Official Report 1059KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20904, in the name of Graham Simpson, on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Graham Simpson, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.
17:28
It is customary to thank a number of people when we reach this stage in a member’s bill, so I will start with some thanks. First, I thank the non-Government bills unit for its support throughout what has been a very long process.
My various staff throughout the years of working on the bill deserve my thanks, and, in particular, I single out Abigail Fletcher, who will be mortified that I have mentioned her. She was super efficient and a great source of advice, and she will do well where she works now and wherever she works in the future.
I thank everyone who has engaged with me on the bill or who responded to the committee’s call for evidence, because being challenged on your ideas is a vital part of the process.
The former Minister for Parliamentary Business, Jamie Hepburn, has my on-going respect for the collaborative way in which he engaged with me on the bill, as does the current minister, Graeme Dey.
Finally, I thank Baroness Davidson for setting me on this course. I hope that it has not been a waste of time and that the Parliament does the right thing and legislates.
When I first started talking to Baroness Davidson about the bill, as I mentioned earlier, our idea centred on whether it was right that MSPs could get elected for five years and then, perfectly legitimately and without having to provide any excuse, never turn up again after being sworn in, or, now, in the age of hybrid working, without even logging into proceedings. That rather cushy arrangement would not be found in any other workplace, and to assume that people will not swing the lead is ludicrous, because they have done so and they will do so. Having been a councillor, I knew that councillors can lose their positions if they are absent for more than six months without good reason. The committee that looked at the bill was not entirely persuaded of the concept that I proposed—it was never about trying to catch MSPs who are off for a variety of very understandable reasons—so we lost that part of the bill at stage 2. The Parliament must return to that, because it is simply an unacceptable situation.
I also proposed that MSPs should lose their jobs if they were jailed for six months or more. Being jailed for six months is a very unlikely event in Scotland, but I wanted to avoid a repeat of the situation in the past whereby a member was jailed for 12 months but the law said that he would lose his job only if he was incarcerated for “more than” 12 months. That section of the bill was also sacrificed, so we are left with a recall bill.
The Parliament accepted that we should legislate. The question was: how? The fundamental challenge for me was to design a recall system that works for both constituency and regional members. It is impossible to have the same system, because we are elected differently. My initial effort was clunky and potentially very expensive. I accepted that and went back to the drawing board, because that is the process: we need to listen.
The difficult bit was the regional element. However—luckily—I had engaged with the Senedd Standards of Conduct Committee in Wales where the Welsh Government was legislating under the new entirely list system. It seemed to me that I could largely adopt the Welsh system for recalling regional members, which was to ask voters only once whether a member should stay or go, if they had met the threshold for being recalled—a poll, rather than a petition. That system is far easier to understand than my initial two-stage proposal and is, obviously, a lot cheaper.
That is what I proposed at stage 2. I had responded to the committee’s concerns. My officials worked with the Government on amendments. However, when we got to stage 2, the minister revealed that he was not entirely happy with one of the amendments. He wanted more detail, so I have provided that. The Parliament accepted my amendments today and the minister backed all of them, so I hope that that has been enough to secure his support. We will hear about that soon.
Today, I have heard concerns about the Agnew review and the parliamentary sanctions element of the bill. Nothing in the bill, as it is now, prevents our waiting for that review to complete. The bill can pass, and we can wait for the Agnew review.
I recognise the hard work that Graham Simpson has put in and the fact that he has been co-operative with other members. However, the lack of the Agnew review is a problem; there is a bit of cart before horse, which is troubling. As I have said previously, I have no skin in the game, as I am not coming back, but we need to get this absolutely right for the members of the future. I would not like anyone to be excluded without due process—
Thank you, Mr Stewart. Mr Simpson, I will give you the time back, as that was quite a long intervention.
I am extremely grateful. Kevin Stewart has made a good point. We need to get legislation right, and he knows that I take that very seriously. However, I assure him that nothing in the bill, as written and as amended today, prevents us from waiting for the Agnew review. That is not an argument for opposing the bill.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I am happy to take an intervention from Martin Whitfield, if I can. I have almost finished.
Be very brief, Mr Whitfield—briefer than Mr Stewart was, please.
