Chamber and committees

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.

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 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 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 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.

We would need to look at it in relation to the bill as it advances, and consider how we might deal with it. I can safely say that the Government would be concerned about those areas. We should have a line of transparency about how much is being spent, who is spending it and where that money and expenditure is being derived from. These are important parts of our democratic system and we recognise that it is important when people are elected to the Parliament or in other parts of our democratic system. We should also recognise that it is important in relation to any recall process too.

It might be. It is one of the challenges that we face; it is probably less of an issue here, although we would need to explore it further. A recall mechanism is a fairly clear and distinct process, but it is something that we would need to consider. If there were an election here and a general election for the United Kingdom Parliament in the same regulated period, expenditure in both those elections would start to interact, so the question is what would happen if there was a recall petition in that period.