Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in 2026. The only item on today’s agenda is consideration of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill at stage 2. This morning, we are joined by: Graham Simpson MSP, the member in charge of the bill; Graeme Dey MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans; Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP; Mark Griffin MSP; and Kevin Stewart MSP.

For anyone watching, I will briefly explain the procedure that we will follow during today’s proceedings. Members should have with them a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. Those documents are available on the bill webpage on the Scottish Parliament website for anyone observing. I will call each amendment individually in the order of the marshalled list. The member who lodged the amendment should say “moved” or “not moved” when it is called. If the member does not move it, any other member present may do so.

The groupings document sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. In each debate, I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to move and speak to that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call other members with amendments in the group to speak to but not to move their amendments and to speak to other amendments in the group if they so wish. I will then call any other member who wishes to speak in the debate. Members who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention or the clerk’s. I will then call the minister, followed by the member in charge, if they have not already spoken in the debate.

Finally, I will call the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and press their amendment or seek to withdraw it. If the amendment is pressed, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member seeks to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved and debated, I will ask whether any member present objects. If there is an objection, I will immediately put the question on the amendment. Later amendments in the group are not debated again, and, when they are reached, if they are moved, I will put the question on them straight away.

If there is a division, only committee members are entitled to vote. Voting is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded their names. If there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote. Should the result of any division be a tie, my position will be to use my casting vote against the amendment.

The committee is also required to consider and decide on each section and schedule of the bill and the long title. I will put the question on each of those provisions at the appropriate point.

I aim to conclude proceedings today at around 11.30 am and would like us to make as much progress as possible. To aid in that goal, I would appreciate it if contributions to our debates could be as focused and brief as possible, while ensuring that issues before us today are properly discussed. I will now turn to the marshalled list.

Section 1—How a member becomes subject to a recall petition process

Amendment 1, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5, 10 to 16, 18, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 51, 53 to 56, 59 to 68, 70 and 79 to 83. If amendment 117, which is in the group entitled “Criminal offence ground for recall”, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 33, due to pre-emption. If amendment 97, which is in the group entitled “Signing of petition”, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 40, due to pre-emption.

Ms Webber—

Will the member take another short intervention?

I have had no indication that any other member wants to contribute to the debate, so I will turn to the minister for his comments.

I ask Sue Webber to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 110.

09:15

There will be a division.

Maybe I can assist. Is the member confident that the information that comes before the committee in the format that it does is sufficient to make the decisions that she is suggesting should be made with regard to the assertions behind a complaint?

There are a number of examples in primary legislation in which standing orders are directed to do something—I immediately think of the Scotland Act 1998. Does the member have any concerns that his proposed amendments would take things much further in the bill, by seeking to direct policy into standing orders rather than process, than in any piece of UK legislation that I have looked at?

How do you view the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, which does not sit in standing orders but is an integral part of the environment in which we look at the behaviours of MSPs? Would your proposals not be better contained in the code than in standing orders?