause. I do not know whether that would be in scope, but I am happy to engage with him. To go back to the point that I made earlier, we will, of course, give consideration to the recommendation of the committee.

This is a simple proposition. I take seriously the issues that have been raised about foreign interference, but it seems somewhat overstated to suggest that a Commonwealth national seeking to be elected to Clackmannanshire Council will do so to be a fundamental threat to the state. The bill is about fixing a mistake that was made in legislation. We want to have consistency and clarity for our electoral administrators ahead of next year’s council elections. We should pass the bill at stage 1.

That concludes the debate on the Scottish Local Government Elections (Candidacy Rights of Commonwealth Citizens) Bill at stage 1.