Seòmar agus comataidhean

For clarification, with regard to the petition, the information is the simple number of people who have signed that day. Yes, there will be a collation of the hard data, for other purposes, but the feedback is not the same as for an election, in which a count has to take place. For a petition, it is simply one person to count and a second person to certify the number on the list. That is helpful to know.

I will turn to Emma Roddick to lead on the next area, which the committee has had an interesting discussion about.

Therefore, we should have confidence in human rights legislation, under which this is a balancing act. It is about the minimum amount of information that needs to be held, accessed and viewed for us to come to a conclusion.

You might say that this is a policy decision, but should we have a test, and should that be on the balance of probability or should it be beyond reasonable doubt? Whoever makes the decision, at what level do you think the balance should be set?

Our second agenda item is the committee’s first oral evidence session on the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill. I welcome Malcolm Burr, convener of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, Robert Nicol, chair of the election registration committee of the Scottish Assessors Association, and Peter Stanyon, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators. I also welcome Graham Simpson MSP, who is the member in charge of the bill. Good morning, all.

I will move straight to questions to allow committee members to explore the bill. If Mr Simpson has any questions, I will bring him in at appropriate moments to seek clarification. I say to our witnesses that you should not feel that you have to answer all the questions, but please feel free to make any contribution that you want to make.

I will kick off with a question on the general principles of the bill that seeks your views on recall mechanisms. The evidence that we have received included differing views on whether it should simply be a matter of policy that a recall provision should exist and on alternatives to the bill’s proposals on what should happen when people feel that members of Parliament whom they have elected should not continue to represent them. My opening question is this: are there alternative processes that we should perhaps consider?

I do not know whether anyone wants to kick off on that. If not, I will pick on Malcolm Burr.

When we have a general election or a Scotland-wide election, such as the Holyrood election that is coming next year, it happens because it is required. Is your note about proportionality in respect of the fact that, when we talk about recalling members from a list representing a region, the cost could be exercised across a very large geographic region, such as your Highlands and Islands example?

That is helpful. Graham, do you have any questions for Sarah Mackie before we move on?

Peter Stanyon, do you want to add anything to that?

That is helpful. Robert Nicol, we have talked about the end result—the yes-or-no result at a regional level—but what about the cost implications for local authorities in the run-up to that? Do you have any comments to make on that?

Excellent. Thank you.

My next question will cut to the heart of that issue, as it is about the costs associated with a recall petition. We can see the figures in the financial memorandum that has been lodged with the bill, but, in Scotland, an elected representative holds a mandate for one of two types of geographic locations—either a constituency in the relatively well-known and straightforward first-past-the-post election system or a region in the regional system. We then also have the complexity of the administration of a petition and, potentially, of subsequent events. Do the groups that you represent have any concerns about or comments on the financial position and the associated costs?

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the seventh meeting in 2025 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have received apologies from Ruth Maguire, and I welcome Rona Mackay as her substitute.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Item 3 is consideration of the evidence that we are about to hear from two panels on a member’s bill. Item 4 is consideration of correspondence that we have received from another committee. Is the committee happy to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

In the North Antrim example, one thing that was pointed out was the relatively small number of locations in which the petition could be signed in some areas in comparison with others. Is it important that the bill contains clarification and certainty on that point, potentially giving a minimum and maximum number of places in which to sign the petition? I accept that those are not polling stations, but would that be an important step in giving a level of credence to the petition system? It would also avoid having people who object pointing out that something like the North Antrim scenario has occurred.