Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for taking my late request to speak, Presiding Officer.

There are two reasons why I will not support the bill. First, the review of by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be undertaken, given the huge flaws in the process. Secondly, I want to refer specifically to Richard Leonard’s summing up on behalf of the Labour Party. He said two things that, in my view, were actually reasons why the Labour Party should not vote for the bill. I very much support having the means to recall Parliament and deal with miscreant MSPs. However, the first thing that Richard Leonard said was that he would support the bill

“for all of its flaws”.

Then, to justify that, he said that the bill sends a message. Legislation can, indeed, send a message, but it should not be flawed—not from the outset. That is my major concern.

This is a serious business. For legislation to be effective, it must be tightly drawn, it must be just and it must not have unintended consequences. In this case, it should not be introduced ahead of the review that is already due to be carried out.

For those reasons, I cannot see why the member and the group on the Labour benches are supporting the bill. Like Richard Leonard, I will be retiring, and to hear someone in here supporting flawed legislation is simply wrong.

rose—

[Made a request to intervene.]

To amend the record, I was quoting Richard Leonard, who said that, despite the bill’s flaws, he would vote for it. I could not understand the rationale behind that position. I admire Richard Leonard in many respects, but not for that comment.

I spare no one in commenting on legislation being flawed, including members in my own party group, and I have made such comments since I came to Parliament. As a former solicitor—as the member is, too—I cannot say that I am content to pass something that is flawed and that could, in fact, be made better.

Thank you for taking my late request to speak, Presiding Officer.

There are two reasons why I will not support the bill. First, the review of by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be undertaken, given the huge flaws in the process. Secondly, I want to refer specifically to Richard Leonard’s summing up on behalf of the Labour Party. He said two things that, in my view, were actually reasons why the Labour Party should not vote for the bill. I very much support having the means to recall Parliament and deal with miscreant MSPs. However, the first thing that Richard Leonard said was that he would support the bill

“for all of its flaws”.

Then, to justify that, he said that the bill sends a message. Legislation can, indeed, send a message, but it should not be flawed—not from the outset. That is my major concern.

This is a serious business. For legislation to be effective, it must be tightly drawn, it must be just and it must not have unintended consequences. In this case, it should not be introduced ahead of the review that is already due to be carried out.

For those reasons, I cannot see why the member and the group on the Labour benches are supporting the bill. Like Richard Leonard, I will be retiring, and to hear someone in here supporting flawed legislation is simply wrong.

To amend the record, I was quoting Richard Leonard, who said that, despite the bill’s flaws, he would vote for it. I could not understand the rationale behind that position. I admire Richard Leonard in many respects, but not for that comment.

Thank you for taking my late request to speak, Presiding Officer.

There are two reasons why I will not support the bill. First, the review of by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee must be undertaken, given the huge flaws in the process. Secondly, I want to refer specifically to Richard Leonard’s summing up on behalf of the Labour Party. He said two things that, in my view, were actually reasons why the Labour Party should not vote for the bill. I very much support having the means to recall Parliament and deal with miscreant MSPs. However, the first thing that Richard Leonard said was that he would support the bill

“for all of its flaws”.

Then, to justify that, he said that the bill sends a message. Legislation can, indeed, send a message, but it should not be flawed—not from the outset. That is my major concern.

This is a serious business. For legislation to be effective, it must be tightly drawn, it must be just and it must not have unintended consequences. In this case, it should not be introduced ahead of the review that is already due to be carried out.

For those reasons, I cannot see why the member and the group on the Labour benches are supporting the bill. Like Richard Leonard, I will be retiring, and to hear someone in here supporting flawed legislation is simply wrong.

rose—

I spare no one in commenting on legislation being flawed, including members in my own party group, and I have made such comments since I came to Parliament. As a former solicitor—as the member is, too—I cannot say that I am content to pass something that is flawed and that could, in fact, be made better.