The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-08946, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 10th report in 2023, session 6.
I call Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
17:09
As convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have the responsibility of lodging and speaking to motions seeking the Parliament’s agreement to the committee’s recommendation of a sanction when the committee has concluded that a breach of the conduct rules has occurred.
The consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament recommended a rigorous code of conduct for MSPs, as, in its view, the Scottish people deserve a Parliament and members that the people of Scotland can trust and respect. The code of conduct sets out the standards of conduct for MSPs. Given the statutory underpinning of much of the code, we, as parliamentarians—as lawmakers—must take the rules seriously and adhere to them.
The code also provides for the enforcement of the rules. Over four weeks, the SPPA Committee gave detailed and thorough consideration to the report submitted to us by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland on the complaint made against Maggie Chapman MSP that she had failed to declare a registered financial interest. We carefully considered the provisions of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 and the code of conduct in relation to declarations of interest.
We concluded, unanimously, that Maggie Chapman MSP had failed to declare a registered financial interest—namely, the remuneration that she had received by virtue of her employment as the chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre—during the proceedings relating to that registered financial interest at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022. We agreed with the commissioner’s conclusion that Maggie Chapman MSP had breached the 2006 act and the code of conduct for MSPs.
The central purpose of the requirement to register and declare interests is to provide transparency. That transparency makes certain registrable interests public through their being published on the individual member’s entry in the register of interests. That standards regime aims to ensure that somebody watching or reading parliamentary proceedings is made aware of a financial interest that could influence or give the appearance of influencing a member’s ability to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of this Parliament.
That transparency was missing at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022. When Maggie Chapman asked a question of the chief executive of Rape Crisis Scotland that referenced the net worth of Rape Crisis centres in Scotland, she did not, by means of a declaration, make it known that she had a registered financial interest by virtue of the remuneration that she had received as the chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis centre. Thus, that transparency, which is central to the understanding of any interests that could influence us as MSPs, was not there.
I do not dispute that an inadvertent breach took place, but what Parliament is being asked to vote on is a sanction. I would appreciate it if the committee’s convener could explain why the committee has departed so significantly from precedent with the sanction. In the cases of multiple members who are in the chamber today, previous breaches were found in relation to failing to declare a former employer and in relation to direct financial interests—gifts to the tune of thousands of pounds that had not been declared—and no sanction was issued. Can the convener explain why a sanction has been issued in this case? It is a serious departure from precedent.
I will deal with that matter, as it is specifically dealt with the in the committee’s unanimous report, which has been published and can be read by members in the chamber and people outside it who are watching and holding us to account.
We live in an age when there is a great deal of scepticism and mistrust of politicians. In order to challenge those perceptions, it is incumbent on us to act with integrity and to respect the rules in the code of conduct. It is also incumbent on us, in certain circumstances, to exclude a member from the proceedings of Parliament when that member has failed to comply with the requirement to declare an interest.
We fail ourselves and we undermine those founding principles if we do not uphold the requirements of our standards regime. For those reasons, I intend to write to all MSPs again next week, reminding them of the declaration requirements and encouraging them to seek advice from the clerks when they have any doubts about the correct approach to declarations.
With regard to the sanction that the committee has unanimously suggested, there are differences in this case. The committee is not required to follow a rule of precedent but deals with each case individually, fairly and following the rules of natural justice as it appears before us.
The committee’s unanimous decision is to recommend the exclusion of Maggie Chapman MSP from one meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and it is, I believe, a proportionate one. The committee has taken its role seriously, seeking to embed the principles of natural justice and fairness in its deliberations. For the reputation of the Parliament and the members of it, I urge those in the chamber to support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 10th Report, 2023 (Session 6), Complaint against Maggie Chapman MSP (SP Paper 366), and agrees to impose the sanction recommended in the report that Maggie Chapman MSP be excluded from the first meeting of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee that is held after this motion is agreed.
17:16
As a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I take the scrutiny and governance of Parliament and its members very seriously. The committee was unanimous regarding the consultation and consideration and the decision that we reached.
The committee was of the view that Maggie Chapman’s registered financial interest—that is, the remuneration that she received by virtue of her employment as the chief operating officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre—was relevant to the proceedings of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on 31 May 2022.
The view of all the members of the committee was that, in keeping with the principles that underpin the code of conduct, the member should not just take into account their own view in the assessment of whether a declaration relates to committee proceedings, but should also consider whether a fair-minded and impartial observer would consider that the declarable interest could influence the member or give the appearance that the member’s ability to act impartially was prejudiced.
The committee considered that a person who watched or read the proceedings might reasonably consider there to be a connection between Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre and Rape Crisis Scotland. The committee members take very seriously any breach of the requirements in relation to failure to declare a registrable financial interest before taking part in any proceedings of Parliament relating to that matter, and the unanimous verdict of the committee was that the code was breached. That cemented the view and findings of the commissioner.
Members can seek advice from the committee’s clerks as to how any question on any matter relates to registrations and declarations of interest. The integrity and reputation of this Parliament and its members should always be paramount. Those of us who are privileged to serve as members of this Parliament should, at all times, act to uphold its reputation and that of its proceedings in accordance with the code of conduct. When Parliament delegates a decision to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and the committee comes back with a unanimous decision, that decision should be respected.
