³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

Well, you could—

I have not considered that. I would need to give that some thought. Given that you have raised that option, I am just trying to think it through. A lot of people like to vote in person—I am one of those people.

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.

Yes, I accept that. Glasgow is possibly the easiest area to do that in the country, whereas people would have further to travel to get to signing places in the Highlands, where they would clearly be more spread out. I imagine that that is already the case in elections. I am afraid that I do not know how far people have to travel, but I imagine that it is a lot further in the Highlands than it is for you or me in the areas that we represent. It is important that we get that right. A lot of that will be left to regulations and councils, so we need to work closely with them to get the right places.

Ben McKendrick wants to come in at this point.

It would be very difficult to set out in the bill a list of offences that would lead to the removal of a member, which is why I have gone for an actual term. The background to that is the case of Bill Walker, a former MSP and the only MSP whom I will name during this meeting. It was a high-profile case. He was jailed for wife beating—for exactly 12 months but not more than that, so he could not be removed. There you had somebody who was jailed for extremely serious offences but could not be removed. Although he ultimately stood down, it seemed to me to be an absurd situation, so I thought that we should perhaps look at the matter again and reduce the specified period.

I accept that different people might have different views on whether I got that right, but that is the background to that provision. I thought that it was certainly wrong that somebody who was jailed for extremely serious offences could just stay in jail for 12 months and then return to his job.

I do not think that it works that way.

It is as near as possible to six months, taking into account recess periods and so on.

It does come at a cost. Mention has already been made of the price of democracy—I suppose that that is what it is. Although I hope that that price never has to be paid, I am sure that, at some point, it will be paid. We need to have a recall system in Scotland, and that will come at a cost.

Thank you, convener. I have very much enjoyed the committee’s previous meetings on the bill. The range of questions—I am sure that I will get the same—has been very good and they have covered all aspects of the bill.

I am not assuming that we will get to stage 2, but, should we do so, I very much look forward to seeing Ruth Maguire back on the committee—if, indeed, she does return to it—so that she can get her teeth into the bill. That would be good. I am sure that we would all want that.

Appearing before a committee can be daunting. As a member, I have given a number of people a good grilling and, no doubt, some of them are watching, hoping that I will get the kind of treatment that I have dished out. This is not my first time appearing in front of a committee to talk about my bill. I appeared before the Senedd’s Standards of Conduct Committee, which wanted to know all about the bill. We did a private session and a public one, and I call those dress rehearsals.

I thought that it would be useful to provide some background to the bill and my thinking on it before we get into questions. As you all know, members of the Scottish Parliament are elected every five years. If a member decides to stand again, the public gets its say: they can decide whether that person is re-elected.

What happens if any of us do not adequately represent the needs of those who put us here, or if we demonstrate very poor conduct during those five years? We are all obliged to adhere to a code of conduct and, if we do not, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee can recommend sanctions up to and including suspension, but it cannot recommend that an MSP be removed from office, no matter how bad their behaviour. There is also no mechanism that allows constituents to remove an MSP during a parliamentary term, no matter how serious a sanction this committee recommends. The only way that an MSP can be removed from office altogether is if they receive a custodial sentence of longer than one year. That is too high a bar.

In addition, if any MSP is elected and never comes to this building—ever—there is nothing that the public or anyone else can do until the next election. That is an absurd situation. By contrast, in other workplaces, if an employee repeatedly or seriously breaches their company’s code of conduct, they could be sacked. If an employee just does not attend their place of work without good reason, they could be removed, and we would expect that. If an employee receives a relatively short custodial sentence for a criminal offence, that could lead to their dismissal, especially if they are in a senior position. To me, the contrast is quite jarring. My bill would improve democratic accountability by ensuring that ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ could be removed more easily if our conduct fell short of what our constituents could reasonably expect.

The bill is in three parts. The first part of the bill would introduce a recall system—the committee has focused quite heavily on that. It draws on the Recall of MPs Act 2015 but adapts those provisions to ensure that they work in our electoral system. We will, no doubt, discuss that later.

Part 2 would reduce the length of custodial sentence that results in the automatic removal of an MSP from more than 12 months to six months. It provides that, if an MSP does not attend parliamentary proceedings in person for a six-month period without good reason, this committee could recommend to the Parliament that they be removed.

Serving as an MSP is a privilege, and my bill would ensure that we are all much more accountable. Ultimately, I think that the people who choose us to represent them will feel that the provisions of the bill and their implications for members are fair, proportionate and in line with what people in the outside world would experience in their places of work.

I look forward to the questions.