Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 20 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3728 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

How much do you estimate that to be, then?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

Sorry, convener.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

I am just seeking some clarification on the variation in costs. If the cost is no longer £1.3 million, what do you estimate it to be, and do you still class this as value for money for the taxpayer?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

For an individual to be held on remand, they have to have done something serious. It is my belief that the public would expect an MSP in that situation to no longer be their representative.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

You are the convener.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

I accept the points that the minister and the member have made, but I am here to represent—I believe—what the public expects. It sounds to me, from where I am sitting, that the minister and the member are perhaps slightly out of touch with what the public expects of us, sitting here as MSPs, as regards the standards to which we should adhere.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

That is the point, is it not? It is very difficult. In my time on the committee—and I have been in and out of it—we have had to make judgments and assessments on MSP conduct. In the evidence packs that we get—which are confidential, so I will be very careful about what I say—we do get a sense as to whether complaints are targeted or vexatious.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

Okay—that is fine. However, this is what I mean—it is very difficult. We are given information here when we are looking for information—

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

If you can help me.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 29 January 2026

Sue Webber

I will speak to my amendments in a different order, which I hope does not make things too confusing.

Amendment 100 would expand the sentencing condition in the bill so that an MSP may be removed if they receive a community sentence. As you know, I am tough on crime. At present, the removal provision focuses on custodial disposals. However, I have argued elsewhere that the public expect clear and meaningful consequences for any criminal sentence, not simply those that result in imprisonment. A community sentence is not a minor administrative disposal; it is a criminal sentence that is imposed by a court following a finding of guilt. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate and necessary that the receipt of such a sentence should form grounds for removal. Amendment 100 would ensure that.

Amendments 98 and 101 are consequential to the change that amendment 100 would make. The bill contains a detention condition as part of the removal test, but it is framed around custodial sentences. As I have stated, I want to add community sentences to the list of sentences that form grounds for removal. Amendments 98 and 101 would tidy things up so that the changes are coherent and consistent.

My amendment 99 would expand the grounds for removal by specifically adding instances in which a member is remanded in custody. Members have challenged that proposal, but being remanded is a serious judicial action as well. It involves the court determining that an individual must be detained pending trial, and it signals the gravity of the circumstances before the court. I do not believe that the public would expect an MSP who has been remanded in custody, even for a short period, to continue serving in the Parliament in that time, as that would fundamentally undermine public confidence in the institution.