Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Official Report 1160KB pdf

---

Michael Matheson (Complaint)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-013368, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6. I remind members that the question on the motion will be put immediately after the debate, and I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I call Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the committee.

14:55  

As convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have the responsibility of lodging and speaking to motions that seek the Parliament’s agreement to the committee’s recommendation of a sanction in instances where a breach of the conduct rules has occurred. I do so today, following the committee’s consideration of a report referred to it by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The report was referred to the committee after the SPCB concluded that there had been breaches of the code of conduct by Michael Matheson MSP, in relation to the use of mobile data via a SIM card and a device issued to him by the Parliament.

The SPCB had considered three excluded complaints—an excluded complaint is one that does not fall within the remit of the Ethical Standards Commissioner—and determined that breaches had occurred in respect of sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the code of conduct.

The committee considered the report at five meetings during March and May. It was tasked with considering the question whether to recommend any sanctions to the Parliament; it was not tasked with reviewing the SPCB’s investigation or decisions, as it does in other cases.

As members will be aware, the SPCB reached its decisions on 14 March 2024 and referred its report to the committee on 19 March 2024. The committee has sought to conclude its consideration as swiftly as possible, while ensuring that Michael Matheson was given the opportunity to make representations to us and that those representations and the SPCB report were fully considered.

In the Parliament’s 25 years, this is the first instance of an SPCB referral to a standards committee of the Parliament. The committee has set out in its report that it intends to reflect generally on the process for excluded complaints and has invited reflections from the SPCB. Those reflections do not evidence any concern that the process that was followed up to this point was not adequate or correct.

The committee sought to avoid any form of running commentary on the matter under consideration. I note the disappointment of the whole committee that, at the final stages of our consideration, speculation appeared in the media before we had reached decisions and concluded our considerations.

Since March, the committee has carefully considered all the information that was available to it in the SPCB’s report, in both written evidence and personal representations by Mr Matheson. That has enabled the committee to take into account a fuller picture, including the role of an outdated SIM card and the charges that were incurred; the circumstances of the usage; the allocation of £3,000 from Mr Matheson’s office cost provision; the knowledge that Mr Matheson had at the point of allocation; and the actions that Mr Matheson took between his stating that he had become aware that non-parliamentary usage had occurred and his personal statement to the chamber.

During our consideration, we noted areas where we believe that more action should have been taken on the part of the Parliament in relation to the replacement of an outdated SIM card. The committee also acknowledges the impact on Mr Matheson and his family of the significant media and other intrusions that took place. Following its consideration, the committee was unanimous in its view that sanctions should be recommended and that there should be a period of exclusion and a financial element to the recommended sanctions. It is, however, important to acknowledge, as set out in the committee’s report, that two members of the committee, Alasdair Allan and Jackie Dunbar, noted that they agreed with the financial element but considered that it was in the higher range of available sanctions.

The one area on which there was not unanimous agreement was the duration of the period of exclusion. After discussion, the committee was not in a position to give a unanimous recommendation on a suspension period from Parliament. A majority of members of the committee agreed that a duration of 27 days was appropriate. As set out in the committee’s report, some members of the committee—Oliver Mundell, supported by Annie Wells—had originally supported a longer period of exclusion. Others—Alasdair Allan and Jackie Dunbar—supported a shorter period, as, in their view, the period was

“extremely severe when compared to previous cases.”

The issues under consideration by the committee are ultimately about the use of public finance, those funds being used only for legitimate purposes, the degree of trust that there must be both in and outside the Parliament, and the ethical standards with which members must conduct themselves in all matters, as articulated in the Nolan principles and the code of conduct. Any failure to meet those standards has an adverse impact on the reputation of the expenses scheme, members and the Parliament as a whole.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6), Complaint against Michael Matheson MSP (SP Paper 597), and agrees to impose the sanctions recommended in the report that the Parliament excludes Michael Matheson MSP from proceedings of the Parliament for a period of 27 sitting days and withdraws his salary for a period of 54 calendar days to take effect from the day after this motion is agreed.