I will be brief. It may assist people to understand from Graham Simpson when he envisages that the bill will, in fact, take effect and influence the career paths of MSPs in the future.
There is no commencement date. I guess that the point that I am making is that we can afford to wait. The fact that there is no commencement date is the result of a request from the Government, which I was happy to go along with. I have done all that I can to please as many people as I can, including Mr Whitfield, and especially Mr Dey.
We have a recall system for MPs, and there will be a recall system for members of the Senedd. Kicking this down the road into the next session will therefore leave this Parliament looking rather silly, and it will be unnecessary, because the bill works.
We should not be the only part of Britain without recall. We should do the right thing and pass this bill tonight.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill be passed.
I call Graeme Dey to open on behalf of the Scottish Government.
17:35
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.
17:40
The bill began life as a Scottish Conservative pledge. We proposed a Mackay’s law as long ago as 2021. The intention was to give people the ability to remove an absentee MSP: an elected representative who, without legitimate reason, simply withdrew from Parliament and ceased to do their job. There was a clear requirement for such a bill. Derek Mackay, the former finance secretary, did not attend Parliament or engage with it in any way after he was forced to resign in disgrace, yet he was paid about £100,000 during that period. Public anger and common sense demanded a Mackay’s law. The bill will not be that law, but that law is still very much required.
Our original proposal was to recall MSPs for non-attendance, either in person or remotely, that exceeded 180 days, with appropriate exemptions and safeguards. However, that simple provision is not part of the bill. The bill does not contain what we pledged and it is not Mackay’s law. It is not what this Parliament badly needs. I am bitterly disappointed that my amendments at stage 3 were not agreed to this afternoon. They would have left us with a still imperfect yet workable bill.
Ms Webber must realise that, if her amendments had been agreed to this afternoon, they would have wrecked the bill completely and utterly and would have set back the next Parliament in doing this absolutely right. We have to ensure that human rights are dealt with as part of this, but Ms Webber’s amendments would have run roughshod over that.
Mr Stewart, that was a very lengthy intervention again. Ms Webber, I will give you the time back.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I sought to deliver what the public expected of me—what was in the Scottish Conservatives’ manifesto. The bill is not that.
As things stand, we risk creating an inconsistent act that would do little to restore public faith in this Parliament, which I believe is badly eroding every day. It is not satisfactory that an MSP could be sentenced to anything up to a year in prison, yet not face removal by any means. The bill would allow an MSP who was in prison for an extremely serious offence to continue picking up a large salary at the taxpayer’s expense. I hardly need to add that the problem is being made worse by the SNP’s soft-touch justice system.
At the same time, an MSP who was suspended by this Parliament for 10 days would be subject to the recall mechanism with no appeal. That clear disparity is uncomfortable for members on the Conservative benches. It is deeply regrettable that my amendments that would have allowed the removal of any MSP who was found guilty by the courts and given either a custodial sentence or a community sentence were also rejected.
SNP and Green members have found very different difficulties with the bill and I understand that, ultimately, their votes will kill it. To be clear, Presiding Officer, I note that our problem with the bill is that it is not tough enough. It would fail to achieve what the public expect and what this Parliament needs. It would fail to turf out the likes of Derek Mackay.
For those reasons, with a good deal of regret, my party is unable to support the bill and we will abstain in the vote this evening. The Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill is a missed opportunity. However, we in the Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned for a better system of sanctions that will meet public expectations and enhance the standing of this Parliament, and we will continue to do so.
17:45
We all agree with the intent of this bill: that every other part of the United Kingdom has a system of recall, and so should we—that there should be accountability and control through the ballot box, not just to test popularity and measure support, but to hold members of this Parliament to account for any act of gross misconduct or of criminality, and so, in law, establish control not only by the police station, but by the polling station.
What has proved difficult, of course, is the conversion of theory into practice: the design of the legislation for achieving this. Even today, it is still beset with potential anomalies: a recall petition for constituency MSPs and a recall poll for regional list MSPs, and the potential debasement of the democratic right, established a century and a half ago, to a secret ballot. If the only reason to visit a polling place, to apply for a postal vote or to arrange a proxy vote is in order to vote one way and one way only—to vote for recall—that negates that secrecy. And, as far as I can tell, there has still been no equality impact assessment, when we know that women, for example, are more likely to be hounded on social media, and so more likely to be targeted in a recall petition, than men.
