Graham Simpson MSP introduced the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill on 17 December 2024. This blog considers the key issues raised at Stage 1 and explains the changes made to the Bill at Stage 2 on 29 January 2026. A SPICe briefing on the Bill as introduced is available.
The Bill as introduced
The Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill (“the Bill”) as introduced set out the process by which an MSP could lose their seat in the Parliament through a recall petition. The Bill provided that this was to occur in two instances:
- where an MSP is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a prison term of less than six months
- where an MSP is sanctioned so as to prohibit them from taking part in parliamentary proceedings or entering the Parliament building for a period of 10 sitting days or more.
The Bill provided that a recall petition would be ‘successful’ (i.e., the MSP would be recalled) if at least 10% of those eligible to sign the petition in a constituency or at least 10% of those eligible to sign in a region (including at least 10% in at least 3 constituencies within that region) signed the recall petition.
A successful petition would mean that the seat of the recalled MSP becomes vacant. The Bill provided for two different mechanisms to fill the vacant seat, depending on whether it was a constituency or regional seat.
In the case of a constituency seat, a by-election would take place where the recalled MSP could stand for re-election if they wished. For a regional seat, a poll would only take place where the MSP subject to recall indicated that they wished to stand for re-election. The poll would be solely on whether the MSP should be returned to the Parliament. If the MSP was not returned, or if the MSP did not wish to stand for re-election then the seat would be filled by the next candidate on the party list or, in the case of an independent MSP, the seat would remain vacant until the next general election to the Scottish Parliament.
The Bill as introduced also made provision to remove MSPs from office by changing the criteria for disqualification in two ways:
- an MSP would have been automatically disqualified (and therefore have lost their seat) if they received a custodial sentence of six months to a year (provision already exists which means that an MSP loses their seat if they receive a sentence of 12 months or more).
- an MSP would have been disqualified and lost their seat if the Parliament agreed to it, if they failed to attend proceedings of the Scottish Parliament in person (i.e. physically) for 180 days (around six months) without good reason.
Stage 1 report
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments (SPPA) Committee is the lead committee for the Bill. During the Stage 1 evidence, the SPPA Committee heard concerns about the potential for the two-step regional recall process to confuse the electorate, as well as questions over whether the process provided value for money. Witnesses also raised the potential for the physical attendance requirement to disadvantage particular groups and questioned whether a physical attendance requirement was at odds with a hybrid parliament.
The SPPA Committee published its Stage 1 report on 5 November 2025 and recommended that the Parliament agree to the general principles of the Bill, but stated that:
There are some fundamental issues that would need to be addressed at Stage 2 for the Bill to be able to deliver its intended purpose.
The SPPA Committee described the recall process for regional members as the “most challenging aspect of developing a recall mechanism for the Scottish Parliament”. The report went on to state that:
The Committee recognises that a balance must be struck between issues of parity between all MSPs who are elected to the Parliament, recognition of the different routes for election, and questions of voter choice and clarity…We particularly invite Mr Simpson to focus on the question of the complexity and costs associated with any mechanism for recall of regional members…The Committee does not consider that the proposals as currently set out in the Bill have found the appropriate balance.
On the removal of MSPs, the SPPA Committee noted “concerns highlighted to us about the potential for the physical attendance requirement to have the greatest impact on MSPs with caring responsibilities or health difficulties” and stated that it was “not persuaded that requiring physical attendance is the correct basis for removal of MSPs”.
The SPPA Committee also raised concerns about the privacy of MSPs should details of why an MSP is physically absent from proceedings of the Parliament be required, stating “the process envisaged in the Bill for determination of whether an MSP has a reasonable explanation for failing to attend the Parliament for a period of time does not fully consider issues such as the privacy of MSPs or relevant third parties such as family members”.
In addition, the SPPA Committee questioned whether the thresholds for recall and removal due to an MSP receiving a custodial sentence for a criminal offence were appropriate. The report “invites Mr Simpson to reflect on whether the bar for the recall and removal of MSPs on the grounds of criminal offence has been set at the right level.”
Stage 2
Stage two took place on 29 January 2026, when the SPPA Committee considered 124 amendments. The Marshalled List (a list of all the amendments that were lodged) and Groupings (how the amendments in the Marshalled List were grouped together for debate) are available on the Bill page of the Scottish Parliament website. The Official Report of the Stage 2 meeting is also available.
A summary of the main provisions of the Bill as amended at Stage 2
- Part 1 of the Bill provides that an MSP can be subject to a recall petition where the parliamentary sanction ground (suspension for 10 sitting days or more) or the criminal offence ground (that an MSP receives a custodial sentence of any length up to a year) are met.
