Chamber and committees

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence. I also thank Graham Simpson, who is with us today—very eager and keen—for the open and constructive discussions that we have had about the bill as he developed his proposals and since the bill’s introduction. The Scottish Government supports the broad intention behind the bill, which is to uphold standards and improve the democratic accountability of members of this Parliament.

The people of Scotland need to have confidence that their elected representatives are held to the highest standards of behaviour and that there are robust systems in place to deal with any MSP who does not uphold those standards. I recognise that it is for the Parliament, not the Government, to determine the standards regime for its members. Similarly, it is not for the Government but the Parliament to decide whether to sanction its members using recall and removal procedures.

We are all aware, and I am very pleased, that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is initiating an independent review of the complaints process, which might 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 these matters are, ultimately, for the Parliament, there are a number of principles upon which we can all agree. I believe that we are all committed to ensuring that any procedures that are introduced are fair, transparent, efficient and effective for MSPs, those operating the system, and, above all and most important, for the public—those who we are elected to represent and to serve.

If the bill becomes an act, I hope that the procedures that it sets out will stand as an additional incentive to current and future MSPs to maintain the highest standards. It should go without saying—I will say it anyway—that we all hope that these procedures would be used rarely, if ever. However, we need to ensure that the processes work smoothly and are sufficiently clear to command public confidence, should they need to be used.

The electoral system for the Parliament is different from that of any other United Kingdom legislature, which means that we must have a recall system that works for Scotland and its Parliament. We are not the Westminster Parliament or the Welsh Senedd, although we can learn from both of those institutions, one of which already has a recall system, and one of which is—as we are—considering its own recall legislation. If we are going to take forward these proposals, we should take this opportunity to develop a system that works for Scotland, for this Parliament and for the people who elect our MSPs.

I am happy to hear from the committee, and, along with Leila Brosnan, Ailsa Kemp and Jordan McGrory, I am happy to answer your questions.

We do not have an opinion on that per se, but we flag up in our memorandum that it would be useful to explore and understand why those thresholds are proposed in the bill. We understand that they could be justified on the basis of the manner in which regional MSPs are elected, which is calculated and predicated on the number of constituency seats that their party has—if they are standing as a party candidate. We have had independent members elected through the regional system, but I put that to one side for a moment. Most of us are elected to this place on a party ticket, and in that situation the constituencies come into play.

We have observed that there are also subdivisions of constituencies. I am a representative of a constituency that has multiple polling districts. I guess that the question is why a threshold should not have to be reached in a certain number of polling districts as well as the overall threshold being reached. However, we do not have a view on that. We only suggest it as a question that the committee might like to explore.

That would be an area of concern. I go back to the fundamental point that there should be transparency in campaign finances. The Scottish Elections (Representations and Reform) Act 2025, some of which we will discuss under the next agenda item, touches on areas of campaign finance. At the time when the bill that became that act was being considered, I was clear that transparency is the fundamental issue in that regard, but there are also issues about limits on expenditure. It becomes a question of fairness. Although we do not have a view on the specifics, I can safely say that the matter is an area of general concern.

My understanding is that that does include remote attendance, although I think that it can differ from one local authority to the next, because it is not prescribed in law. Therefore, a lot of these things come down to each authority’s standing orders, but that is a whole other debate.

I will answer that question, but, first, I will pick up on your perspective that the bill should contain a non-exhaustive list of legitimate reasons for not physically attending the Parliament. That is a legitimate suggestion. I suppose that my slight caution in relation to that is that any legislation must be interpreted by the courts, and you start to get into the area of why some things were prescribed and other things were not. Again, that is just a question that needs to be considered.

Privacy is an area of concern, and I am not sure that there is any way around that. If a person is not here and it becomes recognised that they are not here and that they have permission to not be here—because they will not then fall foul of the requirement—people will inevitably speculate or ask questions about why that might be. If we are going to embed this requirement as part of the process, I do not know whether there is any way around that.

I think that we would need to come back to you on that.

Again, it is a question that the committee needs to consider. It is for the committee to determine what it wants to consider, but there is inconsistency on that matter. Whether that is an inconsistency that we say that we will live with or one that has to be thought through and dealt with is for the Parliament to consider.

I struggle to see the circumstances in which any Government responsibility would require a 180-day absence from the Parliament. It is a good question—

Yes, certainly. It comes down to a different assessment of the costs to those that Mr Simpson has suggested in his financial memorandum.

That is a good question. By and large, the public expect public resource to be spent primarily on public services. Equally, however, if there is a public perception that recall should become part of our process, the fact that it comes with costs needs to be recognised. It is a case of getting the balance right.

Questions of parity of process drive certain costs, particularly in the instance of a mechanism that is—how can I best put it?—a two-stage mechanism for regions. That drives increased costs. Whether that should become a factor in determining the process is, ultimately, for the Parliament to consider. The only observation that I can offer right now is that a two-stage process will, of course, cost more than a one-stage process.