Chamber and committees

I cannot give a specific answer to that. There is often cynicism about this approach, but the preference is not to have a prescribed period after royal assent for a bill to be implemented, to take account of eventualities. Once the Parliament has legislated for something, the expectation is we get on with it and implement it as soon as possible, so that would be Government’s commitment to the Parliament.

First, I reassure Mr Simpson that we will absolutely continue to engage with him on the bill. He knows that we had very good engagement on the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 and I assure him that I am committed to continuing that.

We do not have a view on the recall question. I have the memorandum in front of me, and I am not going to make the committee wait while I read it in detail, but my recollection is that I do not think that we posed a question beyond the cost implication. It is an open question for the committee and the Parliament to grapple with. We do not have a specific view on the merits, or otherwise, of whether there it should be a one-stage process or a two-stage process.

I think so. My first observation is that we are required to make regulations in relation to MPs and peers, but the responses have been useful. The discussion that I had with the political parties was helpful, and the second round-table discussion was especially useful—it included a clerk from the House of Lords, along with the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the UK Electoral Commission and a representative from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which manages the allowances system for the House of Commons. That meeting was very useful in informing my thinking about practicalities. The process has been helpful.

I can only conclude that those who have an opinion largely took the position that a leave of absence does not fulfil the requirement of ending a dual mandate. We have drafted the regulations to enable provisions on such a threshold, but they do not require that to be the threshold. I am grappling with that now and would be more than happy to hear the committee’s perspective.

I think so, but that could be in the eye of the beholder.

I am happy to speak to where my thinking on that broadly is. This is not necessarily finalised, and I am happy to hear what people think. There absolutely does not have to be a grace period. I am also happy to speak to where we might end up on regulations for councillors.

I do not think that the grace period should be the same for each cohort. When he made the proposals, Mr Simpson proffered a period of eight days for MPs and peers. Having spoken with IPSA, I think that we could work with such a system, but I am beginning to think that it would be preferable to have a slightly longer period for MPs, which might be tied to the period between the election and the summer recess, largely for the practical matter of an MP winding up their office in an orderly fashion, although IPSA informed me that that is built into the system already.

We have absolutely no ability to legislate for what IPSA might put in place or what the rules might be for the House of Commons, so the system could change. To go back to a point that I made earlier about future proofing systems, it would be sensible for us to have a short grace period that is probably a little longer than eight days.

My exception would relate to the situation where, for example someone is elected as a councillor—

That is no problem.

By and large, I think that the answer is no, for practical reasons. There might be exceptions in relation to certain allowances, such as for setting up an office. I have not drawn a specific conclusion on that; it could be more hassle than it is worth, although that must be balanced against the question of why, if a person decides not to quit as an MP, we would let them set up an office for a few weeks. That is something that we need to grapple with.

The more fundamental questions are around a person’s ability to participate in parliamentary proceedings. I do not think that we should limit that for the very practical reason that that would impact the selection of the Parliament’s nominee for First Minister and parliamentarians’ ability to determine who the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officers were and who should hold ministerial office. That takes us into real questions around the public having elected the Parliament on a specific, proportionate basis, which should be reflected. It would add a level of complication that would not be helpful.

We have not considered that. Again, that would add another layer of complication. Those are issues on which we would be guided by practical considerations. Realistically, although we would have a prescribed period in which a person must state their intentions, I would be surprised if a person was appointed to ministerial office if they did not give an early indication that they intended to leave the institution.