- If the parliamentary sanction ground or the criminal offence ground for recall are met a constituency member faces a recall petition and a regional member a recall poll.
- A constituency MSP is recalled if the 10% threshold is met (i.e., 10% of those eligible to vote in the petition back recall). A by-election is then held to fill the vacant constituency seat.
- A regional MSP is recalled if 50% +1 (i.e., a simple majority) of those eligible to vote in the recall poll do not wish to retain the MSP. The next MSP on the party’s list is then able to fill the vacant seat. If the member was elected as an independent, then the seat remains vacant for the rest of the session.
- Part 2 of the Bill, which related to the removal of MSPs on the grounds of them either receiving a custodial sentence of 6 months to a year, or them not physically attending the proceedings of the Parliament for 180 days without a valid reason, has been removed. As such, the Bill is about the recall of MSPs only.
The key issues debated are discussed in more detail below.
Changes to the recall process in relation to regional recall
The amendments put forward by Graham Simpson MSP sought to address concerns around the complexity and cost of the two-stage recall process initially envisaged in the Bill for the recall of regional members. What was proposed by Mr Simpson was a change to a one step process for both constituency and regional MSPs.
In the case of a constituency MSP a recall petition would be held as envisaged in the Bill as introduced. If that petition were to gather sufficient signatures, then the MSP would be recalled and a by-election would be held.
In the case of regional MSPs, a recall poll would be held where the electorate could vote on whether they wished to retain the MSP or have a new MSP. If the decision was that the MSP should not be retained, then the next candidate on the party’s regional list would fill the vacancy. In the case of an independent MSP, or if the party list was exhausted, the seat would remain vacant until the next general election. The process is similar to that proposed in the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill being considered by the Senedd at present.
As Mr Simpson explained when speaking to his amendments:
The new model moves away from the two-step process for regional MSPs, which had included a recall petition and then a poll, which is set out in the bill as introduced. The new model would begin in the same way as was originally envisaged, with one of the recall conditions being met. The Presiding Officer would then issue a recall poll, initiating notice so that arrangements could be made for a regional recall poll. The poll would be held on one day in the region of the MSP in question. The poll would ask the electorate whether they wanted to keep their regional MSP in Parliament or remove them. If more than 50 per cent of people voting said that the MSP should be removed, they would lose their seat and be recalled from the Scottish Parliament. That MSP would then be replaced in the usual way that a regional MSP is replaced, by taking the next MSP from the party list.
The Committee agreed to most of Mr Simpson’s amendments on this issue without division, suggesting support for the simplified one step regional recall process. One amendment linked to the regional poll process (amendment 65) was not agreed to. The Committee did not agree to the amendment because of concerns around the lack of detail provided for, rather than because of disagreement on the policy of a regional poll.
Amendment 65 would have required Scottish Ministers to make regulations (a form of secondary legislation) to provide for much of the conduct of regional recall polls. The only details provided in the amendment were that a poll should take place somewhere between 25 and 34 working days after a recall notice is issued; that voters should be able to vote Iin person, by post or proxy, and that notice of the poll should be given to every eligible voter. As such, regulations would need to include, for example, provision on those entitled to vote and how a regional poll could be rescheduled. The Minister for Parliamentary Business spoke against the amendment, explaining that it would “place a duty on Scottish ministers to set out in regulations how the poll process will work…with no steer at all from the text of the bill.”
The Minister’s concern was that, if the Parliament does not agree sufficient detail in the Bill, the Government would be determining the details of the process in developing the regulations. That, the Minister felt, would be inappropriate given that the Scottish Government considers the terms of any recall process to be matter entirely for the Parliament.
In the Bill as introduced section 21 provides Scottish Ministers with a wide power to make regulations to make further provision on:
- how recall petitions are run
- how regional polls are conducted
- whether and how recall petitions and regional polls can be challenged after the event and the consequence of any irregularities.
As such, the Bill already provides a means by which Ministers could potentially make regulations around the regional poll process without more detail being contained in the Bill itself. In a letter to the SPPA Committee dated 9 February 2026, Mr Simpson explains that he is “busy establishing additional details for a new amendment, over and above the information in amendment 65, that needs to be on the face of the Bill”. It is likely that a Stage 3 amendment will seek to find a balance between the detail the Parliament considers appropriate to be contained in the Bill about the regional poll process and what should be left to secondary legislation. A letter dated 5 February 2026 between Mr Simpson and the Minister, Graeme Dey MSP, has also been published which shows that the Member and the Minister are working to try to resolve the Scottish Government’s concerns on this issue prior to Stage 3.
Changes to the criminal offence ground for recall and removal
As introduced the Bill provided that an MSP would become subject to a recall process should they receive a custodial sentence of less than 6 months. Part 2 of the Bill provided that if a sentence of 6 months to a year was received then the MSP would be automatically removed as they would be disqualified. The law already provides that if an MSP receives a sentence of 12 months or more they are disqualified from being an MSP.
