The next continued petition is PE1791, lodged by Mike Fenwick, which calls on the Scottish Government to recognise and respond to concerns that section 39 of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 establishes a legal challenge—namely, that it breaches protections afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Since our last consideration of the petition, we have received submissions from the Law Society of Scotland and the petitioner. The Law Society of Scotland advises that it agrees with the opinion that has been expressed by the Scottish Government, that the terms of section 39 do not breach convention rights. The petitioner’s submission highlights a report that they believe shows revelations of potential influence and interference occurring, but, very noticeably, only after a period of years and well outwith a period of eight weeks.
In dealing with the petition, we have examined the issues seriously and have interrogated them. I found the evidence from the Law Society of Scotland compelling. One feeling about the usefulness of the Public Petitions Committee’s role at this stage is that we could close the petition, but I would be interested in hearing other views or about things that we might be able to do. Or do members agree that it should be closed?
The Law Society of Scotland’s submission is overwhelming, so I am in agreement with the convener that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders.
The Law Society is clear about the situation with regard to the short term, but I worry about what happens in excess of eight weeks. The petitioner has a point about longer-term evidence generating, which could happen with a referendum. Historically, there is no requirement to close all petitions in the short term, so I would like to see the Scottish Government justify its position that no problem might exist beyond eight weeks. After that answer has been received, we can come to a conclusion. In my view, ideally, we would keep the petition open for the moment.
It is a difficult one. We must have faith in the system. The petitioner has brought up that additional paper and other evidence on outside interference, but I would hope that, if it was proven that there had been outside interference in any part of our democratic process, not just in a referendum, there would be recourse. I am happy to get the reassurance that Tom Mason has asked for, but, as I said, it should apply not just to a referendum, although that is the example that is being raised. We are seeing more and more accusations of outside interference in many other processes as well. I would be interested to see whether there would be any recourse after the eight weeks if more evidence came to light.
I hear my colleagues, and I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders. Equally, however, I would be comfortable if we addressed the issue by writing to the Scottish Government, asking for its views on the eight-week period, which Tom Mason and Gail Ross have rightly raised. I am minded to close the petition once we have that information and have evidence of that.
We have come to a consensus, which is that you do not agree with me. I hear what people are saying, and I think that we want to write and ask what the situation would be if wrongdoing was established beyond the eight-week period. It would then be for the politicians to think about how they might deal with that response at a later stage. I think that we agree to write to the Scottish Government on those terms.
I am conscious of the time. We have two petitions left, and I would like to be able to deal with them, but I also do not want to feel that we are constraining ourselves. If it looks as though we are not going to be able to come to a conclusion, we will accept that they have dropped off the agenda, but it would be helpful if we could conclude them.
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.