15:01  

I start by saying that Michael Matheson was found by a cross-party group MSPs, including members of the Scottish National Party, to have breached the standards expected of him. The First Minister has not criticised the findings of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. Secondly, breaches such as this should be proportionately sanctioned. Michael Matheson has paid back the roaming costs, and there has been no cost to the public purse. His actions have had consequences. He lost his Cabinet position, despite being one of the longest-serving ministers of this Parliament. He has faced considerable reputational damage and significant intrusion in his personal life.

I find this very difficult. Because the Scottish Government amendment specifically references a referral to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, I, as an elected member of that body, identify a real or perceived conflict of interest, and will therefore recuse myself and will abstain on the amendment. If the motion is amended, I will abstain on that, too.

I thank the member for those comments, which are on the record. Presiding Office, I hope that you will look favourably on a slight extension to my comments.

Having established in my opening remarks that a breach occurred and that actions have consequences, I come to my third point, which relates to how the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has determined the sanctions. That is where we have grave concerns, which are captured in the amendment. Parliament must engage with those concerns—

Will the member give way?

I have only four minutes. I would really value getting to the end of my speech, if that is okay.

Parliament must engage with those concerns, because to dismiss them now will have serious consequences for members who, in future, may themselves be the subject of the committee’s investigation.

There is a fundamental principle of natural justice at stake here. I say pointedly that I will base my remarks on the principle and not the personalities. Although I believe that Annie Wells should have resigned from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, as Stephen Kerr did, I do not want to see any abuse or harassment of MSPs—of Annie Wells or of Michael Matheson. The principle of fair, impartial and proportionate justice is captured in comments that Conservative member Stephen Kerr made.

Will the member give way on that point?

If I could get to the end of these comments, I will.

Stephen Kerr, who was a member of the committee, said, and I quote at length:

“I concluded that I couldn’t meet the committee requirement to be unbiased towards Michael Matheson and his conduct in public office.”

He also said that it would have been wrong for him to sit on the committee,

“having made so many public pronouncements”,

and that

“for due process to be observed, I feel I must resign from the committee.”

Will the member take an intervention, as she has mentioned me by name?

If the member wants to intervene, I ask him, was he right then, and is he right now?

I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way, but her amendment is nothing but an attack on the integrity of a member of the Parliament. Does she, of all people, having been through what she has been through during the past year—

Members: She?

Kate Forbes. Given what Kate Forbes has been through during the past year, does she not recognise that this is an attack on an honourable member and that it is motivated by vindictive purposes?

I have been very clear that my remarks relate to the principle—not the personality—and I invite Stephen Kerr to reflect on that point precisely in his remarks.

In the light of Stephen Kerr's comments, my point is that other members of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee who also made public comments should have recused themselves. Another member declared in public that Mr Matheson’s position was “untenable”, that he should be “sacked” or quit his role as a minister and that his admission should not be believed. By any measure, that clearly prejudges the complaint and the sanction.

As such, we invite the SPCB to initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process in order to restore integrity and confidence in its procedures, so that all MSPs can have confidence in the Parliament’s processes and procedures.

I move amendment S6M-13368.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that Stephen Kerr MSP resigned from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in March 2024 as he had made public pronouncements on this case ahead of the complaint being heard by the committee; agrees with Stephen Kerr MSP that to have remained as a committee member ‘would have been wrong’ as he ‘couldn’t meet the test to be unbiased’; notes that Annie Wells MSP also made public pronouncements on this case in advance of the complaint being heard by the committee and has remained a committee member throughout; agrees that this runs the risk of the committee report being open to bias and prejudice and the complaint being prejudged, thereby bringing the Parliament into disrepute; further agrees with the disappointment expressed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee that material relating to the committee’s deliberations appeared in the media prior to its decisions being reached and announced, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures.”

15:06  

We are debating a report from the Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Its representation is made up of the three largest parties in the chamber and they have agreed a suspension that will seem lenient to the public, but it represents the most severe action ever taken against a member of the Parliament. Michael Matheson will be suspended for 27 days and his pay will be docked for 54 days. However, we must be honest—any other Scot would have been handed their P45 straight away. If someone was found to have falsely claimed £11,000 from their employer—in this case, the taxpayer—and it was then found that they had lied about it as part of a cover-up, they would have been sacked.

