Chamber and committees

Can I just pick up on a few points about the rules, because again, it boils down to the language and the understanding that comes out of that? As you say, all four rules should be looked at simultaneously, and you gently move between the four quadrants to try and come up with the best results. However, there are some challenges in that, because rule 1—I will just call it that—is prefixed with

“So far as is practicable”,

but it also says

“regard must be had to the boundaries of the local government areas”.

So, even before you are talking about electorate numbers, the public see that it is supposed to be the local authority area, and I think that that is probably how most people perceive all of the parliamentary stuff, even though it certainly is not true for Westminster, and it is far from true now here at Holyrood.

Then, rule 2 talks about the “strict application” of rule 1—so there is statutory evidence to say that rule 1 has to be strictly applied. However, rule 1 opens with

“So far as is practicable”.

Therefore, we now have a misunderstanding.

I have picked those two rules specifically because of the concerns that have been expressed about an individual MSP representing up to three local authorities and tension between those authorities forming a lot of concern in their work. For example, someone in a school placing situation can be in another constituency with another constituent MSP, but the high school is in the first MSP’s constituency. It makes the role very difficult

To look back as to why it began with the boundaries of local government, those were the specific reasons why that was put in. As a constituency MSP, you were representing your constituents, who fitted into a local authority area; you could advocate for them but you could also defend against others coming in. From a practical MSP’s point of view, the situation creates a tension that is really difficult to reconcile. Secondly, however, it is also a challenge for constituents.

I am not sure whether I expect a comment. Could it perhaps be meritorious for the appropriate committee to look at?

I will pursue that point a little further. The recent by-election, which had to take place for a sad reason, happened on the basis of the first-past-the-post system that we have in Scotland. Although the effect of proportionality on the regional list would be the same percentage wise—we are talking about one member being replaced—what is the Scottish Government’s view about the inherent risk of instability because of that?

Some witnesses have given evidence that suggests that the process of replacing the member might become more of a comment on the Government, parties and other events, rather than on what the Scottish Government says, which is that it should be focused on the conduct occasioned by the individual member. Does the Scottish Government have any concerns about the question shifting from an individual MSP? It depends on how the public votes, which is relatively straightforward in a constituency because it is the individual who is elected, but in the regional list, where it is a party vote, is the Government concerned about that affecting proportionality?

Although the Scottish Government does not have a view on that, it has raised questions about polling districts within constituencies. There is clearly concern that, under the bill, there would be a disparity between the levels that would need to be achieved in relation to recalling MSPs. Is that a fair representation of the Government’s position?

To clarify, am I right that there is no concern that there would be different journeys for the two groups of MSPs, depending on how they came here, in relation to how they would leave? Does the Government have no concern that there would be that difference?

Touché.

My next question is on the petition process. In essence, the individual’s name would appear on the petition, which would then be agreed to or not depending on who signs it. In reality, the individual would be hoping that support for the petition among their electorate would not reach the 10 per cent threshold, and they may well campaign in relation to that. No party political campaign could take place, but the flipside is that there could be campaigning by a group of invisible, unknown people on social media, with letters being sent to constituents anonymously. The Government will have to take a decision on the financial instruments and so on. Does it have any concerns about unknown campaigns spending millions of pounds to oust an MSP?

I will leave it at this: will that consideration, even if it is just at the top level, be relatively soon—simply because of the six-month limit? There are questions about the various recommendations if we have an election next year. I am glad that the Government agrees that such a consideration rests with it. Although the petition might be an electoral event, it is not an election, and there are particular questions about how that is dealt with.

I appreciate that you are not the only body with which that issue sits.

My final question is about voter education. As we have already heard, our election process for the Scottish Parliament is different from that anywhere else in the UK and separate from any other electoral event that happens in Scotland. We are talking about adding another event to that, so the electorate will need to understand what they are being asked and how they are being asked it. Does the Scottish Government accept that, and how far is it responsible? I recognise that the Electoral Commission and others will have a teaching role in the process, but there will be a cost to that. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the matter?

In previous evidence sessions, we have discussed the matter of it falling to a local authority to fund a by-election. Is your view that it should be the same for this process? Arguably, funding for a constituency by-election could fall to a local authority, but a regional one is a much bigger problem. Has the Government thought about who would take on financial responsibility for any additional costs that may occur?

Absolutely.

The strong advice is that we should have an agreed battlefield at least six months before an election. That takes us back to delegated legislation. We have talked about the financial issues that need to be considered. One issue that has been picked up is the potential necessity for criminal consequences if things are mishandled in respect of petitions or subsequent events. At the minute, because the bill has not been passed, the legislation is silent on that.

Your memorandum suggests that that situation can be dealt with as these things normally are, in secondary legislation or other ways. Is the Government confident that you can cross those thresholds in time for May next year? I am talking about identifying criminal responsibility. We have heard about the finance, so I am happy to put that to one side, but is the Government confident that it can address the other, more practical—should criminal things ever be practical?—aspects that need to be covered in secondary legislation?

I am loth to push you further than that.

Graham Simpson, our time is ever so slightly tight, but it is there anything that you would like to pick up with the minister before I conclude this part of the evidence session?