Chamber and committees

Mr Kerr has been a whip in our party, and I am sure that he enjoyed every moment of it. As I said, I am giving my opinion and I feel passionately about the party that got me here. That is where we are.

Secondly, I return to the proposal that members should be removed for failing to physically attend Parliament for 180 days. We have heard a lot about that from Mr Stewart. I understand the desire to ensure engagement and accountability, but I have concerns about how that would work in practice. We have embraced hybrid working, not just in response to the pandemic but as a reflection of modern working life. I also take into consideration Mr Carlaw’s comments.

We know that being a good MSP is not just about sitting in the chamber. It is about being in our constituencies, meeting community groups, listening to businesses, visiting schools, representing local people and picking up the casework that Mr Stewart spoke about. We also know that things sometimes happen in our lives that are out of our control. Members might have long-term health conditions, caring responsibilities or other legitimate reasons for needing to work flexibly. To suggest that a member could lose their seat simply because they were not physically present for a period of time risks undermining the process and it could discourage people with caring duties, disabilities or whatever from standing for election, and we want this place to be inclusive. It is a goal to ensure that our MSPs are doing their jobs, but there are better and fairer ways to measure that than simply counting the days that they are in the building.

Thirdly, on recall itself, the overarching objective of a recall provision is to enhance the trust that citizens have in their elected politicians and to empower them to act if an elected member breaches the code of conduct or behaves in a way that does not befit the privilege of holding public office. If the recall process does not meet the public’s understanding of integrity and accountability, it will not meet the objective of enhancing trust in democracy, which we need right now. Done badly, it risks further undermining trust, so any recall system must be clear, consistent and credible and it must not become a political weapon or a tool for personal or partisan vendettas. It must also be proportionate, so we must ensure that the threshold for triggering a recall is high enough to maintain stability in this chamber without being so high that it becomes meaningless. That is a fine balance.

The system must be transparent and affordable, but it is estimated that the full cost of the bill’s proposals for the recall of a constituency MSP would be about £0.5 million and that the cost of recalling a regional MSP would be close to £2.7 million. I understand that there are moves to change that, but those costs are far too high to be acceptable either to Parliament or to the public. I recognise the challenges in the bill regarding the recall of regional members and I appreciate that amendments to simplify the process are being considered. That is sensible.

Ultimately, it is a matter of balance. We need a mechanism for accountability, but we cannot say that we want a Parliament that is representative and that welcomes working parents, carers and people with lived experience while passing rules that would penalise them for not being in the chamber every day and we cannot talk about democracy and integrity while allowing members to defect mid-term and still cling to seats that they won under a different party banner.

I turn briefly to what I will call Kevin Stewart’s wrecking amendment, which would undermine the entire purpose of the bill, because I want colleagues to be clear what the member is about. The amendment is about some in the Scottish National Party trying to settle scores over Michael Matheson rightfully being punished for wrongly claiming £11,000 from taxpayers. He was sanctioned by this Parliament for his actions, and rightfully so, but it seems that some in the SNP are still trying to ensure that such a sanction can never happen again. Scottish Conservative MSPs will not vote for that amendment, which would tear up a long-established process that has already seen misbehaving members being punished. SNP members might want to sneak that change through by the back door, but we will not give our backing to an amendment—

Will the member give way?

Will the member take an intervention?

I am recalling the committee’s discussion on the use of language and how we were careful not to use the word “excuse” in any of the recommendations in our report. Would the convener comment on that?

I start by saying that I fully support the principle that is at the heart of the bill, which is that members of Parliament must be accountable to the people who elect us. The proposal formed part of the Scottish Conservatives’ 2021 manifesto and it aims to allow the public to better hold politicians to account in Holyrood. Accountability sits at the core of public trust and, when standards fall or when the actions of members of the Scottish Parliament damage confidence in the institution, it is right that there should be a mechanism that enables the public to respond. The principle must, however, be underpinned by a system that is fair, workable and fit for the realities of modern public life, and perhaps that changes as things evolve.

The bill attempts to address two important issues: the removal and recall of members who have been convicted of crimes or sanctioned by the Parliament, and the introduction of a recall process such as the one that exists at Westminster. Those are serious matters and they deserve serious scrutiny.

I recognise the effort that has gone into the bill but, as it is drafted, I have several concerns, not about its intent, but about how it would work in practice and whether it would deliver true accountability without unintended consequences.