Let me be clear that this is not the harmless mistake that some have attempted to present it as. It was a deliberate and shameless attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Parliament and the public. It is an open-and-shut case that has already been considered in great detail by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the standards committee. The independent process exists for a reason, and it should be respected and upheld by members across the chamber. However, what we have seen from Scottish National Party members—specifically John Swinney, the First Minister—is an attempt to derail and undermine due process. That has been done for the sole purpose of protecting one of their own. I put on the record that the actions of John Swinney, the First Minister, towards my colleague Annie Wells would make Donald Trump blush. It is disgusting and disgraceful behaviour that demeans the office of First Minister. He has targeted members of an independent committee in the Parliament, and he is attempting to undermine due process with his bully boy tactics.

I have been looking at who has been in agreement with John Swinney during the process—and I do mean during the process, not now, as we have heard from the Deputy First Minister that she agrees with John Swinney. However, I can find nothing on the record to suggest that, at any point when the standards committee was considering the matter, Jackie Dunbar, Alasdair Allan or Ivan McKee—all SNP members—raised any concerns about Annie Wells being included. I then looked at Michael Matheson’s personal statement. He was asked to provide a personal statement to the committee. It runs to 10 pages and is 5,500 words long, but at no point is there any reference to his concern that Annie Wells was sitting on a committee to judge his fate.

Will the member give way?

I will not. I am going to make this point. The only person—[Interruption.] If I get time, I will take the intervention.

The only MSP who raised complaints during the process was John Swinney.

I was hoping to intervene on the Deputy First Minister, but I will let her intervene on me, because I am puzzled by the approach that we now have from the SNP. Are we really going to have the bizarre and perhaps unique approach in the Scottish Parliament where the SNP successfully amends a motion to the wording of its choice and then does not vote for the SNP-amended motion? Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that that is her plan this afternoon? [Interruption.]

Please continue, Mr Ross.

I am unsure. Are we in uncharted territory where the SNP— [Interruption.]

I do not know whether I will get extra time for interventions, but maybe Alasdair Allan can tell us whether he has been whipped to vote for the SNP amendment. If that amendment is successful, will he vote the motion down?

Douglas Ross might have forgotten but, when I attempted to intervene on him some minutes ago, he was making the claim that I had never raised the issue of a member of the committee having tweeted about matters in advance. I was not going to say this, but I did privately raise the issue with the convener of the committee. That was supposed to be in private—not that everything from the committee was in private.

Please conclude, Mr Ross.

Therefore, I was correct that there were no public statements from any MSP apart from John Swinney, and there was no answer—[Interruption.]

Members should listen, so that we get this correct. SNP MSPs are going to vote to amend the motion to the wording of their choice, but they are not going to support the SNP-amended motion. It is bizarre in the extreme.

From the beginning, this has been a sorry saga for the SNP Government, but John Swinney had the opportunity to clean the slate. Instead, he chose to support his friend and colleague in direct opposition to the Scottish public. Unlike the SNP, the Scottish Conservatives will back the ban today because Michael Matheson has failed the public and this Parliament. His actions are indefensible but, amazingly, John Swinney and the SNP continue to oppose any punishment of their friend and colleague.

Please conclude, Mr Ross.

People across Scotland are watching in disbelief and they are watching the SNP.

15:12  

I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its report on the complaint about Michael Matheson. It is difficult to sit in judgment of our colleagues but, given the severity of the situation, the committee arrived at a judgment that Mr Matheson should be excluded for 27 sitting days, with the further sanction of losing his salary for 54 calendar days. I believe that the committee’s recommendations reflect the seriousness of the member’s actions. What is not disputed is that sanction should be applied, and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee was unanimous on that point.

Michael Matheson used a parliamentary iPad inappropriately by allowing his family to use the device as a hot spot to watch football games while on holiday in Morocco. Those of us with experience of teenage children understand and have sympathy with the challenges. Had Michael Matheson confessed when he was first challenged, it might have led to one day’s uncomfortable headlines and an acknowledgment from all of us that there but for the grace of God we go. The problem was that there was no admission of error and no apology or contrition. Instead, there appears to have been denial, deflection and dishonesty.

