Hansard

As Parliament knows, this bill has been subject to an expedited process, so that the electoral registration canvass can begin in the autumn. It has been possible for the committee to meet that exacting timetable only because of the co-operation of witnesses and the excellent work of the committee clerks and their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre, who have supported the committee every step of the way. The committee advisers have also been extremely helpful, as has been all the evidence that we have received over the past few months during our deliberations.

The bill, like all legislation, has improved as it has passed through Parliament. The bill that we will vote on this afternoon has been strengthened by changes that have been made as a result of contributions to the consultation and, I hope, proper scrutiny by the committee. As legislators, we would all do well to remember that admitting that something can be done better or that there is still room to improve legislation is not a sign of weakness in Government. Indeed, the strongest Governments are those that can openly discuss issues and realise that they do not always get it right first time. There will be times when political points have to be made on issues, but on matters such as the protection of young people, for example, we have a common agenda. I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister has recognised that this afternoon.

Scottish Labour strongly supports the principle of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and believes that that right should be extended to all elections. If anyone had any doubt about the ability of young people to listen to the debate, engage in the arguments and come to sensible conclusions, they had only to listen to the excellent contributions of the young people who gave evidence to the committee to be reassured on that point. There are, nevertheless, challenges inherent in extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, particularly those who are vulnerable for whatever reason, and much of the committee’s focus was on ensuring that the bill offers them the necessary safeguards and protections. I believe that it now does that. I welcome the advice that has been offered by stakeholders and the testing that has been carried out to ensure the clarity of the canvass forms.

The committee was reassured that service personnel will have the same opportunity to exercise their franchise as they have in elections to the Scottish Parliament. There remains the issue, however, of the children of service personnel who cannot make a service declaration but who will, on this occasion, be old enough to vote. I realise that that is likely to be a small group of people, but I think that it is right that the effort is made to ensure that they can vote. It is a matter of principle and should be pursued. I hope that the necessary provisions can be made during the passage of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, to which this bill is closely allied. I also look forward to hearing from the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and the Ministry of Defence about how they will work together to ensure that service personnel are encouraged to participate.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government lodged an amendment at stage 2 that picked up the points that were made in evidence by members of the Scottish Youth Parliament about cut-off dates being incorporated into the young voters registration form. I had proposed a slightly different way of achieving that end, but I happily accept the cabinet secretary’s version.

Awareness raising was a key element of our deliberations, because it is in everyone’s interest, regardless of their views on separation, to ensure that voters are informed and prepared when they go to vote. We should also aim to ensure that their experience of the process is a positive one. The committee noted that the Electoral Commission has a budget of £1.8 million for advertising and that it was satisfied that it could work with that arrangement. I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for providing yesterday a note of its current plans. I particularly welcome the fact that it has recognised that September 2014 will be a time of transition for many young people who will be leaving home to take up places at university and that it will be important for them to be aware of the provisions concerning proxy votes, because they are likely to be registered at their home address but perhaps living at a new address connected to their university at the time of the referendum. I also welcome the Electoral Commission’s commitment to keep Parliament informed of progress on its plans.

The only issue on which there was a clear political difference in the committee was prisoner voting. The arguments have largely been rehearsed here today in the debate on amendments. I want to be clear about this: Scottish Labour thinks that the issue should be subject to debate, but we believe that the debate must take place in the correct context. We cannot consider voting without looking at the purpose of prison and whether prison is solely a punishment or should, as we believe, have a strong and meaningful role in rehabilitating prisoners.



As we know, there is currently a blanket ban on prisoner voting, and we have heard today arguments in favour of lifting the ban for this referendum only and in certain cases. Those arguments centred on the idea that prisoners serving shorter sentences should be allowed to vote, with prospective cut-off points of six months and four years being suggested. However, in 2011-12, 11 murderers and eight people found guilty of rape were given sentences of up to four years. In the same year, 73 per cent of those imprisoned for common assault, which includes domestic violence, were given sentences of less than six months. I believe that the debate must also be informed by a critical consideration of sentencing policy. In the curtailed scrutiny process that we were involved in, there was insufficient time to have the kind of debate that would be needed before such a change could be considered, but I look forward to the day when that debate takes place.

To those of us on the Labour benches, it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary was unwilling to share any legal advice that she might have on the issue. We have raised this point before, but I make no apologies for raising it again. Ms Sturgeon has been content to quote the committee’s legal advice, which suggests that the position on prisoner voting is compliant with the European convention on human rights, but she presumably has her own legal advice, as she had made up her mind before the committee had even asked for evidence. I know that the cabinet secretary will maintain that ministers do not discuss legal advice, but they can do so when it is in the public interest. I believe that this is one case in which the public interest would be best served by hearing the advice that shaped the Government’s assertion that ECHR compliance is not a threat to the bill.