Seòmar agus comataidhean

The amendments in this group respond—I hope—to the committee’s call in relation to rules on campaigning in the bill. Amendment 69 amends section 21(1) to provide that ministers may make regulations on

“campaigning to promote a particular outcome of a recall process”—

that is, campaigns to recall or not to recall an MSP. That includes regulations on

“expenditure incurred in relation to such campaigning”—

that is, campaign finance.

Amendment 75 will insert an illustrative list of matters that regulations that are made under the power in amendment 69 may include, but that list is not exhaustive. Campaigning rules and campaign finance rules are a feature of all elections in the UK, as well as UK Parliament recall petitions. They serve to provide transparency and accountability for those who are engaged in electoral events. They also serve to prevent well-resourced candidates or parties from being able to deploy an unlimited number of advertisements and other promotional materials, thus reducing the likelihood of undue influence and creating a more level playing field.

We need to be clear that recall processes in Scotland will be covered by campaigning rules and campaign finance rules that are broadly similar to those used at other electoral events. The amendments will, for example, allow ministers to make regulations on the conduct of campaigning where a requirement or restriction is not tied to campaign expenditure. For example, such regulations could forbid people from campaigning inside a polling place or issuing campaign materials that look like poll cards, both of which are rules that apply to Scottish Parliament elections.

Ministers would also be able to issue regulations on campaign expenditure. For example, those could be on what is and is not considered campaign expenditure; what the limits on campaign expenditure could be and who may authorise or incur such expenditure; the time periods to which expenditure limits apply; and campaign expenditure returns. The regulations could also include rules on donations, to provide control of where funds have come from and not just how they are used. To be clear, all those matters would be taken forward under the affirmative process.

I move amendment 69.

I perhaps should have said one further thing. If the Government amendment 73, which we will subsequently debate in group 8, is accepted, that would also enable Scottish ministers to extend the digital imprints rule to a recall campaign. I hope that that gives members comfort that we are trying to cover all the bases.

Amendment 69 agreed to.

Amendment 70 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

My amendments in this group reflect the need to ensure that the regulations that are made under section 21 may adapt existing electoral law and apply it to recall processes, and to ensure that the Electoral Commission is consulted on all regulations that are made under section 21.

Regulations that are made under section 21 of the bill, as introduced, may adapt existing election law for recall and apply it to recall. Section 21(3) provides a list of acts from which recall regulations may borrow existing electoral law for recall purposes. Amendment 73 adds the Elections Act 2022 and the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 to that list. In proposing that those acts be added, I particularly have in mind recent rules on digital imprints—I touched on this a moment ago—and enabling them to be applied to recall processes by regulation. The provisions in these acts in relation to digital imprints need to apply to recall in Scotland, just as they do to local and general elections in Scotland, to promote the same degree of transparency in recall campaigning as we have in election campaigning. This completes the package of amendments that I lodged on regulations for campaigning and campaign finance, which we have already debated in group 7.

Just as we need accountability and transparency in relation to print communications for electoral events, so do we for digital communications. The digital imprints provisions in the Elections Act 2022 and the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 require campaigners to include the name and address of the promoter of the message in online campaign material, such as social media posts. Amendment 73 will enable that to happen, and it is intended to limit anonymous campaigning, which is an issue of concern that the committee highlighted in its report.

My second amendment in the group, amendment 77, will add a new section to the bill that will amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 by adding regulations about Scottish Parliament recall processes to the list of secondary legislation about electoral processes on which the Electoral Commission must be consulted. That means that the consultation requirement for recall regulations under the bill would be the same as the consultation requirement for an order that changes the rules for the Scottish Parliament elections, Scottish local government elections and UK Parliament recall petitions.

If amendment 77 is agreed to, Scottish ministers will be required to consult the Electoral Commission on regulations that are made under section 21 of the bill in relation to recall before they are laid in Parliament. That reflects the key role of the Electoral Commission and the role that it will have in informing the detail of the secondary legislation that arises under the bill. That is essential, given the Electoral Commission’s role in scrutinising and reporting on elections in Scotland and across the UK.

Although recall is not an election, it is an electoral event. Amendment 77 recognises that recall processes ought to be held to the same high standards as elections and provides a practical way in which we can ensure that that goal is achieved. I therefore invite the committee to support the amendments in the group in my name.

