Chamber and committees

Good morning. I am happy to begin my comments on a largely positive note by saying that I support all of Mr Simpson’s stage 2 amendments apart from amendment 65, which I will come to. As you have heard, the amendments flow from Mr Simpson’s decision to remove the two-stage process for regional recall and move to a single regional poll. There are many amendments in the group that take sensible action to improve the bill and create a more efficient one-stage process. You will be relieved to know that I will not name them, convener.

However, I have an issue with amendments 64, 65 and 66, which are the crux of the group. They set out Mr Simpson’s plan for the new type of regional poll. Amendment 64 will introduce the new regional recall poll, in which a voter may vote either for or against the recall of the member. Amendment 66 sets out the provisions on the poll outcome, under which a member will be recalled if the majority of votes in the poll are for the recall of that member.

Amendments 64 and 66 are needed, but, from my perspective, they effectively form a sandwich with an inadequate filling. All the detail of the poll process is dealt with by amendment 65, which would place a duty on Scottish ministers to set out in regulations how the poll process will work. Those regulations would have to include a handful of key details on issues such as eligibility to vote, which would have to match the franchise for electing regional members. The amendment states that voters may cast their votes in person, by post or by proxy and that notice of the poll must be given to every eligible voter.

Mr Simpson’s amendment 65 states that the poll will take place 25 to 34 working days after the initiating notice is sent and that the dates may be delayed by eight weeks if that is needed. However, the amendment does not state who will set the date. All other aspects of the arrangements for a regional recall poll would be left for Scottish ministers to decide by regulations, with no steer at all from the text of the bill. That is what I cannot agree to.

09:00

During the stage 1 debate, the Parliament broadly agreed that the purpose of recall is to improve trust in politics. Before recall can achieve that, there must first be trust in the recall process, and such trust in the recall process would be best achieved by the Parliament. Amendment 65, which I note that the Electoral Commission has also expressed some concerns about, would not allow the Parliament to do so. Instead of the Parliament taking decisions on how the process ought to work, those decisions would be placed with Scottish ministers, which we are not comfortable with.

I think that there is a fundamental disagreement about this point. As I have said, the task is to design a new form of recall that is suitable for the Parliament and its procedures. It is a matter of building trust and confidence not just among the public but among parliamentarians. We strongly feel that these duties should sit with the Parliament rather than the Government.

I will take Sue Webber’s amendments in this group and her amendments in group 4 together at this stage—although I might cover them together again later, because they are part of the same package—in explaining why the Government does not support them.

Ms Webber’s amendments would take the bill in a radically different direction from the initial proposals—a direction that does not reflect the committee’s findings at stage 1 or the stage 1 debate. The amendments have been subject to no consultation. Her amendments across the two groups would remove the criminal offence ground as a trigger for recall from the bill, leaving recall to be triggered solely by parliamentary sanction that is applied by MSPs. They would also mean that any member who is convicted of an offence for which they receive a community sentence would be disqualified and cease to be a member immediately without a recall process.

Community sentences can be imposed for things such as road traffic offences. The amendments would have the same effect for any length of prison sentence received. To be clear, I am not saying that we should condone such offences. I am pointing out that the amendments would mean the immediate disqualification of MSPs from a role that they have been elected to. That would be a significant change. The amendments would also lead to the disqualification of members who have been remanded in custody but have not faced trial and are therefore innocent until proven guilty. I do not think that it is acceptable for any member who is remanded in custody or convicted of an offence for which they receive a community sentence, for example, to be disqualified and to cease to be a member immediately without a recall process.

I recognise that Ms Webber has tried to put forward an alternative approach in amendments 93 to 96, which would add two new circumstances in which the criminal offence ground would apply as a trigger for recall: the first is where a member receives a community sentence of any duration or type, and the second is where the member is remanded in custody. Although such an approach would be less severe than removing a member who is remanded, the member would still, in effect, face punishment before trial, and we cannot support that.

The committee observed in its stage 1 report that the bill as introduced presented a “lower bar” for a recall of MSPs than the UK’s Recall of MPs Act 2015 has for MPs, and it invited Graham Simpson to consider that ahead of stage 2. The inclusion of a community sentence as a ground for a recall, as Sue Webber has proposed, would lower the bar further.

The Government also has concerns that the inclusion of remand as a trigger for recall may not be compliant with Scotland’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, as I think the convener alluded to.

For those reasons, the Government cannot support Ms Webber’s amendments in this group.

I will be brief. What has been obvious from listening to the debate is the genuine intent of Kevin Stewart and Sue Webber to assist us here.

During the stage 1 debate, I welcomed Kevin Stewart’s reasoned amendment to the motion, because it sought to address the bill’s interaction with Rosemary Agnew’s independent review of the Parliament’s complaints and sanctions regime, whenever that will be published. His amendments today proceed from the position that he set out then. Therefore, the Government supports amendments 6, 7 and 8: in my view, they would future proof the bill by enabling it to take account of any changes to the parliamentary process.

I respect the point that the convener made about setting a precedent—I understand where he is coming from. I also understand the concerns that members of the committee expressed during the stage 1 debate.

However, it appears to us that Kevin Stewart’s amendments would ensure that any future decisions that were taken by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and by the Parliament in relation to its sanctions processes could be reflected in the legislation. His amendments do not seek to minimise the role of this committee or of a successor committee, which is rightly enshrined in standing orders. Instead, they would ensure that the Parliament would not have competing systems in future. He is trying to provide that safeguard. I do not want to talk for him, but—

I concur with that. My other point is that standing orders would set out the procedure to be followed rather than the standards of conduct.

