Chamber and committees

We have not considered that. Again, that would add another layer of complication. Those are issues on which we would be guided by practical considerations. Realistically, although we would have a prescribed period in which a person must state their intentions, I would be surprised if a person was appointed to ministerial office if they did not give an early indication that they intended to leave the institution.

I will be perfectly candid. I am grappling with my personal perspective and what I think the Parliament might expect. That is where I am now.

There is a complicating factor. It is not for me to say who the committee should take evidence from, but I found it useful to take evidence from the people who I have mentioned, and I am sure that the committee would, too. The clerk from the House of Lords said that their processes have changed. A leave of absence used to be from parliamentary session to parliamentary session; the process now has to do be done each and every year. That would be another complicating factor for us. Who is checking that here? That is something else that we need to consider.

As I grapple with my perspective, the other factor is that far more people who responded to the consultation said that the person should resign from the Lords than said that they should take a leave of absence.

We would be naive to suggest that politics will not come into the process; that is the nature of the process in which we participate. It could ultimately only be put to the test if we institute such a system.

Otherwise, unfortunately, we would have to go through the process of a recall, which we all would hope not to happen. However, if we consider those recalls that have taken place—we have only one experience of that in respect of the Westminster system in Scotland, and my experience of that recall was that people were focused on the conduct of the individual member. I am struggling to think why that would be any different if the process related to a regional member rather than to a constituency representative. Ultimately, we would only know that if we had to go through the experience.

We said that with particular reference to one area, and it is largely predicated on the experience that we are going through right now, in which the Parliament has instructed the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to go away and consider the process that we have for sanctioning an individual MSP. It alludes to the fact that we need to be careful that we do not prescribe a specific process in the bill.

Through that memorandum, we were offering prompts for the committee to consider. The committee and the Parliament have to consider whether the bill should be overly prescriptive about that process, or whether we should recognise that, right now, for instance, the corporate body is considering a potential change to the process and might make recommendations on that, so we might want to have the ability to reflect those in any process of recall that is instituted.

I only proffered the example of the corporate body process because we are going through that right now, but, inevitably, standing orders and processes change, develop and adapt all the time. That is the only thing that the memorandum was referencing.

If I picked up the question correctly, the point about whether it should be done by secondary legislation or whether there should be a reference to standing orders, the development of which is an iterative process, takes us back to the point about future proofing. We should not second guess what the corporate body will recommend. Its process is under way, which is welcome. I suppose that it is theoretically possible that a recommendation will come forth that there is no need for change. However, the process that we have means that we would need to consider a change to our standing orders.

I say again that the Government does not have a specific perspective on the issue, so I am only proffering these ideas as suggestions to be explored. I think that the committee needs to grapple with whether the bill should include a reference to our standing orders or whether these things could be done through secondary legislation. Both approaches are possible.

We have not taken a specific view on that. The fundamental issue that we are grappling with is that, if a person who was elected to represent a constituency was recalled, I do not think that we could do anything other than enable them to stand in any subsequent by-election, but there is no by-election process in place for regions. Mr Simpson has proffered a solution earnestly and in good faith, I believe, and the question is whether that should be reflected in the system. That is something for the Parliament to grapple with; the Government does not have a view on it.

At this stage, no, but we will reflect on your report.

I am not a legal expert, but European convention on human rights issues would probably come into play. The question might be whether that would also have to be a factor in determining the element that relates to the regions. What I am doing today is offering areas that I think the committee might have to consider, and that would be one. Even if I am incorrect and a member who was recalled would not have to be given that opportunity, the bill would provide them with it, if I have read it correctly.

First, that support is for the principle, and for the reasons that I have laid out, which is to enhance confidence in the process to ensure that members are held to the highest standards of behaviour and where that is felt not to be the case, the ultimate arbiter is the public. That principle is worth while, and you will recall that, on 29 May 2024, the Parliament had a vote, in which ministers voted in favour of the principle of a recall system. Of course, the devil is in the detail, so we are now moving from the principle to the practical considerations with regard to what that system would look like. We support the principle, and along with the Parliament, we now have to consider the specific details.

Ultimately, the whole process is triggered by issues around conduct, so that must be the starting premise. As an aside, on proportionality, there are two issues. The first is whether a system of recall is proportionate to the trigger mechanism. Mr Simpson has set out what that might be and it is for the Parliament to consider whether that is proportionate. However, if I have picked you up correctly, that is not the issue of proportionality that you are referring to. Secondly, there is the question of whether the process could have the effect of altering proportionality, as determined at a general election. The answer is yes, it could. To an extent, our system already has that built in through the by-election process. We have just been through a by-election. I will not linger too long on the outcome of that, but it changed the nature of the numbers, by comparison with the general election that happened in 2021. Therefore, that is already part of our system. I accept that the bill would add—“complication” came to mind, but it is not the right word—another layer to the issues that might affect proportionality. However, as I said, that is already a facet of our electoral system.