Meeting of the Parliament 24 February 2026 [Draft]
All in this chamber care about democratic accountability—I think that that is a given. For many, the ultimate exercise in democratic accountability awaits in just a few weeks’ time, when re-election is sought. That is accountability in its most profound form.
A recall process provides accountability beyond and between regular parliamentary elections. It provides for a process in those—we hope, rare—situations where a member’s conduct falls short of accepted standards so that they can be held accountable to the electorate. Direct democratic accountability should not be a once-in-an-election event, which is why this Government strongly supports the introduction of a recall process in the Scottish Parliament.
It is precisely because recall is a process that goes right to the heart of our system of democracy that it is vital that the way in which it is designed reflects that commitment to democracy. I hope that the member in charge of the bill would agree—I think that he has done so—that the Government has fulfilled its commitment, which I gave, to engage with him on the technical and practical matters that are required to produce a workable bill, should Parliament choose to support it. We have engaged with Mr Simpson on the legislation and provided support where we could, including by working with him on his amendments at stage 2 and by lodging Government amendments. I commend his collaborative approach.
The amendments that have been agreed to improve the bill, and they demonstrate that this Parliament has the ability to work together to make the right improvements to our system of democratic governance. However, that work needs to be done in a considered, clear and holistic way, so that there can be confidence in a recall system that is based, rightly, on criminal misconduct, but also—vitally—on a sanctions system that has the confidence of the Parliament’s own members. Some good work has been done by this Parliament, and absolutely by the member in charge.
Although the Scottish Government and my party support the introduction of recall, I regret to say that we cannot support this recall bill. Far too much remains unknown about the complaints and sanctions process that so much of the bill depends on. That is not a criticism of the member in charge, but I could not in all good conscience leave this Parliament, as I will do shortly, with a law—I remind people that this is a law—that is based so much on an unknown process. Our new intake of MSPs deserves better.
The Parliament only recently received Rosemary Agnew’s report and referred it to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. There is much in the report for the committee and Parliament to consider and to make decisions about, never mind implementing it in any way. My colleague Kevin Stewart lodged stage 2 amendments seeking to future-proof the bill against developments in the system of sanctions. However, they were rejected. The shape of the complaints and sanctions process that the bill relies on is, therefore, far from clear.
The system of sanctions, and the recall process that rests and relies on it, are matters that need to be considered together, and in the right order, so that they complement each other. The two processes, taken together, will mean a weighty and consequential task for the MSPs on any committee that is empowered by the bill. By recommending sanctions above or below a certain level, they could, in effect, end a fellow parliamentarian’s political career. That could be the beginning of a process that might change the balance of power in a Parliament that, by design, produces more balanced chambers under a proportional voting system.
Out of fairness to the MSPs who will be judged by such a committee, the MSPs who may sit on it and do the judging and those who elect us, who expect the highest standards from their representatives, it is therefore vital that all parts of the system of deliberation are fair, balanced and effective. Can we believe that that would be the case under the bill? For my part, standing here, I do not believe that we have before us the complete, fair, balanced and effective system that we should all want. I reiterate that that is not a criticism of the efforts of the member in charge of the bill.
The Parliament can take action early in its next iteration and introduce a sanctions regime and a recall system that will command the confidence of both the public and those who will be subject to them. I hope that a committee, whether it is the next Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or a committee that is specifically established by Parliament for this very purpose, will introduce legislation following the May election that can be supported by all in Parliament. I am happy to commit the Government and my party to supporting such a considered and more rounded approach in the next session, leaning on the process that we have undergone to get to this point and the foundations that it has laid.