Seòmar agus comataidhean

The word “poll” is throwing you. I will come on to explain that. Do not worry about the word. It is the same process, but it is one stage.

I will move on. I know that we want to make progress, but you need to understand. It is right that members ask questions.

In lodging the amendments, I have sought to strike the right balance in the new model between having sufficient information in the bill to enable members to understand how the process will work and retaining sufficient flexibility in the regulation-making powers to ensure that organisations with expertise in the area will have the opportunity to influence how the process operates in practice.

Members of the committee will note that there is no wording in the bill for the question that is to be put on the poll. The bill that is being considered in the Senedd includes wording, which looks straightforward and sensible. I considered including something similar, but there were no questions in my bill when it was introduced, because I consulted the Electoral Commission during the drafting of the bill and I appreciated and followed its feedback, which was that, if a question had not been user tested, it should not be in the bill, as time needs to be taken to ensure that the question is as clear as possible and is not leading in any way before its wording is finalised.

For example, the wording in the Welsh bill includes the word “retain”. Evidence to the Senedd committee suggested that the word “keep” would be far clearer. In addition, the option to remove the member is the first option given to the voter in the Welsh bill, and which option is offered first can have an impact on the voter’s deliberations. Clearly, those two points alone reflect the need to give careful consideration to the final wording and the accompanying materials that explain the process to the electorate before they are finalised.

Other matters that the bill does not stipulate in detail include who will be eligible to vote in a poll. However, I envisage that the regulations that amendment 65 would create would reflect the same eligibility to vote as for Scottish Parliament elections. That is consistent with the provisions in the bill on persons who are entitled to sign a recall petition under the constituency process.

In developing the new model, I also sought to ensure that similar timescales would be associated with the two processes for constituency and regional MSPs. The timescales in amendment 65 for setting up and running a regional poll would be similar to those for the setting up and running of a recall petition for a constituency MSP. That gives the member the same time to campaign and the public the same amount of time to understand what they are being asked to decide on and to engage with the process. Those timescales also prevent the possibility of the regional process clashing with a Scottish Parliament election—an issue that the Electoral Commission and the committee rightly raised at stage 1.

On preparation time for the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, there would most likely be a lead-up to the recall conditions being met, which would give those people who were organising a regional recall poll a clear steer that they needed to ready themselves for it. For example, a criminal trial of an MSP before a recall process began would likely be publicly known.

08:45

I will turn now to individual amendments. Amendment 2 establishes, in section 1, how a member becomes subject to a recall process. It sets out that there are two types of recall process—the recall petition process for constituency members and the recall poll process for regional members—and it specifies the relevant chapters of the bill where further detail on the two processes is set out.

Previously, the recall petition process was to apply to both constituency and regional members, but it now will not. It is now proposed that the initial sections of the bill will apply to both recall petitions and recall polls, covering matters including how a member becomes subject to recall, how a recall is initiated and terminated, and the effect of a member being recalled.

Amendments 1 to 5, 10, 11, 13 to 16, 18, 20 to 27, 30 to 46, 51, 54, 55, 63, 67, 68, 70 and 79 to 83 are all pretty minor or consequential in nature. The main reason for them is a restructuring of the bill so that references to a recall petition process for regional MSPs no longer exist, with new sections created to deal separately with a regional recall poll. Many of the amendments make minor adjustments to the terminology that is used to reflect that. A number of the amendments move provisions or whole sections of the bill to a different place, to improve the flow of the bill as revised—if that is agreed to.

Amendment 12 amends section 5, on the recall initiating notice, so that it is a concept that can work for either type of recall process. Where there is a ground for recall in respect of either process, the Presiding Officer is to issue a recall initiating notice to the returning officer. The amendment clarifies that, in respect of a constituency member, the recall initiating notice instructs the returning officer to make arrangements for a recall petition to be made available for signing or, in respect of a regional member, to make arrangements for a recall poll to be held in the region.

My new proposal will cost a lot less. The financial memorandum that you have seen relates to the original proposal. I agree that it is a lot of money. You would hope that this would never happen; but, if it did, it would cost a lot. My new proposal is a lot simpler.

I have heard before the minister’s view that this is a matter for the Parliament to decide on. However, the Government clearly has a role to play in the development of the recall process, given its role, alongside key stakeholders, in overseeing electoral laws of any kind. The recent Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill was a Government bill, and the recall bill that is before the Senedd is a Government bill. The United Kingdom Recall of MPs Act 2015 was also introduced as a Government bill. There are many precedents in which Governments have been involved, including the Scottish Government.

My offer remains the same: I will work with the minister if he is willing to work with me.

I press amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

I have nothing to add, convener.

I certainly have nothing to add. I press the amendment.

Amendment 57 agreed to.

Amendments 58 to 60 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

10:30

Section 16—Poll to determine if recalled member to fill regional vacancy

Amendment 61 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17—Eligibility to stand for future elections unaffected

Amendment 62 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 63 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

After section 17

Amendments 64 to 66 moved—[Graham Simpson].

Once again, I thank Mark Griffin for discussing his amendments with me. We had a very useful chat the other day about them, and we agree on many things.

There is no point in rehearsing the arguments that have already been made in the committee and in the chamber. I am being pragmatic—you need to know when to give up. The committee does not agree with me on the issue. I have a very strong view that MSPs should come into the Parliament if they are able to do so, and that view will not change.

We might have to revisit the issue. I do not agree with the approaches that are being suggested, but, on a practical level, I think that Mr Griffin’s approach is cleaner. As I said at the end of the stage 1 debate, we might as well completely remove the provisions from the bill, and then I or anyone who is elected in the next parliamentary session can revisit the issue if we want to. However, for today, I back Mr Griffin’s approach.

I will comment on the amendment later, but has the member done any consultation on the issue?

That is not what I am proposing, convener.

I will just go over what I said. The new model moves away from the two-step process for regional MSPs.

I agree that we need to make progress today. However, this first group is the biggest by far. If you will indulge me, I have a bit to say on this first group, because there are a lot of amendments to explain, but I will not—