Emails from Parliament staff to remind members about changing broadband providers were ignored for years. Emails to remind members to tell Parliament if they were going abroad, so that their broadband package could be adjusted, were also ignored. Most problematic of all is that questions from Parliament staff about the scale of the iPad bill were largely ignored and ultimately denied. Even the most diligent MSP cannot run up an £11,000 roaming charges bill, especially at Christmas, when constituents have other priorities. However, that pattern of denial continued, misleading Parliament, misleading the press and, ultimately, misleading the people of Scotland.

It is the cover-up, rather than the original sin, that is always the problem, and it is the contempt in his actions for the Parliament, the press and the public that I am most disappointed by. It is a profound error of judgment from someone whom I have always had a great deal of respect for, despite our being in different political parties. He is one of the class of 1999—we entered Parliament together—and he should have known better. Although I would clash with him regularly about health policy, I recognised his commitment to the national health service. However, that has all been swept away by his actions.

I am disappointed by the SNP’s amendment, but not surprised. It clearly cannot politically amend the scale of the sanction as it knows that it cannot win the vote. Instead, the amendment is an attack on the committee and, by extension, on the Parliament. This is about John Swinney protecting his friend. This is John Swinney undermining the integrity of the Parliament—something that he already has form on. This is about John Swinney putting party before country.

Ultimately, it should be for the people of Falkirk West to decide whether they want Michael Matheson to continue to represent them, but their voice is denied because the Parliament has no provision for a recall petition. I will discuss that in the debate that follows. It is surely an omission that we should rectify.

The public is right to expect the very highest standards from their MSPs, but Michael Matheson’s actions have brought our politics into disrepute, and John Swinney’s attitude in wanting to protect an SNP MSP adds fuel to the fire. It is truly a case of party before country every time with the SNP, so I hope that members will vote in support of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to restore integrity to our politics.

15:17  

I hope to be brief in my comments. The Scottish Greens will support the sanction recommended by the committee, and Mr Matheson should be held accountable for his actions. Beyond that, I will lay out our concerns about the committee process in this case and in more general terms.

I believe that members who commented publicly on the guilt of the member being investigated should have recused themselves from the process. I believe that that should equally apply to anyone in the future who expresses their thoughts on the innocence or guilt of a colleague. There should also have been public condemnation before today of the leak of the potential sanctions on the day before the committee met.

More generally, the process needs reform. We do not, for example, take precedent into account. I know that the convener of the SPPA Committee and I disagree on that, and I am aware that there are differing opinions, but the situation is that, previously, an MSP who had been sanctioned for sexual harassment received a lesser sanction than the one that is in front of us today. I certainly hope that members in the chamber agree that harm to people should carry the greatest sanctions. Taking previous sanctions into account would allow us to ensure that sanctions are consistent.

We also allocate seats on the committee in the same way as for scrutiny committees. If we want it to be truly cross party and considered fair, the allocation of seats on the committee and its make-up need to be looked at to ensure fairness and to prevent politicisation of sanctions. The process at Westminster, although far from perfect, is better than the one that we have here and there are some aspects that we might be able to adopt.

I hope that, in the coming weeks, Parliament will be able to take a serious look at the process and have a serious conversation about how we fix and depoliticise the process.

15:19  

We will vote in favour of the recommendation by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. However much we might dislike the outcomes, we will find ourselves in very difficult territory if we take a pick-and-mix approach to the recommendations of the Parliament’s established processes.

With regard to the concerns of the First Minister, although Annie Wells could have followed the course of action that was taken by Stephen Kerr, she was not required to do so by parliamentary standing orders.

On Kate Forbes’s amendment, I am troubled by the Government seeking to issue instructions with regard to the complaints process and its independence, especially in a case on which there was so much agreement.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee both agreed that Mr Matheson breached sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the code of conduct for MSPs. That conclusion was reached by all members of the committee, including those from the SNP.

All members of the committee, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson made an improper claim. All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to undertake a sufficient level of inquiry before submitting the claim. All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to abide by the policies adopted by the corporate body. All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to ensure that his parliamentary iPad hotspot facility was not used for non-parliamentary purposes to a significant extent.

Will the member give way?

Not just now.

All members, including the SNP members, agreed that Mr Matheson failed to inform the corporate body, during the period 9 to 16 November 2023, that his previous statement was unsound. That was very grave. All members of the committee agreed on the financial penalty, and all members of the committee agreed that there should be a suspension.

