Must do better: What the Q Manivannan row reveals about Scottish Parliament lawmaking

Professor Alistair Clark gave evidence to the committee scrutinising the legislation at the centre of the controversy. Here, he considers the aftermath and lessons to be learned:

The newly-elected Scottish Parliament has started somewhat inauspiciously, with controversy about recently-passed electoral law and a new MSP’s status.

The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 provides for foreign nationals with limited right to remain or requiring visa approval to stand for election. The law was passed according to standard Holyrood practice. The effects were well understood by the Scottish government, and were acknowledged in the policy memorandum accompanying the draft legislation. Q Manivannan has done nothing wrong in electoral law terms.

Is there a broader problem?

Yet, the number of senior Scottish politicians expressing surprise about the effects of a law that Holyrood passed unanimously by 111-0 has been an unfortunate spectacle. It is notable that complaints have not just come from a single party. This is harder to dismiss as partisan grumbling. It suggests that there may be a wider problem with Holyrood’s legislative process. Such a suggestion is not new. The impact of poorly considered legislation is damaging to parliament’s reputation.

There are several reasons for the immediate situation. Firstly, electoral law is arcane, complex and poorly understood. It only receives wider attention when something goes wrong. Yet, it is fundamental to how democracy works. If something goes wrong, it affects the rights of millions of voters across Scotland. Electoral law deserves more attention than it gets, not least since Scotland now has significant electoral law powers.

Wider issues

More widely, Stage 1 scrutiny is crucial. Yet committees feel somewhat underpowered to deliver this. The difficulty comes not in how committees deal with expert witnesses. In my experience, this has always been with courtesy and with the intent to understand various aspects of the legislation through a collaborative but challenging discussion. This is how it should be.

The difficulty comes in how committees deal with ministers, in scrutinising them effectively, and being able to get them to change course or take criticisms seriously. Ministers often start with a rhetorical claim to the effect that they are there in listening mode, and that this is ultimately parliament’s bill. While not incorrect, this has the effect of deflecting criticisms away from government.

Difficulties with ministers

In the electoral policy field, ministers have not always seemed across their brief. Ministers not knowing the answer to a question and having to defer to officials has been a persistent feature across several ministers and parliaments. This is unfair to officials. But it is much more problematic for committees whose scrutiny of an issue is then impaired. Writing to a committee afterwards may clarify a matter, but it hinders the ability of that committee to scrutinise the issue further, and in a way which might attract useful further debate.

Ministers do not always appear to take criticisms seriously. Several proposals were made to improve aspects of this bill – on transparency around donations and election spending, and having a proper legal standard for postponing elections, for example. The transparency issue led to government-stakeholder (ie political party) discussions, but no action was taken because of ‘difficulties’. Having a proper legal standard for election postponement was met with a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders by the minister. Others have noted similar reactions in different policy domains.

Ministerial continuity is a further difficulty. The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill was introduced and defended at Stage 1 by George Adam and passed at Stage 3 with Jamie Hepburn as responsible ministers. Even the governments that introduced and passed the bill were different. It was introduced under the SNP-Green coalition, and finally passed by the subsequent Swinney-led SNP administration.

There are other issues. Questioning of ministers leaves something to be desired, and is often not followed through upon and easy to evade. Committees have a tendency to agree principles at Stage 1 and let bills progress, even when it is evident they are flawed. Stages 2 and 3 are not strong enough to force a government to change tack should they not wish to, not least since there is no revising chamber at Holyrood. And there is a worrying tendency in Scottish legislation to pass framework legislation which allows a lot still to be decided by ministers and regulations.

What is to be done?

There is plenty of room for improvement. A start might be made by asking ministers and parliamentarians to focus on the quality of legislation, not just the fact that it has been passed. Not forwarding poor legislation and committing genuinely to improving legislation and policy would be a good start for the new parliament. Regardless of party discipline, if MSPs do not understand what they are voting for, then they should not vote for it. Where they disagree, they should vote against, not abstain.

There are some more practical suggestions.

First, electoral law should be made more prominent by moving it from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments (SPPA) Committee to the committee which deals with the constitution.

Secondly, others have recognised similar issues to those I outline here. The SPPA has recently completed an inquiry looking into committee effectiveness. Its recommendations need to be taken forward urgently by the new parliament.

There should be a shift in how committees deal with ministers at Stage 1. Questioning should be more assertive and committees should be more interrogative of ministers, less inclined to accept ministerial evasions and deflective strategies.

Committees should be less inclined to accept the principles of a bill at Stage 1 until they have firm written commitments from ministers to change problematic legislation. Where necessary, ministers should be recalled to committees for further questioning before committees issue any Stage 1 acceptance.

Committees should focus beyond the principles of any bill, to the reason for a bill being proposed in the first place, and the problem which it seeks to resolve. Parliamentary time is limited; it does Scottish public life no good to focus on bills which do not have a compelling reason to be legislated on.

Finally, there should be more use of both pre- and post-legislative scrutiny processes to help prepare better legislation, and to help improve the workings of already passed laws.

Ultimately awareness of the contents of policy and legislation comes down to MSPs and their willingness to engage with what they are voting on to start with.

If MSPs and senior politicians are surprised by the contents of what they have voted on when problems become apparent, is it any wonder that the reputation of parliament takes a hit?

Alistair Clark is professor of political science at Newcastle University. He has written widely on electoral law, administration and integrity, political parties and Scottish party competition and elections. He is regularly invited to give evidence, and has done so to committees in the Scottish Parliament, Senedd and both Houses of Parliament at Westminster. He is co-editor of the Hansard Society’s journal, Parliamentary Affairs.