We have to understand this, too: that we are living through an era in which political leaders are less interested in a battle of ideas and much more concerned with personal smears; less interested in idealism, principle and power, and more concerned with individualism, privilege and positioning.
An awful lot—too much, in my opinion—of the making of this law, if the bill were to become an act, would reside in the hands of future ministers through regulations and in the hands of the next Parliament through secondary legislation, and may, therefore, not come into effect until after the 2031 election. That, in my view, is not just unsatisfactory; it is a monumental deficiency. After all, this legislation is supposed to be about the dispersal and the decentralisation of power, and the transfer of power and political control to the people. We should not be reversing this by, at the same time, switching power to the ministerial box from the ballot box.
The bill is in a much more reasoned and reasonable position now than it was when first presented. Some of the overcomplexities have been simplified. Some of the more contested elements have been dropped altogether, such as the automatic removal of MSPs sentenced for a custodial sentence of any length, which many of us could not support, and the removal of an MSP for not physically attending Parliament.
However, it is self-evident to me that, for all of its flaws, we have to pass this bill tonight, because to not pass it is unconscionable; to not pass it would disconnect us from the real world; and to not pass it would send out the message that we were completely out of touch. Because there is growing discontent, and there is a corrosion of trust in politics. We need democratic renewal.
As I step down from Parliament in the coming weeks, I leave it with the privilege of this experience—experience which is converted into determination—
rose—
The member is concluding.
It is experience that is converted into determination, and articulated in the inspiring words of Angela Davis, who famously declared:
“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I’m changing the things I cannot accept.”
That is the spirit of resistance, the sense of injustice and the scale of ambition—of vision—that the next Government, the next members of this Parliament and the next session of this Parliament, must adopt as their own, and that is how we must approach our vote on this bill tonight. It is how I will approach my vote tonight: a vote that the Labour Party will support.
17:49
Although the Scottish Greens were uncomfortable with the implementation of the bill as drafted at stage 1, we abstained at that point in order to give the member in charge of the bill the opportunity to review and correct some of its problems. However, even with the substantial changes that have been made, we do not feel that the core issues in the drafting have been resolved.
The recalling of MSPs is something for which there should be robust and transparent processes that do not discriminate against MSPs who have health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities. We note Engender’s repeated and on-going concerns about the impacts that the bill, as written, could have on already underrepresented groups, particularly in relation to privacy.
It should be relatively difficult to remove duly elected members from office before their time of service is completed, in order to limit the possibility that such removals could be instigated by party politics or by prejudice. We are elected by the public and we are accountable to them.
I have concerns that, under the United Kingdom Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which criminalises peaceful protest, members could acquire criminal records and significant jail time for things such as peacefully protesting against nuclear weapons or war, or peacefully protesting for the environment, Palestine or trans rights. This UK law raises the potential for ugly political misuse if members could, for example, get criminal records for peacefully protesting in favour of Scottish independence. It would be a horrendous repression of democratic expression if a poorly drafted recall bill prevented members from participating in peaceful protests for causes that they wish to support, including Scottish independence, if it meant risking their seats.
We have seen from recent history that we cannot draft legislation in the hope that no future Government will abuse it for political gain or to remove dissent. Crossing our fingers that all future people in power are good old chaps with good intentions is dangerous. Famously, Boris Johnson illegally prorogued the UK Parliament with the intention of gaining political advantage, so we know that the UK Government is as much at risk of abusing process as any regime.
This bill, as drafted, does not give us comfort in this matter. The Scottish Greens would like the Scottish Parliament, led by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, to develop a robust and well-thought-through recall bill for MSPs. We will not support this bill today, but we would like the project to be taken up as early as possible in the next session of Parliament, with the aim of creating a bill that all parties in the Scottish Parliament can come together and support, in order to create a transparent and fair process for the recall of MSPs.
I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
17:53
I congratulate the member in charge of the bill—and his staff—on getting us to this point.
