Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Simpson, that was a fair point regarding the petition being signed by 65 per cent of the electorate and the 10 per cent threshold. However, we still heard in evidence that, sometimes, there is no justification for keeping a petition open once the required number of signatures has been reached. I am a pragmatic person, as well as being tough on crime, and I am concerned about the issue of cost. That factor came out loud and clear in all the evidence that we heard. I question the value of continuing to administer a petition that has already succeeded. That is why I lodged amendments 97 and 52A.

More importantly, once the statutory conditions have been met, the petition’s purpose has been fulfilled. At that point, the petition system should move swiftly to the next stage. I am also keen for progress and for there to be no delay. The removal of the MSP and the process of filling the vacancy should happen with as much haste as possible.

Amendment 52A would adjust the definition of “signing period” in section 24 so that it ends on whichever of the following occurs first: the end of the day four weeks after the petition opens; the petition officer receiving a recall termination notice; or the petition officer determining that the required number of signatures has been reached. I accept the issue with counting the signatures as the process goes along. However, the amendment would allow the petition to close immediately upon its success, which would be efficient and logical—a commonsense Sue Webber approach to life.

Introducing such flexibility without a fixed end date would create a secondary issue that must be addressed, which is creating and calculating the eligibility for 16-year-olds. Under section 10, a person is eligible to sign the petition if they will turn 16

“before the end of the signing period”.

However, if the signing period could end early at an undefined and unknown future point, it would become impossible to calculate in advance whether some individuals—particularly those who are close to turning 16—would qualify.

For example, if the petition succeeds in week 1, someone who would have turned 16 in week 3 would then be ineligible, despite having appeared to be eligible at the start of the process. Such uncertainty is not workable for a petition or for petition officers, and it is not fair or transparent for young voters.

I lodged the follow-up amendment 97 to directly address that issue. It would remove section 10(1)(b), which would currently allow eligibility based on turning 16

“before the end of the signing period”.

In its place, the amendment would provide a clear and administratively workable rule, which is that a person must be 16 at the beginning of the signing period in order to be able to sign the petition. That would be much clearer. Regardless of whether the petition closes at the point of reaching the determined number of signatures, the provision would create fixed and predictable eligibility criteria and avoid the difficulties that would be created by having a variable end date. Amendment 97 would ensure consistency and fairness for young people while enabling my amendment 52A to operate as intended.

I am aiming to make the petition process more efficient, to ensure that petitions close as soon as they have succeeded, to avoid any administrative complications and to provide clear and fair eligibility rules for 16-year-olds.

The convener tends to help me to clarify my mind, so I will bring him in.

Section 11 proposes repealing paragraph (a) of section 48 of the 2002 act, which prevents the Scottish Information Commissioner from investigating how its office handles information requests. What is your rationale for removing that specific restriction?

The bill does not provide for the repeal of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 48 of the 2002 act, which prevent the Scottish Information Commissioner from investigating the handling of appeals about the handling of information requests by a procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate in their capacity as head of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. Why was repeal of paragraphs (b) and (c) not included in the bill, even though consultation on that was recommended in session 5 of the Parliament?

You are referring to a bit of a behavioural or cultural change.

Section 10 of the bill would amend section 43 of the 2002 act, which sets out the general functions of the Scottish Information Commissioner. You consider it necessary to have a statutory power to require individuals, rather than just the public authority, to provide information when it is necessary for the commissioner to perform their statutory functions. Is that correct?

Indeed, the Scottish Government indicated last week that there might be issues with legislative competence, including in relation to the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate.

On section 12 of the bill, you have indicated in the policy memorandum that the use of enforcement notices to require compliance with the codes of practice should be seen as a “last resort”. The Scottish Government has indicated to us that it has concerns that making the codes of practice enforceable would give them the status of law. Why do you consider it important that a practice recommendation can ultimately be enforced?

We heard some examples from the minister last week—including, I think, in relation to national security—but there are other mechanisms.

My questions are on enforcement and the Scottish Information Commissioner, because a number of sections of the bill would make technical updates to enforcement powers. Section 9 would bring in a new exemption for information that is provided to the Scottish Information Commissioner during the investigation of appeals process. Why is that necessary?