Recall system backed in principle by Scottish Parliament

MSPs have backed in principle the establishment of a recall system for the Scottish Parliament.

However, concerns about the process proposed in the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill were raised.

Several MSPs suggested they may withdraw support for the bill if it was not satisfactorily fixed by the final debate.

A review of the complaints and sanctions process was also agreed.

A total of 81 MSPs backed the bill at stage one and 35 abstained, though no MSP voted against it.

Reform MSP Graham Simpson, who has been taking the bill through parliament, welcomed the vote and accepted there would be “big changes” to the proposal. He offered to work with other members on improvements.

In his opening remarks, Simpson warned that not backing this bill would mean Scotland is the “only part of the UK without a recall system”, noting the Welsh Government was now proposing such a process for the Senedd.

He said: “My bill will improve democratic accountability by ensuring MSPs can be removed more easily if our conduct falls short of what our constituents could reasonable expect.”

Throughout the debate, MSPs raised a number of questions about aspects of the bill including cost and grounds for triggering a recall petition.

Some expressed concern about the proposal for MSPs to face recall if they did not attend parliament in person for 180 days, or if an MSP were convicted for a political or moral protest.

There were also calls to expand the grounds for recall to cover those who defect to another political party or if a person has been barred from working with vulnerable adults and children.

Parliamentary business minister Graeme Dey said the government would back the bill now but continued support would be “conditional” on changes at the amending stages.

He said: “There is much work to be done to get this bill right, and there is relatively little time in which to do it.

“To conclude, if parliament agrees, we will work with Mr Simpson and with colleagues across this chamber on elements of this bill so that the Scottish Government support for the general principles, which we offer today, can lead to continue support on the stages ahead.”

Speaking on behalf of Scottish Labour, Richard Leonard said the bill raises “more questions than answers” but ultimately confirmed his party would back it. “There must be accountability. If we are to recognise that the power to govern resides with the people, then we need to act,” he said.

And Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said recall was a “very, very important” mechanism to “clean up our politics”.

SNP backbencher Kevin Stewart lodged an amendment to the motion calling for a review of the sanction process.

He called for “appropriate guidance” to be put in place, noting the House of Commons’ equivalent process involved an independent commissioner, the Committee on Standards or Committee of Privileges, and a right of appeal.

He said: “I believe that the introduction of a workable recall mechanism is possible here, and I believe that it is the right thing to do, and I believe that there is support across this parliament to do so.

“But it is clear to me, and I know that others across the chamber share my view, that there must be a better, more independent process ahead of that recall, with clear guidance on sanctions. That can only happen is a process is put in place in advance, which is independent, not one that can be open to abuse, bias and political motivation.”

Such concerns stem from the sanction handed to former minister Michael Matheson, who was given a record ban after misleading parliament over an expense claim. At the time, several MSPs expressed concern that the length of the ban had been driven by political motivations.

The Scottish Conservatives said Stewart’s amendment was an attempt to “settle scores” over the Matheson row and accused the MSP of trying to “tear up long-established process that has already seen misbehaving MSPs punished”.

Dey denied this was the reason the government was supporting Stewart’s amendment, which ultimately passed by 66 votes for, 47 against and two abstentions.

Webber said her party would have backed the bill at stage one, but since the amendment was agreed it instead abstained.

She also pointed to some concerns about workability of the bill, saying it “must be underpinned by a system that is fair, workable and fit for the realities of public life”.

The Scottish Greens abstained on the bill also due to concerns about workability. MSP Patrick Harvie said that while he “long-supported” some form of disciplinary action akin to gross misconduct procedures in the workplace, the proposal would require significant changes.

“I’m not convinced this bill is fixable. I am willing to see it go through the parliamentary scrutiny process, so we will be abstaining on the motion on the general principles,” he said.