It has been more than 10 years since commensurate legislation was passed in Westminster. Despite the rhetoric, it is shameful that we are doing this only now—we should have done it at around the same time. Ultimately, the people who send us to Parliament—our constituents, who give us our instructions—are our employer and our boss. Unless we pass this bill, they will not have the means of terminating our employment beyond the normal rhythm of elections. They are our boss. They decide whether we get to stay here and they cannot do so on a whim. The bill rightly builds in safeguards around the thresholds that would trigger an action to remove one of us.
In the time available to me, I will address the criminality aspect of Sue Webber’s amendments. I have had time to consider this aspect further. We should not just have criminality as a trigger for expulsion, because, in the future, we might live in less enlightened times.
I have a lot of sympathy with Lorna Slater’s remarks about peaceful protests. Sometimes, peaceful protests that cross the line of the law are a democratic necessity and imperative. We need only look across the Atlantic at the activities in Minneapolis, where some democratically elected members have tried to obstruct the inhumane activities of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the conduct of their duties. In a black-and-white analysis, those members breached the law, but they were not able to do otherwise because their consciences would not have allowed them to. We cannot be in a situation in which our consciences driving us to take steps that are outside the law would lead to a recall or, as Sue Webber’s amendments would have provided for, an immediate expulsion.
There was another flaw in Sue Webber’s amendments. She pointed out that breaking the law and receiving a custodial sentence would likely result in someone losing any other job. That may well be the case, but it would not be the court that would terminate that employment but the employer, who would do so after assessing the facts as they had them. It would have been inappropriate to include that provision in the bill, because it would have given the final say to the Parliament rather than the people who send us here.
I want to reflect on the fact that my amendment 35 was perhaps the first amendment that I have lodged in my entire parliamentary career of 10 years to have been unanimously agreed to by the Parliament. I am grateful for that and for the chorus of interventions that explored the issue that the amendment raised. I look forward to picking up on the amendment’s provisions in the next parliamentary session. When I tried to introduce them in the previous session, the amendment crashed to utter defeat—by something like 125 votes to four.
We have drawn an important line in the sand. The Parliament recognised that we are omitting to check that the people who stand for election are of the right calibre and probity to work with protected groups, whether that be vulnerable adults or children. We cannot go on like that. There is no question but that, ultimately, in the fullness of time, such an omission will lead to an exploitation of the reach, power, influence and opportunity that we, as parliamentarians, are offered through the privilege that we have in this role.
Reflecting on that in the tea room with Jeremy Balfour, I realised that we need not just ensure that parliamentarians are subject to the disclosure process; that would, in large part, be closing the barn door after the horse had bolted. Instead, we need to provide that, in the vetting process for candidates, parties are expected to ensure that disclosure regimes are applied to those who would seek high office.
As Liberal Democrats, we are happy to support this very democratic bill.
We move to the open debate.
17:57
I want to make it clear, as the minister has done, that the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party support the introduction of a fair and independent recall process in the Scottish Parliament to improve democratic accountability and to strengthen trust in our political system. I thank Graham Simpson for the work that he has done on the issue and for shining a light on what needs to be done in the next parliamentary session. His member’s bill has opened up a conversation on and a necessary study of the measures that are needed to hold MSPs to account and restore trust in this institution.
As MSPs, we are in a privileged position and our responsibilities to our constituents—the people who voted for us—cannot be underestimated. As a member who is standing down from the Parliament this year, I want there to be a fair, democratic and transparent system that is fit for the future. However, the bill rests on a system of parliamentary sanctions that is currently under review. The SNP believes that an independent and fair complaints and sanctions process with guidance is needed ahead of a recall process being established and agreed to. That is particularly the case with regard to how such a recall system would work for regional MSPs, as we have heard today. There must be parity between constituency and regional MSPs in our democratic system.
If the bill were to pass today, MSPs would be agreeing to a bill that is based on a purely unknown process. That uncertainty would present risks, particularly in relation to how such a recall system would work for regional MSPs.
We have said throughout the consideration of the bill that matters relevant to the conduct and recall of members are for the Scottish Parliament to lead on, not the Government of the day or Scottish ministers.
