Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government’s position suggests that various parts of the poll process could be added to the bill, but the bill would immediately need to qualify those by stating that they are subject to conditions and constraints in regulations. A similar approach, which I have taken, is to state that the process will be set out in regulations while stating—as I have done in the bill—that there are key features of the process that the regulations must specify.

I am open to including more detail in the bill at stage 3 if members—particularly the minister—will specify what those details should be. I suggest that amendment 65 be agreed to, on the understanding that further changes to the section will be made at stage 3. Given the minister’s general support for the bill, I would welcome an agreement at this stage to work with me on wording for amendment 65 that the Government would be satisfied with and that it would support at stage 3. We need to reach general agreement on the bill.

The minister can intervene if he wants to, but, if he does not wish to do so, we can have a chat after the meeting. However, given the Government’s commitment at stage 1 to support the general principles of the proposed recall process, it would help to inform parliamentarians if we had an assurance before stage 3 that the Government is content with the drafting and the policy that would lie behind such drafting.

If amendments 64 to 66 are not agreed to at stage 2, I am concerned that parliamentarians will come to the amended bill at stage 3 with a key element of the process missing. That could lead to confusion, whereas I hope that the focus at stage 3 will be on finalising the details of the bill.

I can ramble on for a bit, to allow the minister to intervene.

I agree with every word that the minister has said. We cannot remove someone from being an MSP when they are not guilty or when they have not been convicted of something. That would be the effect of these amendments. I will leave it there, convener. I agree with the minister.

The bill was not developed with the intention of amending the standards regime in the Parliament. The original consultation said:

“My proposals would not impact on the operation of the current standards process.”

It seems that Kevin Stewart’s amendments would not have any immediate effect—rather, they would future proof the parliamentary sanction grounds for recall, should changes be made to the specifics of the standards regime in the future. If I had a vote, I would vote for Kevin Stewart’s amendments.

I figured that there must be a story behind Sue Webber’s amendment 92. It sounds as though it might relate to something that the committee has dealt with in the past. That said, it is not clear how a committee would be able to know whether a motion

“was made in good faith and with a legitimate basis”,

so I suggest that the committee should vote against that amendment and back Mr Stewart’s amendments.

Amendment 17 qualifies the discretion available to the returning officer such that the matters set out in section 6(1), in paragraphs (a) and (b) and in proposed new paragraph (c), must be carried out in accordance with regulations to be made under section 21, those matters being the designation of

“a place, or places, at which a recall petition … is to be made available for signing … a day from which the petition is to be made available for signing”

and

“the days, and times of day, during which the petition is to be made available for signing”.

Amendment 19 sets out that the returning officer, acting in accordance with regulations to be made under section 21, must designate

“the days, and times of day, during which the petition is to be made available for signing”.

Amendment 25 requires the returning officer, when deciding what days and times of day to designate, to

“seek to ensure that the petition is reasonably available for signing throughout the signing period.”

Amendment 28 clarifies that, further to the relevant times and places designated under section 6, the returning officer must ensure that the recall petition is made available for signing throughout the signing period at those designated times and places.

Amendment 29 enables the Presiding Officer to reschedule the date for a recall petition in response to events that might render the holding of such a petition impossible or impractical—for example, a snap UK general election or a local disaster such as a flooding event, which may make signing difficult, unsafe or just not possible in terms of the availability of venues and staff. The Presiding Officer will be required to consult the Electoral Commission, the convener of the Electoral Management Board and the returning officer on the new date, and to notify them of the date change. The amendment provision sets out the requirements of the Presiding Officer attaching to rescheduling a recall petition, including setting an outer limit of eight weeks for the new date to be set, as well as the requirement to consult and notify certain persons.

Amendments 71 and 72 reflect a commitment that I made in response to scrutiny from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee during stage 1. Amendment 71 will prevent section 21 regulations from being used to confer subordinate legislation-making powers on someone other than Scottish ministers. That will not mean that regulations cannot allow for a delegation of functions—for example, delegation by a regional returning officer to constituency returning officers. Amendment 72 is consequential—it removes section 21(2)(c), which would have allowed the conferral of powers to make subordinate legislation.

Amendments 73, 74 and 77 are in the name of the minister, so I will leave it to him to set out to the committee how the amendments function. However, I can say that I am supportive of the policy intention of all three amendments.

I move amendment 71.

This is quite a common tension between members of the Parliament and ministers: some of us will always try to force the Government to bring in regulations quicker than the Government might be comfortable with. In this case, I accept that my original proposal of six months was too challenging for any Government, even the present one. I am content to go along with the minister on that.

Indeed. I will not take as long on any of the other groups.

I thank the committee again for its in-depth scrutiny of the bill. Many of the amendments that I have lodged relate to reflections in the committee’s detailed stage 1 report. It was during the course of reading and listening to the evidence, and the committee’s deliberations, that I began to appreciate that the regional recall process in the bill had to change. I certainly never suggested that my approach, as it is set out in the bill, was perfect, but I came to appreciate during stage 1 scrutiny that there was a better way forward.

The proposal that I am putting forward today reflects the evidence from the Electoral Management Board, which suggested my revised model in its written evidence to the committee. My new model mirrors existing electoral law and electoral procedures far more closely than the more novel process that I had originally proposed. It makes it easier for bodies charged with delivering elections, such as the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Commission, to undertake the recall process for regional MSPs, and it makes it simpler for the electorate to understand, as well as being quicker and cheaper—which is good. It also removes from the regional process the issue of protecting the secrecy of voting decisions.

My new model also mirrors, to a large extent, the proposed model set out for the recall of members of the Senedd in the Welsh Government’s bill. I have considered that bill carefully, as well as the evidence received on that bill so far and the associated committee findings.

The new model moves away from the two-step process for regional MSPs, which had included a recall petition and then a poll, which is set out in the bill as introduced. 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.

The poll would be held on one day in the region of the MSP in question. The poll would ask the electorate whether they wanted to keep their regional MSP in Parliament or remove them. If more than 50 per cent of people voting said that the MSP should be removed, they would lose their seat and be recalled from the Scottish Parliament. That MSP would then be replaced in the usual way that a regional MSP is replaced, by taking the next MSP from the party list.

According to your Scottish income tax report, wealthy people have individual compliance managers, so they get their own person to deal with. You would think that HMRC would know where people live if they deal with them on such a personal basis.

Last year, HMRC said that there were more errors on the S code by large businesses and businesses in the financial and insurance sector, which quite amused us. Is that still the case?

That might be worth doing.

Another issue that we have raised before is missing addresses, which still appear to be an issue. What is the scale of the problem now?