Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

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.

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?

We seem to be getting lost in relation to the vehicle that would be used. Regulations would be the vehicle that the Scottish Government—or, indeed, the Parliament—would be willingly bound to use. There is agreement on the vehicle that would be used. I think that the Scottish Government is offering to discuss the nature of what that vehicle would look like with regard to the items that have already been addressed, rather than whether a different vehicle would be used.

With that assurance, I have nothing further to add. I see where the member is going, and I am grateful.

I will not take up too much of the committee’s time. As Stephen Kerr knows well, I have long been an advocate of whistleblowing. However, I have concerns about the amendments. He seems to be suggesting in the amendments that the chief inspector should become a prescribed person. That would cause concerns if the complaint were to be about an inspection.

Where the right criteria are met, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is available to young people, parents and others as a prescribed person for the purposes of whistleblowing. That relates to health and safety and would cover a significant number of areas of concern, along with any criminal acts, fraud or other matters.

To echo Ross Greer’s comments, it is an interesting area to examine, but I am not sure that the bill is the right vehicle to address it, given the different role of the chief inspector, at a statutory level, and the requirements of the office. I have no problem with having a confidential means for parents to feed into an inspection; that would be beneficial. I know that others—