Committee
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee 29 January 2026 [Draft]
29 Jan 2026 · S6 · Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Item of business
Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2
Should the amendments be agreed to, we will get revised costings. I do not have revised costings yet, because the amendments have not been agreed to. If they are agreed to, we will get revised costings ahead of stage 3, because Parliament needs to know.The value for money question is difficult to answer. This is a bill that I would hope we would never need to use—I hope that this never happens. It probably will, but I hope that it does not. It would be very rare, and it would be just one of those things that you would have to do. Therefore, I think that if you are asking about value for money, you are possibly asking the wrong question.I will make some progress, convener. Amendment 61 seeks to remove section 16 of the bill entirely. That section sets out my original process for a poll to determine whether a recalled regional member would fill the regional vacancy following a regional recall petition. Amendment 56 seeks to remove the provisions that would have been required to be reflected in the Scotland Act 1998 to enable my original poll process to be completed.Amendments 47 to 50, 53, 60 and 62 seek to remove references to the recall process being “successful”. The word “successful” is used in the Recall of MPs Act 2015, and the drafting of this bill is based partly on that legislation. However, in this series of amendments I have sought to remove all references to success. In my view, the wording in the Welsh bill is preferable, as it makes no reference to success and because such references do not sound like entirely neutral language. After all, it might not be deemed a successful outcome by the MSP in question. My amendments seek to strip back the language to refer simply to “the outcome” of the petition or the poll process.Amendments 64 to 66 have been covered, in part, in my previous general comments, but I would like to set them out in a little bit of detail. These will be the last amendments that I will explain in this group, as I appreciate that I have already spoken for some time.Amendment 64 seeks to create the new provision for the recall process in a distinct new chapter that is separate from the recall petition process, and it would apply only to regional members subject to a recall initiating notice. The purpose is set out in the bill. It would be the returning officer’s duty, after receiving a recall initiating notice, to make the relevant arrangements for a recall poll to be held in the region of the member subject to the notice, in accordance with the regulations to be made under section 21 of the bill. Moreover, in the absence of the bill setting out the specific questions that are to be asked of the electorate in a recall poll, the provision sets out what the recall poll is and, in general terms, how a person may vote for or against the recall of the member.Amendment 65 requires that Scottish ministers make regulations to provide for the conduct of the recall poll under section 21 of the bill. That includes provision about who is entitled to vote in a recall poll and how and by whom the date of the recall poll is to be determined. It sets out that the poll will occur on one day and that the poll date must fall within a particular period, which ends 34 days after the issuing of the recall initiating notice that gives rise to the poll.I am getting there, convener.That is for reasons of parity between the constituency and regional recall processes. It would yield a period that generally matches the period in the recall petition process for a constituency MSP between the initiation of the recall process by the notice and the close of the recall petition.The remainder of amendment 65 will mean that the regulations must also make provisions to reschedule a regional poll in the same circumstances in which a recall petition may be rescheduled, and that that will be subject to the same requirements for consultation with the returning officer, the Electoral Commission and the convener of the Electoral Management Board. I appreciate that amendment 65 does not stipulate that the Presiding Officer would be the person setting the date for a rescheduled poll. However, that is what I would envisage for the constituency MSP recall process, as is reflected in amendment 29.Needless to say, if there are any specifics that committee members consider should be in the bill but that I have left to regulations in my amendments, I ask them to please highlight those in their contributions. I am happy to work on providing additional detail through further amendments at stage 3.Amendment 66 will make provision for the new recall poll process. It deals with the determination of the poll and how the outcome will be notified. As soon as is practicable after the poll closes, the returning officer will be required to determine whether the member has been recalled. That will be determined on the basis of whether there has been a majority vote for the member to lose their seat. When there is a tied vote, the member will not lose their seat. After that, the returning officer will have to notify the Presiding Officer of the outcome and give public notice, in accordance with regulations made under section 21. The Presiding Officer will then be required to lay the notice of the outcome of the poll before the Parliament.The amendments to section 14 and the associated amendment to the schedule—amendment 59—work with the creation of the new section on the determination and notice of the poll outcome in amendment 66. Collectively, those reflect the introduction of the recall poll, meaning that there will be two routes for the Presiding Officer being notified of the outcome of a recall process.I am sure that the committee will be as relieved as I am that I have finished.I move amendment 1.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Martin Whitfield)
Lab
Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2026. The only item on today’s agenda is co...
The Convener
Lab
Amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5, 10 to 16, 18, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 51, 53 to 56, 59 to 68, 70 and 79 to 83....
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Reform
I agree that we need to make progress today. However, this first group is the biggest by far. If you will indulge me, I have a bit to say on this first group...
The Convener
Lab
“Indulge” is a strong word. Let us debate what needs to be debated.
Graham Simpson
Reform
Indeed. I will not take as long on any of the other groups.I thank the committee again for its in-depth scrutiny of the bill. Many of the amendments that I h...
The Convener
Lab
Will the member explain why the amendments that he proposes, which would mean substantial changes to the bill as introduced, still effectively retain those t...
Graham Simpson
Reform
That is not what I am proposing, convener.
The Convener
Lab
You are proposing an initial petition whereby a member is recalled, and then there is potentially a poll in the region where—
Graham Simpson
Reform
No. Mine is a one-step process, which I will go on to explain. It is much simpler than the original proposal, which had two stages and which was complicated,...
Sue Webber (Lothian) (Con)
Con
We are all probably looking a little bit puzzled. We have read the suite of amendments that you have lodged. I know that you are going to speak in depth abou...
Graham Simpson
Reform
I will just go over what I said. The new model moves away from the two-step process for regional MSPs.
Sue Webber
Con
And can you tell me what—
Graham Simpson
Reform
Will you allow me to finish, if that is okay? I am trying to explain.
Sue Webber
Con
Oh.
Graham Simpson
Reform
Well, come back in Ms Webber.
Sue Webber
Con
No, it is fine.
The Convener
Lab
Do you want to explain, Mr Simpson?
Graham Simpson
Reform
Yes. We would move away from the two-step process. The new model would begin in the same way as was originally envisaged, with one of the recall conditions b...
The Convener
Lab
The regional recall poll will have—
Graham Simpson
Reform
The word “poll” is throwing you. I will come on to explain that. Do not worry about the word. It is the same process, but it is one stage.I will move on. I k...
Emma Roddick (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
The recall poll deals with a few issues that were raised at stage 1, but many of those issues were raised for both the constituency and regional elements. In...
Graham Simpson
Reform
Essentially, a poll and a petition are the same thing. We are asking voters in a constituency or in a region to say whether a member should stay or go.
Emma Roddick
SNP
But in one case it is a first-past-the-post decision—
Graham Simpson
Reform
That is true.
Emma Roddick
SNP
In the other case, 10 per cent can trigger a whole by-election.
Graham Simpson
Reform
Yes.
Emma Roddick
SNP
Why?
Graham Simpson
Reform
Through this suite of amendments, I am trying to simplify the regional element, which was a big sticking point for the committee—and rightly so. The purpose ...
Sue Webber
Con
In your opening remarks, you mentioned concerns about cost. You have spoken about having a regional poll process and a constituency petition process for the ...
Graham Simpson
Reform
My new proposal will cost a lot less. The financial memorandum that you have seen relates to the original proposal. I agree that it is a lot of money. You wo...