Chamber and committees

That is a good question. Secrecy is generally something that we tend to try to avoid, but the principle of the secret ballot—a person’s right to go and cast their vote without anyone else knowing how they have voted—is an important part of our electoral system. Clearly, secrecy is not enabled by the recall process at Westminster and it would not be enabled under the bill either, if I have read it correctly, given that people would go to sign the petition. The committee has to consider that.

I have seen some evidence proffered on that point. For example, the Electoral Commission has made recommendations in the context of the Westminster system on whether people should be able to go and sign a petition to say that they do not believe that the member should be recalled. That would raise other questions about how we would factor that in. Would it mean that there would have to be a balance between those who said that the member should be recalled and those who said that they should not? The approach would at least have the virtue of allowing people to go and take part without others knowing how they have responded. However, I caveat that answer by saying that the Government has not taken a specific view on the matter.

We only posit the question as something that you might like to explore. I have gone into the specifics of it, but that is the fundamental question. We have talked about parity. Why would there be a subdivision requirement in relation to regional MSPs but no such requirement in relation to constituency MSPs?

We will need to reflect on what is recommended. It is merely an observation. On the fundamental question, as I set out, parity of esteem for those who are elected here is an important principle, but parity of process—as much as we can achieve it—is important as well.

We have no opinion on that at this stage.

Those are things that we would need to consider.

It does not entirely rest with us, of course, because we do not control the law around the regulatory period for UK elections. That is where it becomes difficult. The expenditure on elections here then interacts with that part, which we do not control; throwing petitions into the mix would mean that we would have to consider things further.

We will of course have to consider that. However, the point that I really make to the committee is that, in considering the issue, there will still be limits to what we might be able to do at the other end.

Yes.

There are a few issues at play. The first thing that I would set out, as a general perspective, is that, where it is possible, people should be in the Parliament. Whether there is a need to be prescriptive and to make it a matter that might lead to someone’s disbarment is a wider question. However, as a general principle, I think that we all recognise and understand that, if people do not have a good reason not to be here, they should be here on a fairly regular basis, accepting that Mr Simpson’s proposition is that, if people have a good reason, they will not fall foul of the requirement. That is a general observation, rather than a comment on whether that requirement should become part of the process by which someone could be disbarred.

It might be helpful to have a list of acceptable reasons for a person being allowed not to be here. The challenge, which could be accounted for by saying that it is a non-exhaustive list, is that things could arise that we consider to be legitimate reasons but which we had not foreseen and prescribed as legitimate reasons. We could deal with that by different means: the list could be updated or, as I said, we could say that the list was non-exhaustive.

I concede that it is inevitable that the requirement could have an impact on specific cohorts. It is not for me to speak to Mr Simpson’s bill, but, to be fair to him, that is why he has suggested that, if someone has a good reason not to be here, they would not be disbarred.

However, there are some fundamental questions, because the requirement is predicated specifically on physical attendance. Putting aside my personal perspective, which is that people should be here when they can be, we have embedded in our system the ability to participate remotely by digital means—I think that that has been a good thing—and we do not draw a distinction in that regard in relation to a person’s ability to participate in proceedings. If we do not draw a distinction in that regard, a reasonable question might be why we are now saying that, in any six-month period, a member must have been here in person. That question needs to be considered. Again, the Government does not have a perspective on that, so I am merely suggesting that these are questions that need to be considered.

The other fundamental thing that needs to be considered is who the gatekeeper is who will determine whether a reason is legitimate. In effect, for proxy votes, that is the Presiding Officer, but who it should be in this instance is another question.

I am sorry, yes—let me be clearer: I suppose that it is perfectly possible to do that within the law, but practical experience tells us that it is inevitable that people will speculate.