The Government’s overriding concern, as set out during stage 2 and during this debate, is that the bill is for Parliament to progress. It is only right that an independent, fair complaints and sanctions process, with guidance, is developed ahead of a recall process being established and agreed.
The sanctions process is crucial and at the heart of the matter. Fairness and proportionality must be at the heart of it. To progress how we believe the process should take place, we are recommending that the next Parliament should set up a committee at pace to consider the matter, just as it did successfully last year to consider Scotland’s commissioner landscape.
As was mentioned, Graham Simpson’s bill rests on a system of sanctions that is currently under review, so it is not the right time to introduce a bill of such magnitude and complexity.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I have only a wee bit more to say and I am running out of time.
We must ensure that the processes work smoothly and are sufficiently clear to command public confidence, should they need to be used. The review may bring about changes to the consideration and delivery of sanctions to deal with any concerns or perceived concerns about the independence and impartiality of the process in the future.
Although the SNP supports, in principle, the introduction of a form of recall in the Scottish Parliament, it is for all the reasons that I and others have outlined that we cannot support the bill at stage 3.
I call Christine Grahame. You have up to four minutes.
18:01
Thank you for taking my late request to speak, Presiding Officer.
There are two reasons why I will not support the bill. First, the review of by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be undertaken, given the huge flaws in the process. Secondly, I want to refer specifically to Richard Leonard’s summing up on behalf of the Labour Party. He said two things that, in my view, were actually reasons why the Labour Party should not vote for the bill. I very much support having the means to recall Parliament and deal with miscreant MSPs. However, the first thing that Richard Leonard said was that he would support the bill
“for all of its flaws”.
Then, to justify that, he said that the bill sends a message. Legislation can, indeed, send a message, but it should not be flawed—not from the outset. That is my major concern.
This is a serious business. For legislation to be effective, it must be tightly drawn, it must be just and it must not have unintended consequences. In this case, it should not be introduced ahead of the review that is already due to be carried out.
For those reasons, I cannot see why the member and the group on the Labour benches are supporting the bill. Like Richard Leonard, I will be retiring, and to hear someone in here supporting flawed legislation is simply wrong.
We move to closing speeches.
18:02
The Parliament exists by the consent of the people of Scotland. That consent is not unconditional; it rests on trust, integrity and accountability. When that trust is broken, the public must be confident that there is a fair, clear and credible means of response. That is the purpose of the bill before us today. Scottish Labour has long supported the principle that the people of Scotland should have the power to recall their elected representatives where serious wrongdoing has occurred. That principle has applied to Westminster for more than a decade, and it cannot be right that MSPs should be subject to a weaker or less certain standard of accountability simply because they serve in this Parliament.
As has been said many times, public office is a privilege; it is not a possession. Holyrood’s electoral system is distinct. We elect constituency and regional MSPs under an additional member system designed to ensure proportionality. Any recall mechanism must therefore be tailored to Scotland’s Parliament, not simply transplanted from elsewhere. That challenge has sat at the heart of the bill from when it first started its journey all those years ago.
However, Scottish Labour has been clear throughout the passage of the bill that our test has been whether the system is workable, proportionate and intelligible to the public. At earlier stages, we raised concerns about unnecessary complexity. Those concerns were not abstract; they were grounded in evidence from the electoral administrators, the Electoral Commission, about voter confusion and administrative burden.
The bill is complex, and no recall system—particularly one operating within a mixed electoral model—will be perfect at first enactment. However, to address the question about flawed legislation, this Parliament and the Scottish Government are perhaps the champions of what is becoming known as legislation that is discovered to be flawed.
I spare no one in commenting on legislation being flawed, including members in my own party group, and I have made such comments since I came to Parliament. As a former solicitor—as the member is, too—I cannot say that I am content to pass something that is flawed and that could, in fact, be made better.
The reality is that we can also point to examples of when we have not passed proposed legislation or something else has not happened, and then the issue has been kicked into the long grass never to return again. When there has been flawed legislation, we have seen Parliament move incredibly quickly when need be.