Sue Webber MSP tabled amendments which sought to provide that any custodial sentence meant an MSP would become disqualified and automatically removed from office. Explaining the rationale for the approach, Ms Webber told the Committee:
At every stage of the bill, we should be guided by the fact that the public expect MSPs to be held to much higher standards than the people whom they represent.
Ms Webber’s amendments also sought to extend the criminal offence ground for recall to instances where an MSP is remanded in custody. An individual can be remanded in custody before being convicted of an offence (i.e., a court orders that a person is detained whilst awaiting trial). Graham Simpson MSP, some committee members and the Minister for Parliamentary Business raised concerns about the human rights implications of such a change. Ms Webber also sought to amend the Bill so that recall was triggered where an MSP received a community sentence. Speaking to Ms Webber’s amendments, the Minister for Parliamentary Business stated:
Community sentences can be imposed for things such as road traffic offences. The amendments would have the same effect for any length of prison sentence received. To be clear, I am not saying that we should condone such offences. I am pointing out that the amendments would mean the immediate disqualification of MSPs from a role that they have been elected to. That would be a significant change.
Mr Simpson’s view was that “We cannot remove someone from being an MSP when they are not guilty or when they have not been convicted of something.”
Mark Griffin MSP offered an alternative approach to the criminal offence ground. His amendment 9 revised the threshold at which the criminal offence ground for recall kicks in. Mr Griffin’s amendment removed the six months or less provision contained in the Bill as introduced, meaning that an MSP who received a sentence of any duration (up until 12 months which under existing law means an MSP is removed from office) would be subject to recall. Mr Griffin also proposed (by amendment 84) that section 25 of the Bill, relating to removal on the grounds of a being detained for 6 months to a year, be removed. As Mr Griffin explained, this would “mean that recall would be triggered by all sentences of imprisonment, except those that would disqualify the member under existing legislation”.
The Committee agreed to Mr Griffin’s amendments on division (3 for, 2 against). A number of Ms Webber’s amendments were not agreed to on division (2 for, 3 against), with the Member deciding not to move some amendments, including amendment 96 which was linked to removal if an MSP was remanded in custody.
Changes to the parliamentary sanction ground for recall
Sue Webber MSP sought to amend section 2 (amendments 91 and 92) of the Bill to provide that before a motion could be lodged to trigger the recall process on the parliamentary sanction ground, the SPPA Committee would need to report that the complaint which had given rise to the motion and potential sanction “was made in good faith and with a legitimate basis”.
Emma Roddick MSP questioned the amendment requiring both good faith and a legitimate basis, stating:
Many complaints might be made in bad faith or with the intention of getting somebody into trouble, but there might also be a legitimate basis to them.
Ms Webber indicated that her amendments were “legitimate attempts to find a way to make sure that the public understand that vexatious complaints will not be grounds for triggering a recall”.
Kevin Stewart MSP also had amendments on this topic, making a link to the Parliament’s independent review of its complaints and sanctions regime (commissioned in June 2025 and undertaken by Rosemary Agnew, the former Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, with a remit to review the MSP complaints process, with a focus on the process for considering and agreeing sanctions in respect of MSPs).
Mr Stewart had raised the issue before, lodging a reasoned amendment (an amendment to a motion relating to legislation in which the member wishes to highlight an issue) to the Stage 1 motion on the Bill. Mr Stewart’s reasoned amendment had sought to address the interaction between the Parliament’s complaints and sanctions regime review and the Bill. The Parliament agreed the amendment to the motion on division.
Mr Stewart’s amendments at Stage 2 (6,7 and 8) sought to make the parliamentary sanction ground more general, requiring the sanction to be “in accordance with the procedure as set out in standing orders of the Parliament for sanctioning a member” rather than requiring “a motion by the relevant committee of the Parliament.” Mr Stewart stated that this was a “short, simple, logical and future proof” given that “Any future changes to the parliamentary process that is used to sanction members will be on the basis that, whatever procedure is adopted, it will continue to be set out in standing orders”.
The Minister for Parliamentary business indicated that the Government supported Mr Stewart’s amendments, saying “in my view, they would future proof the bill by enabling it to take account of any changes to the parliamentary process”.
The Committee did not agree Mr Stewart’s amendments with two members voting for them and three against. Ms Webber’s amendments were also not agreed to.
