Chamber and committees

It is just a very short question on the bus pilot. Cabinet secretary, you indicated that you have chosen a £2 flat fare. How was that set? Everyone aspires to have a bus service as good as the one that we are fortunate enough to have in the capital. Lothian Buses has had an increase in passenger numbers, but only over weekends, and it has announced an increase in its single fare to £2.40. With regard to the £2 flat fare, therefore, I am trying to figure out how we manage the public’s expectations about how viable such a cap may be. We all know that it is a pilot project, but we still need to imagine how that might pan out, should it be successful, and what is actually viable for running a bus service.

Oh.

All the amendments in the group have been lodged by me and concern the criminal offence ground for recall. I will speak to all the amendments as I go through them.

Before I address the detail of the amendments, I will set out the principle behind them and why I have lodged them. At every stage of the bill, we should be guided by the fact that the public expect MSPs to be held to much higher standards than the people whom they represent. Members of the Parliament are in a position of trust; being a member of Parliament is a privilege and not an entitlement. In the current climate, transparency, accountability and trust in politics are under intense scrutiny and, I would say, are perhaps at an all-time low. It is absolutely clear that the public do not expect anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence, no matter how minor, to continue to serve as their representative. It would not be accepted in a workplace—certainly not anywhere that I worked prior to being elected—and the public do not expect it to be accepted in the Scottish Parliament. My amendments reflect the reality that the public reasonably believe that an MSP who has breached the law should face meaningful consequences and that the system should be robust and not permissive.

Amendments 110 to 112 propose that, where an MSP receives certain criminal sanctions, they should be removed automatically as a member under section 25, rather than being subject to a recall petition. The amendments propose to add grounds for removal, including a member receiving a community sentence or a restriction of liberty order, being remanded in custody or receiving any other sentencing disposal that is captured by a community sentence. I have lodged further amendments to adjust section 25 so that it can apply to community sentences and remand.

This group of amendments seeks to align the bill with those proposed changes. My intention is simple and consistent with the public’s expectations. If a member of the Parliament receives one of those criminal sanctions, they should cease to be a member automatically, without the need for a recall petition to be triggered at all. I have constructed two clear options in the bill: to make criminal sanctions the grounds for initiating recall or the grounds for automatic removal. My amendments in this group relate to automatic removal.

Amendment 96 seeks to expand the criminal offence ground so that recall would apply where a member is remanded in custody. That might seem harsh, but I believe that the public will agree with me.

I accept the premise that the member has put forward in that regard. Maybe I am pushing the boundaries when it comes to remand, but people who know me know that I am quite tough on justice and crime, My world is black and white, given that I am the daughter of a police officer—

Oh, great. [Laughter.] That will be why we rub along so well together.

I will perhaps decide not to move amendment 96, which is specifically on remand, but I will certainly press amendment 110.

I believe so—and thank you, convener, for making that clear for me in my remarks. I want to ensure that the bill makes it clear that we have that role to play and that vexatious and malicious complaints will be filtered out by us. We are already doing that, and we are capable of doing that with the evidence that is provided to us. I believe that such a move will give credibility to the recall system, too.

Those are my remarks. I hope that I have said enough.

I move amendment 91.

We heard evidence—although not in public—on vexatious complaints. It might not be something that we heard about or dealt with publicly, but it was part of our stage 1 evidence.

My amendments 91 and 92 are legitimate attempts to find a way to make sure that the public understand that vexatious complaints will not be grounds for triggering a recall. They need to know that that expectation exists, that there will be a process—albeit that it is muddy and might not be that clearly defined in the amendments—and that we in this committee have attempted to make sure that those who make malicious and vexatious complaints will not be taken seriously.

It is tough enough for members when they are subject to complaints—they are not given any support but are left on their own. For them to be the target of something that is groundless is even more upsetting. I am trying to make it clear in some way to members of the public that that is not acceptable.

I press amendment 91.

I am curious about that duration. Eight weeks is still quite a lengthy time, and I was wondering what thought process you went through in arriving at that.

Yes. I want the bill to define “attendance” in that clear, modern and fair way, which is what the Scottish Parliament is doing with its family-friendly approach. We must be consistent and allow and recognise the ways in which we now attend the Parliament. Mr Griffin, by attending this meeting online, is a prime example of how hybrid attendance works, given how capable and engaged in the proceedings he is as we go through the legislation.

I move amendment 102.

And can you tell me what—