In responding to Mr Simpson’s amendments, I invite the committee to support his amendments also.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 73 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 75 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

It is useful to have a bit of time to explore this really important issue. Mr Cole-Hamilton raises a serious and complex issue, as he did in the chamber previously. I undertook then to discuss the issue with him, and I was pleased that we were able to do so. I think that we both agree that this matter is too complex to deal with in the time available via amendments to the bill—and beyond, of course—but we absolutely agree that the Parliament needs to consider it seriously.

My concern with the amendment as drafted is that, although I absolutely agree with the principle of it, it would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to undertake a review within one year of royal assent. That deadline would be impacted by the Scottish Parliament election in May 2026, with all the upheaval that that creates, and it would be a difficult timetable to meet. That could be detrimental to the review itself in that it would reduce the time available to consult stakeholders and consider the issues fully. I am struck by Emma Roddick’s point about including staff, not just MSPs.

We would need a deadline that went beyond the one suggested—perhaps 24 months—and I would be happy to work with Mr Cole-Hamilton on a stage 3 amendment if he was agreeable to doing so. I ask the member not to press the amendment but to work with me on something for stage 3.

I think that we would all recognise that the bill might not pass stage 3, and it is important that I take the opportunity today to send a signal to reinforce my point about how seriously the issue must be taken.

I inform the committee that the Government is already planning a consultation on electoral reform, which will cover a variety of topics, including the restatement of the criteria that disqualify people from being MSPs. The consultation would take place early in the next session of Parliament, and it will be for whatever Government is formed. For my part, on behalf of this Government, I am happy to say that, if we were to be returned, we would include in it consideration of some form of disclosure checks for elected representatives. Again, to be clear, I am not simply talking about asking whether there should be disclosure checks—I am sure that everyone would agree that there should be—but about exploring the details of what those should be.

To reiterate, we can view that as an insurance policy, should the bill not pass. However, we are dealing with the bill that is in front of us. If the member is willing to withdraw his amendment, I commit the Government to working with him to bring back an amendment at stage 3. That would perhaps capture what we have heard today and send a clear message about the recognition on the part of the Parliament that something needs to happen in this regard.

The amendments in this group will make changes to the commencement provisions so that the Scottish ministers have discretion to decide when the bill as a whole, or component parts of it, should be commenced. They will remove the provision that the bill comes into force six months after royal assent.

The bill grants a number of secondary legislation powers that allow ministers to make regulations setting out the detail of how recall processes will operate. We will have our own views on what should and should not be left to secondary legislation—I understand that. I hope that the committee, Mr Simpson and the other members who are here today recognise the complexity of the issues that the bill requires to be covered by regulation, and the necessity of getting right the rules of the recall process.

I hope, in turn, that we are all agreed that a fixed commencement period of six months is not a viable timescale in which to complete the work required, not least because this parliamentary session will soon end and the necessary work to get a new session up and running will slow down the progress of substantive work.

If the bill receives royal assent before the summer, that could impact on the time for officials to consult stakeholders such as the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board.

The committee’s stage 1 report welcomed Mr Simpson’s willingness to discuss a “realistic timescale for implementation” with the Scottish Government. We have discussed that, as the committee expected, and I think we have made some progress. Unfortunately, however, I do not think that we have reached a point of complete agreement.

In reaching the position that underpins my amendments, I have borne in mind the second part of the committee’s recommendation, that

“any new proposed timescale will be one which the Scottish Government is confident it can meet, and which will afford electoral administrators, regulators and the Scottish Parliament sufficient time to fulfil the tasks and responsibilities delegated by secondary legislation.”

It is the Government’s view that we should not have a fixed date for that. We cannot run the risk of a fixed commencement date causing the recall system to come into effect in a way that means that MSPs could be subject to the recall process before any rules are set for that process. That would cause severe damage to the credibility of any recall process and its result.

In her remarks during the stage 1 debate, Sue Webber said:

“the overarching objective of a recall provision is to enhance the trust that citizens have in their elected politicians”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; c 81.]

A recall process cannot achieve that goal if its rules are not carefully considered and complete, nor can we unduly constrain the work that will need to be done by electoral administrators and members of the Parliament, who will have a key role in ensuring that the measures in the bill work on the ground.

I will give the same commitment as my predecessor in this post did: that the Government will work to implement the regulations as soon as possible. We are not looking for heel dragging on the part of anyone. However, we need the flexibility that comes with delegated commencement powers, so that we avoid the risk that comes with a fixed commencement date.

I ask the committee to support both of the amendments in this group.

I move amendment 88.

