Hansard

I congratulate Graham Simpson on getting his member’s bill to this stage. I recognise that it takes a lot of effort to progress a member’s bill through the Parliament—in this case, as Mr Simpson said, it has taken some 11 months thus far. The Parliament needs to look at the resourcing of the non-Government bills unit, so that life is made easier for members, and I hope that that can be done.

Let me begin by saying that there is a place for many of the provisions in the bill, and I will support the general principles today, but that I have concerns about some aspects of Mr Simpson’s proposals. I strongly believe that a parliamentary complaints and sanctions process, backed by appropriate guidance, must be put in place in relation to section 2 of the bill. I have no skin in the game as I will not be returning to the Parliament after the next election, but I want to see a fair system in place for MSPs of all political colours.

On the removal provisions, I am sure that no one in the Parliament would disagree that a member who is imprisoned for a period should be removed, but I have some concerns about the proposal to remove someone who is unable to come to the Parliament for 128 days.

I could give lots of examples of such a scenario, but I will not go into them as we need to tease them out during stage 2. I was ill before the summer recess and unable to come to Edinburgh and to the Parliament. However, during most of my time away from the Parliament, I continued to do my job: I asked questions; I voted; I took part in stage 2 proceedings; and I continued to deal with correspondence and oversee my constituency casework. Not being in the Parliament physically does not necessarily mean that people are not doing their jobs. Also, does anyone have the right to pry into people’s health issues, their caring responsibilities and so on? I am glad that Mr Simpson said that such issues should be treated with confidentiality. There are arguments about what constitutes reasonableness and, again, those need to be teased out. In my opinion, the Parliament should be very careful in all its decisions on the proposal.

I turn to the recall provisions. Much has been made of the fact that those aspects of Mr Simpson’s bill are largely based on the system that is in place at Westminster. However, that is not necessarily the case. At Westminster, complaints that MPs have breached the code of conduct are investigated by the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whose independent report is considered by the Committee on Standards before conclusions and recommendations are made to the whole House of Commons, which decides whether to impose a sanction on the MP involved. That can involve an apology to the house or, in more serious cases, suspension or expulsion. There is also a right of appeal for members.

The Committee of Privileges can consider any matter concerning MPs that is referred to it by the Commons, and it has the same parliamentary members as the Committee on Standards. It can recommend that the MP apologises or is suspended or expelled, and that recommendation goes to the House of Commons for a vote. Again, there is a right of appeal. Complaints about expenses are dealt with by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority compliance officer, and, again, MPs can appeal against any suspension. If an MP is suspended for at least 10 sitting days under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, constituents can trigger a by-election as long as at least 10 per cent of eligible voters sign a recall petition. However, the whole situation is preceded by independent processes in the UK Parliament, where there is a right of appeal.

I believe that the introduction of a workable recall mechanism for the Scottish Parliament is possible, I believe that it is the right thing to do, and I believe that there is support across the Parliament for introducing it. However, it is clear to me—and I know that other members across the chamber share my view—that there must be a better, more independent process ahead of that recall with clear guidance on sanctions. That can happen only if a process is put in place in advance and if that process is independent and not open to abuse, bias or political motivation.

In its stage 1 report on the bill, the committee notes that

“the evidence provided that the provision for a parliamentary-sanction ground for recall could influence the Parliament’s consideration of applying a sanction to a Member, and that this process carries potential to be politicised.”

How can any MSP have confidence or feel secure in a justice process for any future Scottish Parliament MSP if we know that partisan politics might be put before the process and that prejudice might be put before Parliament?

Again, I reiterate that I strongly believe that a parliamentary complaints and sanctions process that is backed by appropriate guidance in relation to section 2 of the bill must be put in place by the Parliament. I urge members to support the amendment in my name. I assure Mr Simpson and others that I will work with any member to get the bill right. The Parliament must get it right.

I move amendment S6M-19565.1, to insert at end:

“, and, in so doing, believes that consideration should be given to agreeing a parliamentary complaints and sanctions process, backed by appropriate guidance, in relation to section 2 of the Bill.”