Chamber and committees

The scenes at the match were absolutely horrific. It was not just the pitch invasion; we saw scenes of fans bursting through a disabled access point, there was vandalism at the ground and innocent people were hurt. Then we had the pitch invasion by masked yobs wearing balaclavas and what appeared to be uniforms. Does the minister plan to speak to both clubs? I ask because I think that there is an issue with the way in which clubs allocate tickets to both home and away fans, and maybe that is what should be addressed.

I am interested in the cost of redeveloping Ardrossan. I heard the cabinet secretary say that there could be different figures, but because she is a diligent cabinet secretary, I know that she will have a budget in mind. Can she tell us what the range of figures is?

::Can I just check something? I am a little bit unclear from some of those answers. Had the Lord Advocate seen the March 2025 document before it was sent? I seek a simple yes or no. Had she seen it? If so, had she simply forgotten about the document when she appeared in the Parliament last week?

Can I just check something? I am a little bit unclear from some of those answers. Had the Lord Advocate seen the March 2025 document before it was sent? I seek a simple yes or no. Had she seen it? If so, had she simply forgotten about the document when she appeared in the Parliament last week?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have just witnessed something that I have not seen in my time in the Parliament, which is a member refusing to leave after being instructed to leave by the Presiding Officer. I have never seen that before, and I think it is pretty disgraceful. It challenges your authority as chair, Presiding Officer, which no member should ever do. It is rather ironic, given that we have been discussing a bill that is all about the behaviour of members. Can you advise how you intend to proceed with this matter?

It is customary to thank a number of people when we reach this stage in a member’s bill, so I will start with some thanks. First, I thank the non-Government bills unit for its support throughout what has been a very long process.

My various staff throughout the years of working on the bill deserve my thanks, and, in particular, I single out Abigail Fletcher, who will be mortified that I have mentioned her. She was super efficient and a great source of advice, and she will do well where she works now and wherever she works in the future.

I thank everyone who has engaged with me on the bill or who responded to the committee’s call for evidence, because being challenged on your ideas is a vital part of the process.

The former Minister for Parliamentary Business, Jamie Hepburn, has my on-going respect for the collaborative way in which he engaged with me on the bill, as does the current minister, Graeme Dey.

Finally, I thank Baroness Davidson for setting me on this course. I hope that it has not been a waste of time and that the Parliament does the right thing and legislates.

When I first started talking to Baroness Davidson about the bill, as I mentioned earlier, our idea centred on whether it was right that MSPs could get elected for five years and then, perfectly legitimately and without having to provide any excuse, never turn up again after being sworn in, or, now, in the age of hybrid working, without even logging into proceedings. That rather cushy arrangement would not be found in any other workplace, and to assume that people will not swing the lead is ludicrous, because they have done so and they will do so. Having been a councillor, I knew that councillors can lose their positions if they are absent for more than six months without good reason. The committee that looked at the bill was not entirely persuaded of the concept that I proposed—it was never about trying to catch MSPs who are off for a variety of very understandable reasons—so we lost that part of the bill at stage 2. The Parliament must return to that, because it is simply an unacceptable situation.

I also proposed that MSPs should lose their jobs if they were jailed for six months or more. Being jailed for six months is a very unlikely event in Scotland, but I wanted to avoid a repeat of the situation in the past whereby a member was jailed for 12 months but the law said that he would lose his job only if he was incarcerated for “more than” 12 months. That section of the bill was also sacrificed, so we are left with a recall bill.

The Parliament accepted that we should legislate. The question was: how? The fundamental challenge for me was to design a recall system that works for both constituency and regional members. It is impossible to have the same system, because we are elected differently. My initial effort was clunky and potentially very expensive. I accepted that and went back to the drawing board, because that is the process: we need to listen.

The difficult bit was the regional element. However—luckily—I had engaged with the Senedd Standards of Conduct Committee in Wales where the Welsh Government was legislating under the new entirely list system. It seemed to me that I could largely adopt the Welsh system for recalling regional members, which was to ask voters only once whether a member should stay or go, if they had met the threshold for being recalled—a poll, rather than a petition. That system is far easier to understand than my initial two-stage proposal and is, obviously, a lot cheaper.

That is what I proposed at stage 2. I had responded to the committee’s concerns. My officials worked with the Government on amendments. However, when we got to stage 2, the minister revealed that he was not entirely happy with one of the amendments. He wanted more detail, so I have provided that. The Parliament accepted my amendments today and the minister backed all of them, so I hope that that has been enough to secure his support. We will hear about that soon.

Today, I have heard concerns about the Agnew review and the parliamentary sanctions element of the bill. Nothing in the bill, as it is now, prevents our waiting for that review to complete. The bill can pass, and we can wait for the Agnew review.

Will the member take an intervention?

I, too, admire Richard Leonard. As he knows, I am very sorry that he is standing down.

When we get to the vote in a few seconds, we will have the opportunity to do the right thing. If we do not do so, Scotland will be left without any recall process. My concern is that failing to pass the bill will kick the issue into the long grass. Even if a special committee is formed in the next parliamentary session, the process could take years. It has already taken five years, and it could take a further five years. We could be waiting until the parliamentary session after that, or beyond, before we get a recall system or tackle members’ non-attendance. That is what we are voting on tonight.

All those voting against the bill will be viewed dimly. I think that people know what is going on here—I will leave it at that. Let us get to the vote.

Sue Webber’s amendments all broadly relate to where the line should be drawn in terms of when a member commits something sufficiently serious that it warrants automatic removal from Parliament altogether.

I gave careful consideration in developing the bill to what the appropriate grounds for the initiation of a recall process should be, and what the appropriate grounds for automatic removal should be. Key considerations were whether the electorate will be left without a representative for an unreasonable period of time, whether the taxpayer will continue to pay for someone who is not undertaking their role as an MSP—for example, if they are imprisoned—and what conduct is required by the Scottish people of MSPs in order for them to be worthy of the position of MSP.

I have sought to mirror, in general terms, the policy intentions and processes of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 in relation to the grounds for recall. In addition, for the criminal offence ground, I also considered grounds that were not included in the 2015 act in order to see whether the criminal offence ground could usefully be built upon.

In relation to community sentences, I took the view that such a sentence would not necessarily remove greatly from the MSP’s ability to undertake their role in working for the electorate.

I will not, if Mr Whittle does not mind. I am almost done.

In addition, if a person was found guilty of a sufficiently serious offence, it is likely that they would receive a lengthy prison sentence that would certainly be over 12 months. That means that they would automatically be removed from office at the point of sentencing without waiting for any appeals period to expire. That automatic removal would eliminate the need for a recall process to be run at all. I stand by my position as reflected in the bill.