Removal of MSPs for non-attendance
Mark Griffin MSP tabled amendments (85, 86 and 87) which proposed deleting the provisions relating to the removal of members on the grounds of non-physical attendance. Speaking to the amendments Mr Griffin explained:
The stage 1 report and the stage 1 debate raised concerns about the bill’s provision on the removal of MSPs on the grounds of parliamentary nonattendance… Although I agree that members of the public expect MSPs to be at work, there will be situations that prevent that from happening. I have a real concern that, as it stands, the bill would force members to disclose personal circumstances or, perhaps, the circumstances of family members for whom they act in a caring capacity. That is where my concerns stem from, which provides my motivation behind lodging the amendments.
Mr Griffin also tabled an amendment to the long title of the Bill so that, should his amendments on removal be accepted, the long title would reflect that “the bill would become entirely a recall bill”.
Sue Webber MSP also had amendments relating to the removal of MSPs for non-attendance. These sought to retain non-attendance as a trigger for removal, but looked to redefine attendance as including attendance by electronic means.
That said, Sue Webber MSP had indicated that the Conservatives would support Mr Griffin’s amendments. Ms Webber explained that:
I want the whole non-attendance element as it is right now to be removed, but I want attendance in a hybrid manner to be included if the non-attendance element of the bill is ultimately retained at later stages.
Graham Simpson MSP, as the Member in charge of the Bill, explained that he did not agree with Mr Griffin’s amendments, but also felt they were in line with the Stage 1 report and debate. He told the Committee:
There is no point in rehearsing the arguments that have already been made in the committee and in the chamber. I am being pragmatic—you need to know when to give up. The committee does not agree with me on the issue. I have a very strong view that MSPs should come into the Parliament if they are able to do so, and that view will not change.
Ms Webber withdrew amendment 102 with the agreement of the Committee and did not move amendments 103-109. Mr Griffin’s amendments were agreed to.
Protection of vulnerable groups
Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP tabled an amendment (amendment 124) which sought to introduce a new section “Review of removal: protection of vulnerable groups”. The amendment would have started the process towards MSPs requiring a Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) check in order for them to be able to hold the office by requiring Ministers to undertake a review on whether to introduce legislation to provide for the removal of an MSP should they be barred from regulated roles with children and/or adults. Mr Cole-Hamilton stated:
I believe that, should a member of this Parliament be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults, they do not meet the standards that should be required of our democratic representatives.
The Minister for Parliamentary Business stated that:
My concern with the amendment as drafted is that, although I absolutely agree with the principle of it, it would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to undertake a review within one year of royal assent. That deadline would be impacted by the Scottish Parliament election in May 2026, with all the upheaval that that creates, and it would be a difficult timetable to meet.
The Member withdrew the amendment with the agreement of the Committee and accepted the Minister’s offer to work together on an amendment ahead of Stage 3. The Minister also undertook, in recognition that “we would all recognise that the bill might not pass stage 3”, to include the issue in a future consultation on electoral reform should the SNP form the next Scottish Government.
For my part, on behalf of this Government, I am happy to say that, if we were to be returned, we would include in it consideration of some form of disclosure checks for elected representatives.
Looking ahead to Stage 3
It appears that there are still some issues of detail which need to be resolved in order for the Bill to receive the backing it needs to be passed at Stage 3. That said, the Parliament has agreed in principle that it believes there should be a mechanism for recalling an MSP, and the Member in charge of the Bill has indicated that he is working collaboratively with the Government, external stakeholders such as the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the Electoral Commission, as well as MSPs across parties to address issues which remain of concern.
On 18 February 2026 Graham Simpson MSP wrote to the SPPA Committee and all MSPs about the Bill. The letter gave an update on various issues raised at Stage 1 and Stage 2, including amendment 65 (discussed above). The letter states:
The Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans set out at Stage 2 that without
sufficient detail on the face of the Bill the Scottish Government would need to
deliberate and decide on the detail of the process in developing the regulations
under Section 21. He stated: “Instead of the Parliament taking decisions on how the
process ought to work, those decisions would be placed with Scottish ministers,
which we are not comfortable with.”I therefore instructed and have lodged at Stage 3 a series of detailed amendments
that provide far more detail on the face of the Bill…The amendments reflect insofar as possible existing electoral law and give all those
deliberating at Stage 3 on the regional process, and the Bill as a whole, a clear
sense of how the process will operate.I consider I have done everything I can to enable the Scottish Government to move
from its in principle position of supporting a recall process at Stage 1 to actual
support when the Bill is voted upon at Stage 3.
Mr Simpson also stated “I would welcome a discussion with any member of Parliament before Stage 3 takes place on Tuesday”.
Stage 3 is scheduled for Tuesday 24 February 2026 and Members are able to lodge amendments with the legislation team.
Sarah McKay, SPICe research
This blog was updated on 19 February 2026 to include details of the letter sent by Graham Simpson MSP to the SPPA Committee and all MSPs.