Scottish Labour will support the bill on the basis that it represents a reasonable and workable framework, while we recognise that the experience of its operation might demonstrate that further refinement or adjustment is needed in future. Scottish Labour will support it at decision time because, ultimately, accountability that is delayed, confused or diluted is accountability denied to the people of Scotland. Parliament owes the people of Scotland better than that.
I call Annie Wells to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
18:06
A very simple principle underlies the bill and also my colleague Sue Webber’s amendments: when politicians fall below the standards expected of them, there must be real consequences. For too long in Scotland, that has not been the case. Voters have watched MSPs break the law, breach parliamentary standards or walk away from their responsibilities and yet remain protected by a system that prioritises politicians over the public. That is not acceptable, which is exactly why the bill and my colleague’s amendments mattered. I am disappointed that the Parliament has voted those amendments down.
Will the member give way?
I will not—I have just started.
In our 2021 manifesto the Scottish Conservatives made a clear commitment to introduce a recall system for MSPs, because accountability should not stop once someone is elected. However, the bill that is before us today is a watered-down version of what it could have been. It could have finally begun to close the gap. My colleague’s amendments would have put in the bill clear thresholds and safeguards and the requirement for a meaningful level of public support before a seat could be vacated.
Let us be honest about why the bill exists. Scotland has seen high-profile cases in which MSPs resigned from Government, vanished from public life and stopped doing the job that they were elected to do, yet they continued to draw a full taxpayer-funded salary. Not only is that embarrassing; it amounts to a breach of trust. Every time that the Parliament fails to act decisively, public confidence takes another hit.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not, thank you.
My colleague’s amendments could have allowed a very different message to be sent. They said that no one is untouchable, that standards matter and that, when those standards are breached, the public—not politicians—should get the final say.
They also would have put measures in the bill to improve the transparency and accessibility of the recall process. If recall is to happen, it must be clear, workable and trusted by voters and by the people who administer the process. That is why clarity on timing, reporting and oversight matters. Accountability must not only exist but be seen to exist.
Too often in this chamber we hear speeches about restoring trust in politics. However, trust is not restored by warm words or worthy statements but by action, by drawing firm lines, by enforcing standards and by refusing to protect errant colleagues.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not, thank you; I am in my last minute. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I said no to the intervention.
Let us hear Ms Wells.
The bill could have done exactly that. It could have put power back where it belongs: with the electorate. It could have ensured that serious wrongdoing would have serious consequences; and it could have strengthened the integrity of the Parliament. If an MSP breaks the law, they should be removed. If they disgrace the Parliament, they should face the voters. If the public has lost confidence in them, politicians should not be shielded from the consequences. That is accountability and that is leadership, which is why I am so disappointed that my colleague Sue Webber’s amendments were not agreed to. I believe in the principles of the bill, but this watered-down version cannot be the end of the discussion. Scottish Conservatives will abstain at decision time tonight.
18:10
The Government supports the introduction of a recall process—let there be no doubt about that—but this bill, at this time, is not the right way to deliver a recall process that commands the confidence of the Parliament and those who elect us. I am not seeking to make a partisan point here, but we know that the mood in the Parliament about many matters can become disputatious and divided. That can reflect strength of feeling about important issues but, sometimes—too often—it is the product of unconstructive reflexive disagreement.
We owe it to those who would serve on any sanctions committee, and those who would be judged by one, to put in place a better process than what is set out in the bill and one that takes full account of whatever follows from the Agnew report on the Parliament’s complaints and sanctions system. Protecting those who serve on any sanctions committee is every bit as important as protecting the interests of those who might be judged by it. In this session of Parliament, judgments that have been reached by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on our behalf have been challenged in the chamber. Indeed, the member in charge of the bill, which seeks to bring significant sanctions into play, was one of a number of MSPs who opposed the comparatively modest punishment of another member by the committee just a few weeks ago.
Let us imagine that session 7 turns out to be even more fractious than this one. Let us imagine, too, that the relevant committee is asked to sit in judgment on multiple colleagues. Do they not deserve the protection of a system that has been properly shaped? Are we really prepared to introduce a recall bill now, without having in place a clearly understood set of parameters for sanctioning MSPs that ensures that everyone knows where they stand?
