Hansard

I thank everyone who contributed to the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) (Scotland) Bill; the respondents to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s call for views; the stakeholders and academics who gave evidence; the Scottish Government for its input; and, of course, Mr Simpson for introducing the bill.

The intention behind the bill is to improve the democratic accountability of MSPs during a parliamentary session. Mr Simpson has proposed a process by which members may be recalled on the grounds of their conduct. He has also sought to broaden the criteria for automatic disqualification of members.

I will set out the main conclusions and recommendations that the committee has reached on those issues. First, I will turn to the issue of recall. Our evidence indicated that there is broad support for allowing for the recall of members of the Scottish Parliament. We heard that recall would give the public greater say in holding members accountable for their conduct and that it could promote public confidence and trust in this institution. Mr Simpson has described recall as “a deterrent”, and we agree that issues of conduct should be the primary focus of any recall system introduced to the Parliament.

Of course, recall is not a new idea. In ancient Greece, the Athenians had a system of ostracism, whereby politicians could be exiled for up to 10 years. To quote Diadorus the Sicilian,

“The Athenians, it appears, pass such a law not for the purpose of punishing wrongdoing, but in order to lower through exile the presumption of men who had risen too high.”

Therefore, it is an ancient problem.

I digress. Mr Simpson has not gone that far. Instead, his proposal is inspired by the established process at Westminster for the recall of MPs. Although the committee agrees that that is a sensible approach, we stressed that any recall system must work with our electoral system of constituency and regional MSPs.

The bill proposes that a member may be subject to recall on the grounds either of receiving a parliamentary sanction of at least 10 sitting days or of being convicted of an offence and receiving a custodial sentence of less than six months.

Our witnesses were broadly in favour of keeping the grounds limited to those areas. The Electoral Reform Society noted that the parliamentary sanctions process can appear rather “opaque to the public”; we recognise that clarity would be essential when communicating the reasons as to why any recall-triggering sanction had been recommended.

During our evidence gathering, the question arose of whether a member who changes or leaves their political party should be subject to recall. Of course, members will have their own views on the matter. The committee notes simply that

“such an approach would be unique within the ... UK”.

We make a number of recommendations on the arrangements for recall petitions, with a view to ensuring that the process is as accessible as possible. We think that providing for a maximum number of 10 petition-signing places is a useful guide for the petition officers. Since those places are likely to be different from our normal election polling stations, their locations and opening times must be communicated clearly. The cut-off point for determining eligibility to sign a petition must also be made clear, and provision should be made for signing by post or by proxy, so that all with the right to sign a petition can do so.

On the 10 per cent threshold for determining a successful petition, some witnesses suggested that that might be relatively low, and we heard no clear views on an alternative figure. However, we recognise that the purpose of the threshold is to indicate whether there is public interest in moving to the next phase of a recall process. In addition, we think that there may be merit in closing a petition early if that threshold has been reached.

In relation to the proposed dual threshold for petitions to recall regional MSPs, the committee asks Mr Simpson to consider whether that could present a higher bar for recall of regional MSPs than for recall of their constituency counterparts.

In relation to successful petitions, the bill provides us with different processes for filling vacant constituency and regional seats. Although a constituency seat is to be filled through a normal by-election, in which the recalled member could stand, a regional seat could be filled through a regional poll, which would offer the recalled member an opportunity to retain their seat. If they were unsuccessful in the poll, the seat would be filled in the way that regional vacancies are usually filled. Stakeholders had significant concerns about the idea of a regional poll, and I welcome the proposals that have been made to seek to amend that.

I listened very carefully to Kevin Stewart’s contribution regarding his amendment to the motion, but I am afraid that I remain unclear about what he envisages in relation to section 2, so I cannot support the amendment. If the issue had been raised with the committee at stage 1, we could have explored and reported on it and allowed the Parliament to take an informed view on Mr Stewart’s amendment. If the general principles are agreed to today, there will be an opportunity to explore the range of ideas that Mr Stewart raised, and I would welcome engagement in that process.

I turn to the provisions in part 2 of the bill for the removal of members for not physically attending the Parliament for 180 days without reasonable explanation. We understand that the public and members may hold expectations that MSPs should physically attend the Parliament. However, the committee must have regard to our standing orders, which enable members to take part in proceedings remotely on an equal basis and thereby represent our constituents fully without physically attending. The committee has concerns about the proposed process for deciding whether a member has a reasonable explanation for—