���˿���

They should have the same opportunity to put their explanation to their electorate as if they were a constituency MSP.

Let us make the example fictional, perhaps, to make your answer easier.

The sentence is the trigger, not the simple fact that somebody has been convicted, albeit that the person ceasing to be an MSP, as well as the subsequent petition, might well affect any retrial. You are saying that, if it was the other way around, it would be a political decision and would not be covered by article 6. On the criminal side, you are saying that consideration of the events of losing a seat is outwith the bill’s scope, although I am not saying that you do not have concerns in that regard.

You will have heard from the evidence that one of the areas that we have been looking at and inquiring about is the cost of the recall of a regional MSP. We will get into the money aspect of the bill later, but, on a fundamental level, you have talked about seeking parity between the first-past-the-post constituency election and the regional d’Hondt system that we use here to balance the whole of the Parliament. We have heard different evidence about where that should land.

A reasonably substantial amount of evidence suggests that, once you come through the door and have taken your oath and are an MSP, there is parity between regional and constituency ���˿��� in the Parliament. There is a different route in, so could there be a different route out? In our consideration of the proposals in the bill and in the consultation that you carried out on it, one of the things that came up, which I would like you to address at this stage, is that removal at a regional level costs a huge amount of money. We have heard some statements that democracy costs money and you just have to pay it, but do you think that that expenditure is justified?

A different approach would be that, although there is parity when you are in this place as an MSP, there can be a difference in how you come in—which there is—and a potential difference in how you go out. However, that would override what you have sought to do with the bill, which is to provide for parity between the different types of MSP. It is a unique situation in Scotland because, after the change in Wales, down the line, we will be the only Parliament that has different ways of coming in. What are your thoughts on that?

I will try to approach the question in a different way and see whether that assists. It is poor questioning rather than putting you in a difficult position.

You agree that the bill is, in effect, about individual members of the Scottish Parliament. Is it about misconduct? Is it about ensuring effective representation, which was one of the suggestions that you made in your opening remarks? Is it about empowering the constituents of an MSP? What is the purpose and key part of the bill? Is it about misconduct, effective representation or additionally empowering voters?

Would you express the same justification in relation to a suspended sentence? Let us say that a judge has looked at a situation and deemed imprisonment to be the appropriate measure but has decided that, in the circumstances, there should be a suspension. There are questions whether that would trigger the provision in the bill. What is your view on that?

I invite you to go the other way on that. I imagine that I know what your answer will be, but the right to a fair trial might, in fact, apply if an appeal is successful and there is a retrial, and the public might be influenced and think, “Ah well, they’ve been kicked out as an MSP.”

That is all right. I just thought that it would be useful to have that on the public record.

Welcome back. Agenda item 3 is consideration of a legislative consent memorandum on the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill, which is a private member’s bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons by Tracy Gilbert MP. The bill relates to absent voting at local government elections in Scotland and Wales and at elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. It will give the Scottish and Welsh Governments powers to introduce regulations that enable applications for postal and proxy votes for devolved elections to be made online using the online absent vote application—OAVA—service, which has been developed by the UK Government.

Members have a note from the clerk, which includes a copy of the memorandum that has been lodged by Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. It was lodged on 12 June 2025 following consideration of the bill at committee stage on 11 June 2025. Consideration at report stage is scheduled for 4 July 2025.

The Minister for Parliamentary Business wrote to the relevant UK Government minister on 30 May 2025, before the date was set for the committee stage. In that letter, the minister noted that a date for consideration of the bill at committee stage had not been set, and he expressed his

“concern over the limited time now available for the Scottish Parliament to give its consent and also that”

he

“will now be obliged to ask it to do so to an expedited timetable”

in order for the Parliament’s consent decision to be given before our summer recess.

The Scottish Government recommends that consent be given. It is anticipated that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will consider the LCM at its meeting on Tuesday 24 June 2025.

If no members wish to make any comments or ask any questions regarding the memorandum, I propose that the committee writes to note the concern that we will have to expedite the provision of the LCM because of when our summer recess starts. When it comes to Westminster, the lodging of LCMs sits outside the control of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.

Are members content to support the LCM but to defer publication of the committee’s report until after the DPLR Committee has had the opportunity to consider it next Tuesday?

Members indicated agreement.

Excellent. We will now move into private session.