It is clear that those on the Government benches, and others, will not support the bill tonight. Laying aside the dismay that Scottish Liberal Democrats feel at that reality, I am gratified by the constructive work that we undertook together on my amendment 35, which was on conducting a review about introducing a disclosure scheme or a protection of vulnerable groups checking regime for future parliamentarians. In that spirit, and given that we still have four weeks before the end of the session, will the minister instruct officials to begin work towards that aim now, so that an incoming Government can pick it up in the new session?
At stage 2, I committed to the Government progressing a public consultation on that very issue—well, it would be on electoral reform and would encompass that issue. I noted particularly that, if the bill did not progress, the consultation would be a vehicle for exploring that. I reiterate that contribution. The matter that Mr Cole-Hamilton has brought to the Parliament is incredibly serious, and it is one that the Parliament must grasp by reviewing not just the concept of some sort of checking system but how that would work in practice and the complexities that would go with it. We must acknowledge that there are a lot of complexities.
At this time, right at the end of a session of Parliament, what the Government supports, rather than the bill, is something that is put together on a cross-party basis with the parameters that I mentioned earlier at the forefront. On behalf of my party, I am happy to commit to supporting a process at the very start of the next session, when members come together as a Parliament—I nearly said “we” there—first to agree how to implement a sanctions regime based on the findings of the Agnew report, and then to support the development of a committee bill that would build a recall system on top of that. I do not believe that that is in any way beyond this institution, largely because of the work that Mr Simpson has done through the scrutiny of the issues. However, from listening to Sue Webber’s remarks, I am concerned that those who succeed us will perhaps find the Tories a barrier to creating a fair and balanced system.
Although the Government is unable to support the bill, I again highly commend the work that Graham Simpson has done and his approach to the bill. If the bill is rejected, I am optimistic that, in the next session, the Parliament can deliver the democratic accountability that we all want to put in place. I have confidence that a committee process—it is important that it should be a committee process—will be able to consider and come up with solutions to the difficulties that the Parliament has identified during the stages of this bill, not least in working out the best form of recall for regional members.
Let us ensure that that can be done on a cross-party, non-partisan basis, considering all the issues in this complex process. Even though my decision not to stand for re-election means that I will not contribute to that process, I will watch on as an interested member of the public to see what the next Parliament chooses as the best way forward.
18:15
I will be brief, because I think that members want to get to the vote, and I think that they all know how they will vote.
We are about to miss an opportunity. The Parliament wants to have a recall system, which the bill would allow to happen. As I said, it would allow the recommendations of the Agnew review to come into force. It is flexible enough to allow that, so there is simply no reason not to pass it.
Christine Grahame knows that I have a great deal of respect for her, but she called the bill flawed legislation that could be made better. A lot of legislation is like that, though.
[Made a request to intervene.]
If Christine Grahame would listen to the point that I am about to make, perhaps she could respond then.
We have a process that goes through stages 1, 2 and 3. Stages 2 and 3 are for members to improve proposed legislation. Very few members engaged with the bill to raise concerns. Kevin Stewart did so at stage 2—he valiantly attempted to get an amendment agreed to, but it was not—but few other members engaged with it. If they had had concerns, they could have raised them.
If Christine Grahame still wants to intervene, I will take her intervention.
To amend the record, I was quoting Richard Leonard, who said that, despite the bill’s flaws, he would vote for it. I could not understand the rationale behind that position. I admire Richard Leonard in many respects, but not for that comment.
I, too, admire Richard Leonard. As he knows, I am very sorry that he is standing down.
When we get to the vote in a few seconds, we will have the opportunity to do the right thing. If we do not do so, Scotland will be left without any recall process. My concern is that failing to pass the bill will kick the issue into the long grass. Even if a special committee is formed in the next parliamentary session, the process could take years. It has already taken five years, and it could take a further five years. We could be waiting until the parliamentary session after that, or beyond, before we get a recall system or tackle members’ non-attendance. That is what we are voting on tonight.
All those voting against the bill will be viewed dimly. I think that people know what is going on here—I will leave it at that. Let us get to the vote.
That concludes the debate on the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill at stage 3.