17:18
We, as members of the Scottish Parliament, have the privilege of serving the people of Scotland. We must do that in their best interests and as transparently as possible. It is right that they know of any interests that we may have that could influence our decision making. While we must not allow those interests to influence our work, we need to go further. We need to be clear and transparent about interests where a member of the public could reasonably believe that those interests would influence our decision making. It is very easy for us to make a judgment about what does or does not influence our activities, but that might not be apparent to an onlooker.
I do not think anyone in the chamber would believe that they are influenced by the things that we declare in our entry in the register of members’ interests. It is quite the opposite—we would all avoid things that would in any way compromise our ability to act freely.
However, we must understand that our constituents do not know us personally. We must also recognise how they might reasonably believe that we could be influenced by certain interests. That is why we have a register of interests and why we as MSPs must take every step to ensure that we abide by the rules regarding the register of interests and the declaration of those interests.
I thank the committee and the commissioner for their work on this case. I note that the report was agreed unanimously by the committee and that the penalty that it proposes is not overly detrimental. However, it provides a useful reminder to us all to be meticulous in registering and declaring our interests. For that reason, I will support the committee’s recommendations and urge colleagues to do the same.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on a general point. In my time in Parliament we have had several instances of standards recommendations and discipline of various members, but I am concerned that the issue raised by Ross Greer has merit in that we do not appear to keep a note of precedent. In any court proceedings, there is a note of precedent of the kind of penalties that have been imposed in similar circumstances.
All that I ask is about who and why and whether we should keep a note of precedents of decisions made in the circumstances and the various disciplinary consequences that occur for members. I think that that is fair. The issue does not influence my decision in this case, but we have to take a view on it in fairness to any member who may subsequently be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
I thank Ms Grahame for her point of order. The convener addressed some of the points raised in Ms Grahame’s point of order, and pointed out that there is no precedent. The Parliament will decide on the matter in due course.
17:21
I thank members of the SPPA Committee and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland for their consideration of this case.
As a former member of the committee, I recognise its important work in upholding the values and standards of this institution. The Green group therefore respects the decision that has been made by the SPPA Committee and the commissioner that my colleague Maggie Chapman breached the code of conduct, and we do not wish to reopen that decision.
However, we struggle to agree with the decision to impose a sanction, because it goes against the recent precedent set by the Parliament in dealing with omissions to declare a financial interest. Since the start of session 5 in 2016, the SPPA Committee has upheld five complaints against members relating to a failure to declare a registered financial interest, and only one of those resulted in a sanction.
In that case, the member in question had asked parliamentary questions on an issue in which they held a live financial interest and could have potentially benefited financially from the outcome. It was also the second time that a complaint was upheld against them on the same issue, the first time having resulted in no sanction.
In another more recent case, a member failed to make verbal declarations of substantial gifts from a lobbying organisation, but the committee concluded that
“the finding of a breach is sanction enough.”
The case against Maggie Chapman, however, relates to a previous employment that had long since concluded at the time that the item of business took place in Parliament, so there was no way that Ms Chapman could have benefited financially from the subject that was under discussion on that day.
I am concerned, because the decision sets a precedent for declaring past employment, suggesting that every member in the chamber remains financially tied to all our previous employers for an indefinite period. Imposing a sanction today also undermines the previous position that members are able to make their own judgment on these matters.
In another case, again in 2016, the SPPA Committee admonished a member but imposed no further sanction because
“it is a matter of judgment for the member on whether a registered interest is sufficiently relevant to particular proceedings to require a declaration.”
Yet in this case, the committee has decided that it was not sufficient for Maggie Chapman to use her own judgment, despite her clearly making no attempt to conceal her previous employment, which was declared in her written register of interest.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make progress in laying out our concerns, but I will give way to the committee convener.
I am very grateful. As a point of clarification, does the member agree that the judgment of the individual member must always err on the side of being transparent to those who are watching, rather than it just being about the judgment of the individual, which is the wording in the guidance?
Indeed—but I have laid out the circumstances in which the case emerged and I do not believe that an incorrect judgment was made in that regard. Many members who are looking at that and previous cases that have come to the chamber will now have doubts in their minds about when it is and when it is not appropriate to declare a particular interest.
It is the view of my colleagues in the Green group that our colleague appears to be being held to a different set of standards than previous members who were found wanting in relation to much more substantial breaches, where direct financial interests were actually at stake. She is also not being given the benefit of the doubt, which other members have been afforded. The following quotation is from a decision in 2020: when a member had similarly failed to declare previous employment, the committee concluded that
“the complaint ... was not related to a matter for which”
the member
“could have gained any financial benefit and there was no attempt to conceal the information, which”
was
“made available on the Parliament’s website.”
Those words are equally applicable to Maggie Chapman’s case, yet she is now being sanctioned by the Parliament, and that is a departure.
In closing, if the motion is approved, it potentially has implications for all members. There will be an urgent need for revised and detailed guidance to members on what should reasonably be declared for inclusion in their declaration of members’ interests and clerks and the convener will need to address that in the weeks to come. We recognise how vital honesty and transparency are in the dealings of the chamber, but my colleague has been honest and transparent at every stage of the process. Fairness and consistency are just as crucial—
You must conclude, Mr Ruskell.
We believe that those qualities are lacking in the recommendation today.
That concludes the debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 10th report in 2023, session 6.
Previous
Mental Health CrisisNext
Business Motions