I will be as brief as possible. In 2024, the committee considered the work of the Council of Europe’s Venice commission in the context of legislation that disqualifies sex offenders from elected office. In 2015, a report by the commission made it clear that

“the deprivation of political rights before final conviction is contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence, except for limited and justified exceptions. In practice, exceptions are applied in only a few states under consideration.”

That supports and endorses the position that I articulated earlier, which is that the Government does not support Ms Webber’s amendments in this space.

However, I support Mr Griffin’s amendments, which I was happy to assist him with. I consider that they set the bar for the recall and removal of MSPs on the grounds of criminal offence at the right level and that they would ensure that there is no gap between recall and disqualification. They would also avoid any question of immediate disqualification for people who have been remanded in custody but not faced trial.

Should Mr Griffin’s amendments not be agreed to and should section 25 remain in the bill, the Scottish Government would need to consider the provision carefully ahead of stage 3. Section 25 does not currently include a delay to permit a person’s appeal to be heard before they are disqualified, so we might have to lodge an amendment that makes provision similar to that in section 4 of the bill, which delays the criminal offence ground for recall until after any appeal is concluded.

Amendment 76 will bring the procedure for challenging the outcome of a recall under the bill into line with the procedure for challenging the result of any other election in Scotland. It will add a new subsection to section 21 to provide that there can be no route for questioning the result of a recall petition or a recall poll, other than as set out in regulations under the bill.

Those regulations must adopt, with relevant modifications, the election petition procedure that is set out in part 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and apply it to recall under the bill.

The election petition procedure is also used when a person wishes to challenge the result of a Scottish Parliament election or Scottish local government election. It is also used, with the necessary changes of terminology, to challenge the outcome of a UK Parliament recall.

10:45

Amendment 76 will close off other legal avenues to challenge a recall result. The policy intention is to integrate Scottish recall processes into existing electoral processes in relation to how a result might be challenged.

Throughout the bill process, members have spoken of the need to maintain trust in politics and politicians and have said that a recall process can help to achieve that goal. For recall to improve the public’s trust in all of us, the recall process must be trustworthy. That is why I believe that holding recall processes to the same high standard that we have for elections in Scotland is an essential part of introducing a process for the Scottish Parliament. Ensuring that a recall result is only challenged in accordance with an established and consistent court process is just one of the more obscure and, I hope, rarely used parts of ensuring that the process is trustworthy overall.

I move amendment 76.

The amendments take us in two different directions. Ms Webber’s amendments 102 to 109 retain non-attendance as a trigger for removal of MSPs but redefine attendance to include virtual or electronic attendance. Mr Griffin’s amendments 85 to 87 and amendment 90 take out the provisions on non-attendance as a trigger for removal entirely. Mr Griffin’s amendments in the group would sit alongside his other amendments that propose to remove the criminal offence trigger for removal, which would make it a recall only bill. I prefer Mr Griffin’s solution. The committee clearly stated that it was

“not persuaded that requiring physical attendance is the correct basis for removal of MSPs”,

and it invited reconsideration of this element of the bill. Sue Webber’s amendments include virtual attendance in the definition of attendance, which is an improvement on the original provisions, but it leaves untouched many of the problems that attach to the attendance provisions more widely. That is why I prefer Mr Griffin’s amendments, which seek to remove from the bill all provisions for non-attendance as a trigger for removal.

Although I understand entirely where Sue Webber is coming from, her amendments would not solve the issues that have been raised during stage 1 about how attendance would be monitored and how determining whether a member has a reasonable explanation for non-attendance would work in practice. Those issues would still remain. As I said during stage 1, although it is primarily a matter for the Parliament, we should not be creating a system that requires a committee of the Parliament to seek, hold and make judgments on personal information about MSPs and that of their family members, including the sort of explanation that should be determined as reasonable, with the prospect of the removal of an MSP as the ultimate outcome. I maintain that position, even if attendance is redefined to include virtual attendance. I urge the committee to support Mark Griffin’s amendments.

11:00

I am content just to proceed.

Amendment 88 agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31—Commencement

Amendment 89 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32 agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment 90 moved—[Mark Griffin].

It is about culture, is it not? In the early days, there was a sense in organisations that FOI was an additional burden—an additional ask. People’s mindset was perhaps not what we would have wanted it to be. However, reflecting on my time since I came back as a minister, I would contend that the attitude and approach of those who deliver FOISA in our organisation is much improved. It is now part of the day-to-day work of the Government. Culturally, FOI has moved on quite a lot, and that has not required legislation.