Hansard

I thank Graham Simpson for his open and constructive engagement on the bill, and the non-Government bills unit for its work on it. I, too, thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its stage 1 report. The committee has carefully considered the strengths and weaknesses of the bill, and I note the committee’s conclusions and recommendations with interest.

I welcome what I believe to be the intent of Kevin Stewart’s reasoned amendment to the motion, which would enable us to address one of the key challenges that the bill presents: its interaction with the on-going review of this Parliament’s complaints and sanctions regime. However, I recognise that there might be other views, and I look forward to the debate.

We all want a Parliament in which the highest standards are upheld and in which the public can have confidence that those who represent them will be held to account when they do not meet those standards. We need to have in place robust, fair, transparent and efficient systems so that voters can hold their representatives to account. However, we need those systems to be workable for this Parliament and for the people who elect its members.

The Parliament in Westminster has in place a system for voters to recall MPs, as we have heard, and the Welsh Government has just introduced a bill to introduce recall provisions in the Senedd. Surely, we should be no different in our ambition, although I reiterate that we need a system that works for Scotland.

As the committee has concluded, there is broad support for the principle of recall and for the introduction of recall measures in the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government supports the general principles of the bill. However, the committee has made a clear statement on the challenges that it presents. The committee’s report highlights

“some fundamental issues that would need to be addressed at Stage 2 for the Bill to be able to deliver its intended purpose.”

It also highlights issues of detail that would need further attention.

As we have heard, we await the outcome of the independent review into the parliamentary complaints process. It is important that the Parliament understands and agrees what the complaints and sanctions process would look like before it is finally asked to endorse a bill that will, in part, depend on that process and could result in an elected member being subject to the recall procedure.

At present, the Parliament’s standing orders note the available sanctions under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. However, the 2006 act discusses sanctions only in relation to a breach of the register of members’ interests. There is no legislative basis for sanctions under the code of conduct, and there is no guidance. We would all want that to be addressed so that members of the Parliament now and in the future can trust and have confidence in the processes and procedures. That is why the Government is minded to support Kevin Stewart’s reasoned amendment.

The Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill is conditional on changes to the bill at stage 2, reflecting the significant concerns that are raised in the committee’s report. To his credit, Mr Simpson has already begun that work, and we have discussed potential changes to the regional recall process in the light of the committee’s concerns. As we have heard, Mr Simpson has written to the committee outlining his thinking on a new single-stage approach. We would be happy to work with him and other members to develop amendments on that and other areas that strike the right balance between complexity and cost, as the committee recommended.

The committee’s concerns with the bill go beyond simply the processes for regional recall. The committee questions whether the threshold for the recall and removal of MSPs on the ground of criminal offence has been set at the right level. It calls for new provisions on campaigning rules and for a rethink of the provisions on physical non-attendance in the building as a ground for disqualification.

I will focus initially on the attendance provisions. I note that the committee is explicit on the issue, stating that it

“does not think a Member’s absence should be considered a misconduct issue”,

and that “requiring physical attendance” is not the correct basis on which to disqualify someone from membership of the Parliament. It is not for the Government to take the lead in matters that rightly belong to the Scottish Parliament to consider, but the Government has heard what the committee has to say and understands entirely its concerns.

The committee has taken issue with the process of managing non-attendance, should those provisions remain in the bill. We recognise those concerns. We should not create a system that requires a committee of the Parliament to seek, hold and make judgments on personal information about MSPs and their family members, including on what sort of excuses should be determined reasonable, with the prospect of the removal of an MSP as an outcome. Without a clear, objective and fair process for non-attendance issues to be investigated, we risk exposing members with caring responsibilities or health issues to possible disqualification, instead of those people who the bill seeks to capture.

The committee has raised concerns about the criminal offence triggers for recall and removal in the bill, and it has asked Mr Simpson

“to reflect on whether the bar for the recall and removal of MSPs on the grounds of criminal offence has been set at the right level.”

Laws are in place that disqualify an MSP if they receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months and are imprisoned as a result. The bill proposes to lower that threshold for disqualification to sentences of six months and to introduce a separate trigger for recall if an MSP receives a custodial sentence of less than six months for a criminal offence.

Would it not be simpler and clearer to retain the 12-month threshold for removal and make a custodial sentence of 12 months or less a trigger for recall? Twelve months is the maximum sentence in non-jury trials and is a recognised threshold in our justice system. The Government would be willing to work with members on amendments to that effect.

Finally, the committee has asked Mr Simpson to consider—