Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 17 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1653 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Thank you for giving evidence to the committee. I will suspend the meeting for a short while to allow for a change of panel members.

10:09 Meeting suspended.  

10:14 On resuming—  

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

I welcome to the meeting our second panel for today’s evidence taking. We are joined by Sarah Mackie, head of the Electoral Commission in Scotland, and Jenny Brotchie, acting head of Scottish affairs at the Information Commissioner’s Office. Good morning to both of you. Graham Simpson, as the sponsoring MSP of the bill in question, is still with us, so I welcome him a second time.

If it is all right with the panel, I will move straight to questions. In the first instance, I want to look at time periods and the fact that the bill proposes a period of four weeks for the petition process rather than the six weeks that occurs in other places, particularly at Westminster, and which people are becoming used to. Is there a good reason to curtail the period to four weeks, or is it outweighed by the fact that having similar electoral periods might help people’s understanding?

Sarah, would you like to kick off?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

In your submission, you commented not on the identification question, but on the simple fact that, when someone goes to sign a petition, you know which way they are going to go. That is the proposal that sits with us in this bill, and it is, consequently, why the 10 per cent provision has been included.

Looking at the tight time period, is there any point in extending it beyond the point at which the 10 per cent threshold is reached?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Yes, just on that proposal—I will come back to the other proposals. Is there any value in the petition continuing to stay open for another two or three weeks when you know what the outcome will be?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Going back to the roundabout—or the cul-de-sac—that we drifted into on the yes/no question on the petition, I note from the current proposal and the examples that we have from the UK that someone simply goes in and indicates that they want a recall. Is there any value in expanding that to give voters the opportunity to put their view forward? Do you see any complexities in that respect? What do you see as the consequences of its being just a yes or no question?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Your concern is about the integrity and importance of the concept that our ballot is secret.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

At the moment, the nature of the petition would immediately defeat the possibility that it could be secret. There are examples of the petition process being seen subjectively as the same as other elections, in which supporters frequently urge people, even at the last minute, to choose a way to vote.

Does the commission have to offset that? Would there be value in using postal voting for the petition, which would retain the secrecy of whether someone had actually voted on it? I deeply hope that we are speaking about this being an issue only in a very small number of areas. Given the reality of the environment that we have, would postal voting be a satisfactory safeguard that would allow people to indicate a view on a petition without having to walk into a sports hall, library or whatever?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

I suppose that I am talking not about removing the option but about allowing someone to exercise a vote in a way that will potentially make them feel more comfortable. Can we be assured that the existence of postal voting in itself offsets the risk of what you described having witnessed?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Just to help—or to try to help but, no doubt, to muddy the waters—I note that, with regard to the vehicle by which an individual moves from being on a list to being an MSP, one of the requirements is that the political party under which their name appears on the list certifies that. That does not happen post-election but is one of the conditions of their coming in. Emma Roddick is referencing the challenge whereby the way that the bill would operate would potentially circumvent that process without removing the need for the party to provide the certification. The previous panel of witnesses suggested that the party should be forced to do it. The challenge that you have just raised, Sarah, is what would happen if the party does not want to do that. That is the element that we are looking at.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Another issue is expenditure by political parties in relation to the petition, which is, of course, not an election. What are the commission’s thoughts on deadlines and timelines in that respect? How do we tie that into reporting? What are the potential risks that we have to look at?