Seòmar agus comataidhean

Okay. I am going to move on to the one disaster that you have had. You have been asked about this before; indeed, I have asked you about it before, Mr Watt. Circularity Scotland was a disaster—there is no other word for it. What lessons have you learned from that?

You see it happen quite a lot in the life sciences sector, in fact, and we do not want it. How do you prevent it?

That is useful. I was just wondering whether that affects your target rate of return. Given what you have just said, I think that it probably does not.

Do you know what the organisations that you have mentioned—KfW and the Connecticut Green Bank—are achieving?

Good morning, gents. Mr Watt, I want to follow up on what you have just said about the UK Government giving you a route towards perpetual status. Will you say a bit more about that? What has the Government actually done?

That is very honest. Perhaps one of the lessons should be that, because you see yourselves as independent from the Government, you should be very wary of investing in Government schemes, because they can become political, as that one did. Have you reflected on that?

We do not have that approach because of our electoral system, which does not allow for regional by-elections. If we introduced regional by-elections for recall, why would we not have by-elections for a member who just stands down? That would be delving into the whole electoral system in Scotland. The concept of a regional by-election would be completely new.

I have tried to come up with something straightforward, and it really is. You might not agree with it, but it is quite easy to understand. It is fair that, as far as it goes, we cannot completely replicate the constituency element of recall in the regional system. It cannot be done, but I have got quite close.

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.

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.

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 MSPs 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.