Chamber and committees

It is just to allow enough time. If the Presiding Officer is having to call a halt to the process, we need to allow extra time. That was it, really.

Where a day is designated under the provision, the returning officer may exercise the functions set out in section 6 in accordance with the regulations to be made under section 21, to designate places for signing and the days and times of day during which the petition may be signed. That provision is modelled on provisions in section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 that allow the Presiding Officer to postpone a Scottish Parliament general election.

I turn now to amendment 52. As the petition process now applies only to constituency members, the definitions specific to the petition process, which were previously found in section 24 of the bill, have been moved to sit with the new chapter of provisions specific to recall petition processes. That change aids readability and shortens the list of definitions in section 24. A further detail of the amendment is that the bill as introduced has a recall petition signing period defined as ending

“at the end of the day that falls 4 weeks later”

but the definition of “signing period” would be amended to refer to

“at the end of the day that falls 20 working days later”.

That means that the signing period would not be shortened if it fell across public holidays.

10:00

I actively considered Sue Webber’s policy position in amendments 97 and 52A during the policy development of my bill. As I understand it, the intention is to enable the petition process to end at the point at which the 10 per cent threshold is reached as opposed to running for the full four weeks, as the bill sets out. That change would be on the grounds that it would limit the work required and prevent the petition process from running on for a long period without strong reason in circumstances in which the threshold was reached within a few days.

There are a number of reasons why I did not include that policy in my bill on introduction. The first is the practical challenge of conducting regular counts to establish the point at which the threshold is met. The returning officer would be responsible for co-ordinating up to 10 signing places in a constituency, and the process for establishing whether the 10 per cent threshold had been reached would presumably involve regular counts of all signatures at all designated places. Also, as the committee observed in its stage 1 report, postal contributions would be a complicating factor. These are just some of the considerations to think about. The electorate would also have been informed that they had four weeks in which to express a view and then could be denied the opportunity to express it if the petition process ended early.

In addition, it would be challenging to describe clearly to the electorate the approach that is suggested in the amendments. Saying that you can sign a petition and that it might be four weeks long but could be a lot quicker if a 10 per cent threshold is reached is a more complex message than saying “sign the petition by X date”.

Another issue is that the MSP who is subject to the recall process might want to get a sense of the strength of feeling among the electorate, to inform a decision on whether to run in a by-election. The difference between 10 per cent of constituents and, say, more than 65 per cent of constituents turning out to sign a recall petition could lead to a different decision on whether to run in a resulting by-election.

Finally, someone who votes in a by-election could consider the percentage of people in a constituency signing a petition to be a relevant factor when considering how to vote.

That was the basis for my decision, on balance and in consultation with key stakeholders, not to include the policy proposed by Sue Webber in my bill, so I suggest that the committee reject her amendments.

I move amendment 17.

Amendment 57 would fix a minor error in the schedule. It would mean that the schedule would be amended to refer to the correct point at which the inserted text is to be placed in the Scotland Act 1998, as the word “Parliament” appears twice in the same subsection in section 13 of the act. The amendment clarifies that the wording in paragraph 1(3)(b) of the schedule is to be added after the second occurrence of the word “Parliament” in that provision.

I turn to amendment 58. The schedule to the bill currently amends section 13 of the Scotland Act 1998, “Term of office of members”, by adding a list of the ways in which a member can cease to be a member between elections—for example, the death of a member—including the new ground of being recalled. The purpose of amendment 58 is to add a further ground, for completeness, which is that a member may lose their seat for failing to take the oath under section 84 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 78 would remove an incorrect reference in the bill at introduction that refers to a provision under the Government of Wales Act 1998, replacing it with the correct reference in the Government of Wales Act 2006. Section 23 of the bill clarifies that references to an appeal in respect of the criminal offence ground for recall include, among other matters, an appeal under the specified legislation, which is an appeal to the Supreme Court, for the determination of a devolution issue or a compatibility issue.

I move amendment 57.

As is set out in paragraph 43 of the delegated powers memorandum on the bill, it was my view that the power to make regulations as originally drafted in the bill would have permitted regulations to be made on campaign expenditure. However, I followed the stage 1 evidence on the issue, including the concerns that the bill made no reference to campaigning or expenditure.

I therefore support amendments 69 and 75. The amendments will put it beyond doubt that the powers to make regulations under section 21 include the power to make specific provision on campaigning matters in promotion of the outcome of a recall process, which includes expenditure incurred in relation to that campaigning.

I will just quickly say that I support amendment 76.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

After section 21

Amendment 77 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

Section 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Meaning of expressions relevant to the criminal-offence ground

Amendment 78 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 121 not moved.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24—General interpretative rules

Amendment 122 not moved.

Amendments 79 to 83 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25—Removal if imprisoned or detained for period from 6 months to one year

Amendments 98 to 100, 123 and 101 not moved.

Amendment 84 moved—[Mark Griffin].

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for giving me some of his time yesterday to discuss the issue. As he mentioned, I raised the issue of staff, and I think that that got him thinking. He is really on to something—he has raised a really important issue that should be tackled. I am pleased to hear that the Government will consult on this and on other matters.

I do not think—and I think that Alex Cole-Hamilton accepts this—that we can deal with the issue in any great detail in the bill, but I look forward to seeing something at stage 3. I therefore urge him not to press his amendment.

No. Mine is a one-step process, which I will go on to explain. It is much simpler than the original proposal, which had two stages and which was complicated, difficult to understand and expensive. The new proposal is one step, which I will explain as we go on. As I said, it mirrors what the Senedd, or Welsh Government, bill is doing. That reflects the committee’s concerns.

The MSP would be replaced. The seat would remain vacant if there was no one left on the list or if the individual was elected as an independent.

Yes. We would move away from the two-step process. The new model would begin in the same way as was originally envisaged, with one of the recall conditions being met. The Presiding Officer would then issue a recall poll initiating notice so that arrangements could be made for a regional recall poll.

That is true.

Yes.

Through this suite of amendments, I am trying to simplify the regional element, which was a big sticking point for the committee—and rightly so. The purpose of these amendments is to address that point, and that is what I have endeavoured to do. The fact that we have the electoral system that we have makes all of this tricky, but we have to come up with something. It is never going to be perfect, but that is why I have gone down this route.