Hansard

Today represents the final stage of phase 1 of an important legislative process that will culminate in the referendum on 18 September next year. I echo Patricia Ferguson in thanking all those who have been involved in the process in whatever capacity. In aggregate, their evidence has helped the whole process of scrutiny and improvement of the bill.

Although the issues at stake in the referendum are immense and are already being debated passionately, deciding who is entitled to vote is also of profound importance. Broadly speaking, I think that deploying the existing franchise for local government and Scottish Parliament elections is sensible, but using as significant an occasion as the referendum on Scotland’s future as a testbed for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds is, in my opinion, premature and misjudged. As I observed during the stage 1 debate, I do not deny that there is a debate to be had about the franchise and the age at which it is obtained, but little if any value can be extrapolated from the limited experience in Scotland of such an extension, given the dismal turnout levels for the health board elections. If there is a desire to look at age levels for elections—or, for that matter, when people may first drive a car, purchase alcohol or hold a firearms licence—a broader debate and more widespread consultation would have been sensible.

Being mischievous, I observe that the First Minister is not a man to make decisions without a reason, nor is he averse to a promising punt. I can surmise only that his enthusiasm for extending the franchise was because he envisaged wide-eyed innocence and unquestioning sentiment embracing and promoting his separatist agenda and fanning the yes vote. However, the young people seem to be having the last laugh, because a recent poll suggests that 60 per cent of them will reject independence. Notwithstanding their commendable common sense, I still feel that extending the franchise for the referendum is premature. I realise that I am a lone voice on this issue, but my dissent, which is noted in the committee’s stage 1 report and in my party’s opposition to the bill at stage 1, will be reflected by my voting against the bill at decision time.

However, recognising that the bill will be enacted, I want to make some constructive comments. It is essential that these enfranchised young people have access to information. Given that many of them will still be at school, it is paramount that local authorities understand the difference between the legitimate provision of information provided by balanced debate, and partisan propaganda. The first can be responsibly provided by properly balanced panel discussion in schools or by referring young people to the main campaigning entities, Better Together and Yes Scotland, but the second—partisan propaganda—is completely unacceptable. I recognise that it would be wrong for the Scottish Government to intrude on local government territory by imposing guidelines, but local authorities must demonstrate their resolve by opposing anything that reeks of influence or coercion by setting out a code of practice for their schools that underpins neutrality and minimises disruption to learning.

Turning to more specific aspects of the bill, section 3 prohibits convicted prisoners who are held in a penal institution from voting. We have to some extent rehearsed that issue when we discussed the amendments. Suffice it to say that I agree with the Scottish Government’s view on the issue and, given the recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, which questions such a blanket prohibition, it was right to deal with the matter in the bill. However, as I have said, there is a fundamental principle underpinning the prohibition of votes for prisoners: if a court considers prison to be an appropriate sentence for an accused, then the suspension of liberty rightly also involves suspension of franchise.

I was interested in the discussion that surrounded the risk of legal challenge on that issue. However, based on the evidence that the committee received from the Scottish Government and other witnesses, including the Law Society of Scotland, the prospect of a successful challenge seems extremely remote.

In conclusion, I will refer to a couple of the bill’s technical points that interested me during the committee’s evidence. First, the Deputy First Minister confirmed that she had been reassured by the Cabinet Office at Westminster that individual voter registration would not start until after the referendum. I would be grateful for clarification on whether progress has been made at Westminster with the necessary statutory instrument to achieve that outcome. Secondly, as I have said, I was worried that the canvass form did not make it sufficiently clear to the adult completing the form that the address of a young person does not need to be disclosed. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s amendment on that that was passed earlier; it is a welcome improvement to the bill.

16:02