First, on recall and the principle of defection, our list system in Scotland is designed to reflect proportional representation. People vote for parties as much as they vote for individuals. That means that every MSP who is elected on a regional list owes their place in the chamber to the voters who supported that party’s platform. If a member chooses to defect from the party under which they were elected, they no longer represent those voters and they no longer have that mandate. That, to me, is a democratic betrayal.

In those circumstances, there should be a clear consequence. Either the individual should be subject to a recall process, or, more straightforwardly, they should just resign and allow the next candidate on the party’s list to take their place. That would make it clear that seats in the Parliament belong to the voters, not to politicians’ personal ambitions.

I am closing, and in my final section.

I will not be backing the amendment because it would fundamentally change what Parliament is voting on today. I urge colleagues in all parties to see through that amendment and to reject it.

Conservative members support the general principles of the bill, but we will continue scrutinising it as it progresses through Parliament.

What might you consider to be “a good reason”?

I think that we can all agree on the importance of having better bus services across Scotland. Communities across Scotland deserve affordable, accessible and reliable bus services because, after all, they are a vital lifeline for so many. Not only can they help the economy to prosper, but they play a key role in Scotland’s social development, linking people to work, education, healthcare and leisure, while offering a real alternative to car travel.

However, our transport network has been run into the ground under the SNP, with vital road upgrades being delayed, an ageing ferry fleet needing overdue vessels and passengers experiencing poorer services. Public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and complaints have all soared, while the number of services and passengers using public transport have plummeted.

We disagree with the Scottish Greens’ idea that more buses should be run “in the public interest”. That vague statement means nothing. The public sector is not automatically the most effective operator. Competition, accountability and efficiency deliver better services. Competition keeps fares fair and reasonable, and it drives operators to deliver punctual, clean and customer-focused services. First Bus, an award-winning bus company, has been keen to reiterate that, stating:

“We believe that voluntary, legally binding partnerships provide the best value to taxpayers and customers”.

Better buses also require proper infrastructure and joined-up thinking. Buses cannot run on time if our roads are in disrepair or road users face disruption, with lengthy diversions due to poorly co-ordinated road works and resulting traffic jams. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland is keen to see faster, greener and safer bus and coach journeys. Its top priorities are to address traffic congestion and to improve journey times for the 900,000 trips that are made by bus every day in Scotland. The average bus in Scotland travels at 11.3 miles per hour.

It is fantastic that Mr Fairlie has had the opportunity to meet with the road works commissioner. I have tried on several occasions, but I have so far been unable to gain that meeting.

Another real opportunity lies in better integration between different transport modes. Bus and rail timetables are poorly aligned, and ticketing systems do not work across different modes of transport or different operators. I want to focus on practical measures, such as smart ticketing, allowing passengers to travel seamlessly between bus, rail and even ferry services. Moving between different modes of transport on a trip is made far easier by single ticketing and fare caps across modes, and by synchronising timetables. The technology to facilitate those things already exists, and I am at a loss as to why they have not been prioritised and put at the top of the list of things to do—we do not have to reinvent the wheel.

I was really pleased to hear from the minister about the legislation that will be laid before the Parliament on 4 December. There is a growing problem of antisocial behaviour on buses, and drivers, passengers and young people themselves deserve to feel safe. I very much look forward to that legislation, because there must be consequences for those who engage in persistent abusive behaviour towards bus drivers and passengers.

The Scottish Government receives more money per capita for public services than the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is high time that the SNP showed some common sense and used that money to give the public across Scotland the vital services that they deserve. The public deserve a transport network that delivers for road users and provides value for money and reliability for passengers.

I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-19632, to leave out from “further agrees” to end and insert:

“recognises that competition is essential to keeping bus fares fair and reasonable; calls on the Scottish Government to enhance the reliability and punctuality of bus services through the greater interlinking of timetables and integrated ticketing across bus and rail providers; agrees that good road surfaces are essential to improve bus services; notes that communities across Scotland, but particularly in rural areas, struggle to access bus services, and urges the Scottish Government to take action to make buses safer and to expedite the process to remove bus passes from passengers who commit antisocial behaviour.”

I am never in a position in which I totally run Scotland down. I was just making the case that there is massive inequality in bus service provision across our country. I am fortunate to live in Edinburgh, and other cities are also well provided for, but we have heard from colleagues about Dumfries and all the rural areas that have nothing. That is the point that I was trying to get across.