New Petitions

The second new petition for consideration today is PE1791, on the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, which was lodged by Mike Fenwick. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Government to recognise and respond to concerns that section 39 of the 2020 act establishes a legal challenge, namely that it breaches protections afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998. We have received submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner, which have been summarised in the clerk’s note.

The Scottish Government believes that section 39, like the rest of the 2020 act, is compatible with convention rights, noting that

“restrictions on timescales for bringing legal challenges are commonplace in legislation ... for legitimate reasons of legal certainty and finality which are recognised in Convention jurisprudence”.

The petitioner notes that the 2020 act is the foundation for all future referenda, and its importance therefore cannot be understated. The petition requests that the Scottish Parliament reconsider one element of the act, section 39, to ensure with absolute certainty that the provisions do not in any way undermine that foundation.

I invite members to comment. My understanding is that, when the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was going through the Parliament, there was a debate on the question of timescales, and an amendment lodged by Jackie Baillie extended the timescale to eight weeks. That parliamentary consideration is in the very recent past. My sense is that the question has been interrogated and tested, and I think that the right balance has been secured in the bill. It is not something that the Finance and Constitution Committee did not consider at all; it was something that the committee looked at.

I am not sure that we can hear Gail Ross just now, so we will hear from Maurice Corry and come back to Gail once we can restart her connection.

Thank you very much for that. I think that we have lost Gail Ross for the moment.

The committee is ambivalent on the matter—we are not really sure whether there is an issue here—but two members have said that it would do no harm to test it by asking the Law Society of Scotland for its views. I do not know whether any other member wants to come back in, and I am conscious that Gail Ross has not had an opportunity to say anything. However, if we were to decide not to close the petition, at least that would give her an opportunity to comment in future. Does everyone agree? It is not ideal that Gail has not been here for that discussion. Interruption. I think that Gail is now back with us.

Yes. I do not know whether you heard what we were saying. There was an ambivalence about whether there really is an issue here, because the Parliament has previously considered the matter. However, both Maurice Corry and Tom Mason thought that it might be worth while for the committee to write to the Law Society of Scotland to test the argument to our satisfaction before we close the petition completely. Do you have a view on that?

I am not sure whether that is the majority view. My sense is that nobody seems to be terribly convinced that there is an issue, but two members feel that it would be worth testing the argument. In the interests of not having a division, I wonder whether that would be acceptable to the committee. If members are strongly against it, they can indicate to me now.

No member has indicated disagreement. In that case, we will write to the Law Society of Scotland to seek its views on the action for which the petition calls. However, I highlight that we are aware that the argument was tested quite strongly as the Referendums (Scotland) Bill went through committee. We will await a response from the Law Society.