The only disagreement was on the number of days for which Mr Matheson should be suspended. Oliver Mundell initially proposed a 54-day suspension to match the financial penalty. He made a second, compromise proposal to halve that to 27 days. SNP members did not make an alternative proposal and the 27 days was subsequently agreed by the committee.

The committee was in agreement nine times; only once there was disagreement. It is therefore wrong to undermine the whole process, especially when there was so much unanimity throughout that process.

Will the member give way?

Not just now.

However, importantly, there is a warning to those on the committee who voted for the tougher sanction. A new bar—a new standard—has been set. I take Gillian Mackay’s points about precedence. From my perspective, it will now be expected that the level of penalty that was agreed by the committee in this case will be applied in future cases of a similar nature and severity. It cannot be one rule for SNP MSPs who err and another rule for Conservatives, Greens, Labour or even—dare I say?—Liberal Democrat MSPs who breach the rules. Of course, not every complaint is exactly the same, but members of the committee will have to act fairly and consistently when applying future penalties.

15:22  

As I outlined earlier, our fundamental disagreement is not on the principle that a breach occurred or that actions have consequences. Willie Rennie set out comprehensively where the areas of agreement are. Those principles have been established, and we agree. Instead, our amendment is about a third principle: the principle of fair, impartial and proportionate justice when it comes to sanctions.

All MSPs, now and in the future, need to rely on, trust and have confidence in the Parliament’s processes and procedures.

Will the member give way?

I will not give way, thank you.

They need to know that we have in place a system in which Parliament and procedure matter more than politics. That should apply equally to members of every party, because every party has had members who have been subject to the process over the years, and all parties have demonstrated their ability to be impartial when it comes to the application of justice on fellow members.

Will the member give way on that point?

The member has shared his views already, and I would like to complete my contribution.

Perhaps one of the highest-profile examples of that was at Westminster. The Labour MP Chris Bryant recused himself from presiding over the investigation into Boris Johnson. Referencing public comments that he had previously made about the then Prime Minister, he recused himself from the committee that was potentially going to be tasked with conducting the investigation.

He explained at the time that

“it is ... important that the House be seen”—

I repeat, “be seen”—

“to proceed fairly without any imputation of unfairness and that the whole House have confidence in the Committee of Privileges’ proceedings.”

That was despite also saying that he believed that he would have done everything in his power to ensure that the

“inquiry was fair, consensual and evidence based”.

That is because the perception of unfairness is just as damaging to justice as the fact of unfairness.

I believe that there is an opportunity for parties to work across the chamber to inspire confidence in our procedures. Surely, as we mark a quarter of a century of the Scottish Parliament, now is the time to do so.

In that vein, I note Jackie Baillie’s comments, and the Labour amendment in the next debate, about the recall of MSPs. If agreement can be reached, there is no reason why a form of recall cannot be introduced to this Parliament with cross-party support. That must be preceded by an independent process that is built on the well-established tenets of evidence-based, impartial and proportionate justice.

The recall process at Westminster is based on an entirely independent complaints procedure that has in-built rights of appeal. I believe that it is time for this Parliament, through the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, to initiate an independent review of the complaints process. Perhaps, on that, we can agree. The objective must be to ensure that members of the Scottish Parliament abide by the highest standards of integrity in public service, that they give confidence to the public that actions have consequences and that there is a process to determine that—a process that is free of bias, prejudice and politics.

I think that, out of this situation, we can work collectively to avoid bringing any of our procedures into disrepute and to ensure that they are fit for the future.

I call Martin Whitfield to wind up the debate on behalf of the committee.

15:26  

I have, as expected, different views from those being expressed today. However, I would like to clarify some of the points that have been raised.

I will turn first to Willie Rennie’s contribution. I urge members in the chamber and people outside the Scottish Parliament to read the report in full. It is not the role of the committee to review the investigation that took place or the decisions that were reached. We were tasked with answering a question about whether there should be a sanction and about the extent of any sanction.

With regard to comments that have been made about the committee’s terms of reference, a lot of what we undertook we undertook privately. The Deputy First Minister has talked about the need for fair, impartial and proportionate justice. Let me rephrase that, I hope with her consent, into the world of natural justice.