Equally, Sue Webber comes at the issue from a genuine standpoint. Where I cannot support her amendments 91 and 92 is around the fact that no criteria are established for what might determine good faith or legitimacy. From that point of view, they would make unnecessary additions to section 2. I would hope and, indeed, expect that any future parliamentary process for recommending and agreeing sanctions would have the option, if the Parliament believed that the complaint was baseless, to not recommend a sanction at all.

I will be brief, convener. To answer Sue Webber’s earlier question, the eight-week period that she queried is the same period by which it is possible to delay elections to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998.

I support the amendments in the name of Mr Simpson. However, I am unable to recommend supporting Ms Webber’s amendments.

Amendment 97 paves the way for amendment 52A, which would enable a petition period to end when the 10 per cent threshold has been met instead of having it fixed at four weeks. Putting early closure provisions into the bill would be contrary to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s recommendations, and it would place a significant administrative burden on electoral administrators. For example, it would require the returning officer to count valid signatures each evening in order to work out whether the threshold had been met that day. That would, in turn, determine whether the signing places would reopen the following morning. That would continue every day until the 10 per cent threshold was hit or the maximum four-week period for the recall petition came to an end. For those practical reasons, I cannot support the amendments.

I agree with the recommendation in the committee’s report that the option of closing a petition early should be

“kept under review, for public opinion research to be undertaken, and for provision to be made to allow for this option to be made in future by secondary legislation under affirmative procedure should it be deemed appropriate and desirable.”

No.

The amendments in this group respond—I hope—to the committee’s call in relation to rules on campaigning in the bill. Amendment 69 amends section 21(1) to provide that ministers may make regulations on

“campaigning to promote a particular outcome of a recall process”—

that is, campaigns to recall or not to recall an MSP. That includes regulations on

“expenditure incurred in relation to such campaigning”—

that is, campaign finance.

Amendment 75 will insert an illustrative list of matters that regulations that are made under the power in amendment 69 may include, but that list is not exhaustive. Campaigning rules and campaign finance rules are a feature of all elections in the UK, as well as UK Parliament recall petitions. They serve to provide transparency and accountability for those who are engaged in electoral events. They also serve to prevent well-resourced candidates or parties from being able to deploy an unlimited number of advertisements and other promotional materials, thus reducing the likelihood of undue influence and creating a more level playing field.

We need to be clear that recall processes in Scotland will be covered by campaigning rules and campaign finance rules that are broadly similar to those used at other electoral events. The amendments will, for example, allow ministers to make regulations on the conduct of campaigning where a requirement or restriction is not tied to campaign expenditure. For example, such regulations could forbid people from campaigning inside a polling place or issuing campaign materials that look like poll cards, both of which are rules that apply to Scottish Parliament elections.

Ministers would also be able to issue regulations on campaign expenditure. For example, those could be on what is and is not considered campaign expenditure; what the limits on campaign expenditure could be and who may authorise or incur such expenditure; the time periods to which expenditure limits apply; and campaign expenditure returns. The regulations could also include rules on donations, to provide control of where funds have come from and not just how they are used. To be clear, all those matters would be taken forward under the affirmative process.

I move amendment 69.

I perhaps should have said one further thing. If the Government amendment 73, which we will subsequently debate in group 8, is accepted, that would also enable Scottish ministers to extend the digital imprints rule to a recall campaign. I hope that that gives members comfort that we are trying to cover all the bases.

Amendment 69 agreed to.

Amendment 70 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

My amendments in this group reflect the need to ensure that the regulations that are made under section 21 may adapt existing electoral law and apply it to recall processes, and to ensure that the Electoral Commission is consulted on all regulations that are made under section 21.

Regulations that are made under section 21 of the bill, as introduced, may adapt existing election law for recall and apply it to recall. Section 21(3) provides a list of acts from which recall regulations may borrow existing electoral law for recall purposes. Amendment 73 adds the Elections Act 2022 and the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 to that list. In proposing that those acts be added, I particularly have in mind recent rules on digital imprints—I touched on this a moment ago—and enabling them to be applied to recall processes by regulation. The provisions in these acts in relation to digital imprints need to apply to recall in Scotland, just as they do to local and general elections in Scotland, to promote the same degree of transparency in recall campaigning as we have in election campaigning. This completes the package of amendments that I lodged on regulations for campaigning and campaign finance, which we have already debated in group 7.

Just as we need accountability and transparency in relation to print communications for electoral events, so do we for digital communications. The digital imprints provisions in the Elections Act 2022 and the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 require campaigners to include the name and address of the promoter of the message in online campaign material, such as social media posts. Amendment 73 will enable that to happen, and it is intended to limit anonymous campaigning, which is an issue of concern that the committee highlighted in its report.

My second amendment in the group, amendment 77, will add a new section to the bill that will amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 by adding regulations about Scottish Parliament recall processes to the list of secondary legislation about electoral processes on which the Electoral Commission must be consulted. That means that the consultation requirement for recall regulations under the bill would be the same as the consultation requirement for an order that changes the rules for the Scottish Parliament elections, Scottish local government elections and UK Parliament recall petitions.

If amendment 77 is agreed to, Scottish ministers will be required to consult the Electoral Commission on regulations that are made under section 21 of the bill in relation to recall before they are laid in Parliament. That reflects the key role of the Electoral Commission and the role that it will have in informing the detail of the secondary legislation that arises under the bill. That is essential, given the Electoral Commission’s role in scrutinising and reporting on elections in Scotland and across the UK.

Although recall is not an election, it is an electoral event. Amendment 77 recognises that recall processes ought to be held to the same high standards as elections and provides a practical way in which we can ensure that that goal is achieved. I therefore invite the committee to support the amendments in the group in my name.

In responding to Mr Simpson’s amendments, I invite the committee to support his amendments also.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 75 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.