Holyrood needs more ways to hold MSPs to account

Neither parliament officials nor the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has the authority to remove the rights and privileges of MSPs, presiding officer Alison Johnstone reminded members earlier this month.

As unprecedented as the current circumstances may be, it seems blindingly obvious what a huge oversight this is. And while the allegations made against Colin Smyth are particularly shocking, it’s not like Holyrood hasn’t been rocked by appalling behaviour before – and been unable to do much about it.

MSPs wield a significant amount of power. While we can hope, and indeed expect, those we elect to serve us to be doing so for the greater good, it is naïve to assume everyone who goes into politics does so with good intentions or are infallible. Yet essentially the system currently in place assumes those elected are fit and proper persons, and there are few mechanisms in place to respond when that turns out not to be the case.

But if we are to have faith and trust in our politicians – qualities that have been distinctly lacking in recent years – then our institutions must be fit to hold them to account.

So let me make three simple suggestions that could help improve the current state of affairs: require all MSPs to apply for a PVG (Protecting Vulnerable Groups) check; introduce a risk-based exclusion policy at Holyrood; and establish a recall system.

On the first, MSPs rightly have access to schools, youth groups, care homes and other places where vulnerable people can be found. Given this, it seems obvious that they should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as those who work in such places before being given access. This is not to argue that those with criminal records should be barred from holding office, but it adds an extra safeguard.

The idea has been floated before. Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton attempted to add mandatory PVG checks for MSPs to the Disclosure Bill in 2020, when he argued: “Given the protections that are rightly in place for teachers and others, the fact that nothing should apply to powerful people who encounter the same young people is a double standard and has the potential for serious abuse.”

The amendment was ultimately voted down due to concerns about how it would work. But members of that committee at the time argued the parliament as a whole should return to this issue, agreeing it was an anomaly that MSPs were not covered by the legislation or some similar system. While a PVG check would not in itself prevent abuse, MSPs should revisit the idea if they are serious about improving how the public views parliament.

Similar calls have also been made at Westminster. Labour MP Jo White has called for a Disclosure and Barring Service check – the English equivalent to PVG – to be a routine part of MP induction. She argues that politicians must be “proactive in preserving” the trust the electorate places in them, and DBS checks would help with “maintaining public trust and high workplace standards across the estate and in our constituencies”. It’s difficult to disagree.

Second, the Scottish Parliament should seek to mirror Westminster’s policy on banning MPs arrested for violent or sexual offences from the parliamentary estate.

The risk-based exclusion policy was brought in in May last year, empowering a panel of MPs (appointed by the Speaker) to consider alleged misconduct, safeguarding concerns and any action necessary to mitigate risks where an MP has been arrested.

The whole parliament would need to approve a similar change to its own standing orders. Again, MSPs should give this serious consideration to avoid a circumstance where those accused of the most serious of crimes can still be on site.

Lastly, the parliament should back Graham Simpson’s Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill. This would also bring Holyrood into line with the Commons, which has had a system of recall in place for a decade. A recall petition is only possible where an MP has been sentenced to imprisonment, suspended by the Committee on Standards or convicted of making false allowance claims. This sets a high bar to prevent vexatious claims, but it has been used to good effect at Westminster.

It might also be worth considering including those who do not attend parliament for a long period of time without good reason, as was the case with Derek Mackay who continued to receive an MSP’s salary while not being active in parliament for over a year after he quit as finance secretary for messaging a teenage boy.

The addition of all these safeguards would have the knock-on effect of political parties improving their vetting processes, which would help avoid unfit candidates running for office in the first place. But it would also ensure that those who do wrong while in office face the consequences of their actions, rather than relying on them to be noble enough to step down of their own accord.

Election to office and the pressure of public life is not enough of a safeguard for children and vulnerable people, or to ensure MSPs uphold the standards we rightly expect of them. Indeed, it keeps the door open to abuse and corruption. Change is long overdue.