Meeting of the Parliament 24 February 2026 [Draft]
The Scottish Government cannot support any of Sue Webber’s amendments in the group, because they would change the nature of recall by removing Scottish voters from the process of determining whether their regional MSP should or should not be recalled from the Parliament as a result of that MSP’s misconduct. Instead, they would provide that constituency MSPs would have their misconduct judged by voters, and regional list MSPs would be removed directly by the Presiding Officer. No right of appeal would be built into the regional process.
The amendments would abandon the principle of parity of esteem for Scottish Parliament recall processes, and MSPs who had committed the same level of misconduct would be treated differently, depending on the method by which they had been elected to the Parliament. Strong democratic accountability measures would be in place for constituency MSPs, whereas they would not be in place for regional members.
I want to return to the principle behind introducing a recall process, which the Scottish Government fully supports. The point of recall is not to design a process that derives from the manner by which the MSP was elected; it should be to enhance democratic accountability of all members of the Parliament by ensuring that, by engaging in the recall process, Scottish voters have a role in determining whether their MSP should or should not be recalled from the Parliament as a result of that MSP’s misconduct.
Under Sue Webber’s proposals, a regional MSP who was convicted of an offence on a matter of conscience would be denied the safeguard of the public judging whether their conduct was justified. The process of direct removal for regional MSPs would cut the costs that are associated with the bill, and costs have been an area of concern, given that the recall process is relatively simple. However, costs should surely not cut the corners of democracy or natural justice. It might make for a cleaner, simpler system, but would it be fair or equitable? No.
Introducing such a proposal, voting on it and then passing the bill at stage 3 without seriously considering detailed evidence is not the right approach to introducing such a significant change and potentially severe new process. I therefore urge the Parliament to reject all Sue Webber’s amendments in the group.