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 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 16 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2081 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

So, the answer in relation to the bill is that there is a geographical restriction because that is the register that people are on for the petition. That is helpful.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

As you discussed, is there a danger in relation to the availability of places in which to sign, from an accessibility and support point of view? We protect our polling stations for good reason, because we know where they are and what they are. With the signing petition, an address could suddenly become unavailable and 11,000 people could turn up on Monday morning at 9 am, because that is when the place opens. Is that an issue from an administrative or practical perspective?

I am happy for you to consider that and come back with an answer. Is there a balance in relation to doing what Graham Simpson proposes and absolutely restricting the areas where petitions can be signed by telling people that that is the only place that they can sign it?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

That is fine.

I ask the question because of comments that I have noted both in your submission and in others about the use of postal votes. The simple challenge is that someone might return their postal vote when the petition has already been closed; however, we know what the postal vote will say, because of the question that has been asked. Is there an issue that we should be considering with regard to postal votes and closing the petition early, or could we say that the petition should stay open for the four weeks, because, at the end of it, people would know the proportion of the electorate who voted for the recall, compared with the whole? Is there value in having that information?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

In that case, would it better if some of the requirements sat in secondary legislation rather than primary legislation, so that, as more information became available and as we understood things better, it could be amended more easily?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

Is there a challenge in introducing the petition and in the subsequent regional poll such that the number of electoral methods that are being used in Scotland gets to a point at which fewer people than are sitting in this room understand them all? You have set out the need for strong communication based on a system that is as simple to understand as possible. From an administrative point of view—I recognise the evidence that you have given about the cost, but let us put that to one side—is it a step too far to bring yet another electoral system into Scotland?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

I appreciate that.

Let me just push at this issue. The four-week period makes sense, and I think that the reality is that, in all but one of the examples of the UK-wide petition examples that we can look at, the threshold was reached very early on. Should a petition close at that stage? Is there any value in its running on?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

The votes of the 60 per cent of people who go the other way.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

My follow-up question is on the fact that we have heard the petition described as an electoral event rather than an election. Should we give strong credence to the risk that, if you turn up at a venue, others will be able to identify the view that you will express?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

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.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

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

Meeting date: 8 May 2025

Martin Whitfield

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?