One thing that the committee undertook before we started any evidence gathering was to discuss and agree the procedure that we, as a whole committee, would follow. Alasdair Allan did not serve on the committee at that stage, because of changes that had occurred within the Scottish Government, but the committee was unanimous in its view on how the matter was going to be taken forward. If there were concerns among committee members, that would have been the opportunity for them to express those views.

It has been mentioned in the chamber that I raised no concerns about the remarks that were made about another committee member. Will the committee’s convener correct the record on that today? Will he also inform the chamber when the letters from John Swinney were shared with the committee? Those points are very important.

I am grateful to Jackie Dunbar for that intervention and for her role on the committee. She raises a number of points. With the greatest respect to the First Minister, the correspondence from Mr Swinney arrived after we had agreed the process that we would take forward and the make-up of the committee. The provisions for how a committee is made up are in our standing orders, which I know have now been published for people to see. With regard to the process by which we reached the decision that is expressed in the report—again I turn, with respect, to Willie Rennie—there was long and respectful discussion about periods of time that would or would not be put forward. Again, I would ask members and those outside the Parliament to read our report, which will give an explanation of where we got to.

There has been a question about a leak. Any leaks sit within the purview of the independent Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. If anyone has any information regarding that, that is the appropriate route to take.

Will the member give way?

I will decline, simply because of the passage of time.

It is important to reflect that we are dealing with matters of genuine and significant concern regarding the way in which members conduct themselves in their parliamentary duties and the ethical standards framework that we must uphold under the principles known as the Nolan principles. It is an honour to be elected to this place, but one of the consequences of that honour is the absolute obligation that we have to set higher standards for ourselves than we expect of those who have not been elected, and we must also uphold those standards. The committee is an important manifestation of that expectation.

That is how respect is developed and how it is maintained so that, when and if we have to ask our communities some of the hardest questions or ask them to take some of the hardest actions, we can do so without being selfish and with integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We are dealing with an extremely important situation. Questions have been posed to the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee but not answered by him. He has just talked about honour and respect. It is absolutely essential that members have the answers to the questions that Dr Allan and Ms Dunbar posed around what they said to the convener privately. The convener has not answered those questions, which are extremely pertinent to the matter that we are discussing today. [Interruption.]

Members.

So that we make the right decision, I would like to hear the convener, with honour and respect, answer those questions.

I am sure that Mr Stewart is well aware that that is not a point of order and that members’ responses to questions or contributions in this chamber are entirely up to them.

That concludes the debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6.

There are two questions to be put. The first question is, that amendment S6M-13368.1, in the name of Kate Forbes, which seeks to amend motion S6M-13368, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

15:33 Meeting suspended.  

15:36 On resuming—  

We move to the vote on amendment S6M-13368.1, in the name of Kate Forbes.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Abstentions

Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 68, Against 56, Abstentions 2.

Amendment agreed to.

The next question is, that motion S6M-13368, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s first report in 2024, in session 6, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device will not connect to the digital voting system to confirm that I voted yes. I would like to see whether my vote has been registered.

I can confirm that your vote has been recorded, Mr Whitfield.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

Abstentions

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 64, Against 0, Abstentions 63.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6), Complaint against Michael Matheson MSP (SP Paper 597); agrees to impose the sanctions recommended in the report that the Parliament excludes Michael Matheson MSP from proceedings of the Parliament for a period of 27 sitting days and withdraws his salary for a period of 54 calendar days to take effect from the day after this motion is agreed; recognises that Stephen Kerr MSP resigned from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in March 2024 as he had made public pronouncements on this case ahead of the complaint being heard by the committee; agrees with Stephen Kerr MSP that to have remained as a committee member ‘would have been wrong’ as he ‘couldn’t meet the test to be unbiased’; notes that Annie Wells MSP also made public pronouncements on this case in advance of the complaint being heard by the committee and has remained a committee member throughout; agrees that this runs the risk of the committee report being open to bias and prejudice and the complaint being prejudged, thereby bringing the Parliament into disrepute; further agrees with the disappointment expressed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee that material relating to the committee’s deliberations appeared in the media prior to its decisions being reached and announced, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to initiate an independent review of the Parliament's complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures.

I will allow those on the front benches a moment to change positions before the next item of business.