Chamber and committees

Because there is no list of people who could replace them. If you are elected as a constituency MSP, there is no list of people who are behind you.

I did not choose that system because the Welsh had not come up with anything when I was looking at my system. When I was asked about that in front of the Senedd committee, I said that if they were going to this entirely list-based system—which is what they have chosen to do in Wales, although why they would want to do so is beyond me—then they could almost design their own, because they would not have to deal with a Westminster first-past-the-post system, which we have here as well, or wrestle with the issues that I have had to wrestle with. They will have only one system. They have one system; we have two systems—that is why I have gone down the road that I have. I would have done the same even if the Welsh had made up their minds before I started working on my bill.

As I have said, I have tried to work within the electoral system that we have, which says that if a regional MSP resigns or leaves, they are to be replaced by the next person on the list. There is no provision to have a by-election. Therefore, to introduce such a system would be a pretty big move. I am not saying that it is a totally daft idea, but you would be, in effect, almost redoing our electoral system and the rules surrounding it. My bill does not do that—it works within the system that we have.

If we were to introduce the idea of regional by-elections, we would potentially get away from the proportionality of the d’Hondt system, which would be a very big step. We could take it a stage further and ask why, if we should have a by-election for somebody who is recalled, we would not have a by-election for somebody who, for whatever reason—there could be a variety of reasons—resigned. That would be a big move.

I can. It is my view that, if you are elected to this place, it is not unreasonable to expect that you might just occasionally turn up, unless you have a valid reason for not doing so.

I know that we currently have remote working arrangements, but I just do not think that it is acceptable for any member of this Parliament to sit at home and operate remotely for the entire five years of their elected period, and I do not think that the public would think that that was acceptable either. That would not be acceptable in any other workplace, so why should we be any different?

Clearly, as I said earlier, if someone has a good reason why they cannot be in the building, that is fine and we need to respect that—there could be a host of good reasons why people cannot come in. However, if they are physically able to come in, they should.

This committee has a role and parliamentary authorities have a role. It is quite easy to monitor whether somebody is in a committee room or in the chamber. All my bill does is say that you should actually be present. Any of you could be recorded as being present today—you do not even have to speak; you just have to be here. The requirement is not particularly onerous, to be honest.

I have attempted to improve things in that regard. In England, if an MP is subject to a recall, there is a six-week period in which people can vote. In the bill, I have reduced that to four weeks. That is a pretty good improvement that shows that we can do things better here.

That was in response to the Electoral Commission. As I said last week, I have been working closely with the Electoral Commission, which has been in touch about a number of areas of the bill that it thinks could be improved. I am not sitting here saying that the bill is perfect—no bill is perfect. This process needs to be a collaborative effort between me and the committee, me and the Government and me and the Electoral Commission, with all of us trying to come up with something that actually works.

I genuinely do not see how it would be. There would need to be a religious holiday of six months, and I do not think that there are any such holidays. I really do not see religion coming into play.

Well, you could—

My bill deals with the individual, regardless of party. The party does not really come into it. I am giving the individual the opportunity to say to the electorate that they should keep their job, regardless of whether they are backed by their original party. I imagine that there will be a lot of cases in which, if somebody has erred so badly that they are subject to a recall vote—this will happen at some point—the party, whichever one it is, might simply wash its hands of that individual, who might then be on their own. However, they, as an individual, should have the opportunity to say that they should keep their job.

Well, that is the reality. The only case that we have had in Scotland was in Rutherglen, when Margaret Ferrier was subject to a recall. We would not have found a single person in Rutherglen who was not aware of what was going on.

I accept that there are greater challenges when it comes to regional MSPs, because there is more ground to cover. There would have to be a lot of publicity and a good deal of education. If the system that I am proposing was accepted, we would have to explain to people why they were being asked to vote or go to the polls twice.