Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Official Report 1160KB pdf

---

Michael Matheson

The next item of business is the debate on motion S6M-13365, in the name of Douglas Ross, which calls for the resignation of Michael Matheson. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button now or as soon as possible.

15:42  

We have just witnessed the Scottish National Party, under John Swinney, failing to vote for an amended motion that it drafted. Just to be clear to the public, the wording of the motion that has just passed, which every nationalist just failed to support, was the wording that the SNP Government asked the Parliament to agree to. We know that independence will be line 1 of the SNP manifesto. It seems that incompetence will be line 2.

SNP MSPs have just said to the public across Scotland that they believe that their friend and colleague should receive no sanction at all—nothing. They did not lodge an amendment to say that the sanction should be a suspension of fewer days or that his salary should be docked for a reduced number of days. They said nothing at all.

Up and down the country, people will look at that and wonder why the SNP politicians here today are supporting their friend rather than doing the right thing. I am struggling to understand the strategy behind that. I can only assume that SNP spin doctors are hoping that tomorrow’s headline is “It’s a guddle, not a fiddle”, but of course it is both: it is a guddle, because they have ended up not voting for the wording of the motion that they drafted themselves, and it is a fiddle, because Michael Matheson tried to claim £11,000 of taxpayers’ money and thought that he could get away with it. When he did not, he lied to cover up his tracks, and when he was found guilty by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and sanctioned by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of this Parliament, SNP MSPs refused to support that.

Now that the Scottish Parliament has agreed the guilt of John Swinney’s disgraced colleague and friend, the question of what happens next is the substance of this debate.

I notice that the First Minister has walked out. He does not want to take part in a debate about his colleague, who should resign for what he has done. That is quite telling.

The standards committee has issued the longest suspension—27 sitting days—ever given to an MSP. The committee can operate only within the rules of this Parliament, which, time and time again, we have found are out of date. Although the right to recall was introduced at Westminster more than a decade ago, no such opportunity exists here.

I know that some SNP MSPs would like to speak to the standards committee about procedures in Westminster and use their experience to frame the debate. One such MSP is Michael Matheson. In his personal statement to the committee, speaking about the independent nature of the House of Commons in looking at things and citing a House of Commons process such as the right to recall, he said:

“Should the committee give consideration to this at a later date I would be happy to assist in anyway, given my experience over the last five months.”

I hope that Michael Matheson is also happy to assist the committee with a right to recall. My colleague Graham Simpson is introducing a non-Government bill to introduce a right to recall here in the Scottish Parliament. He has consulted on it, and it is close to being ready to be introduced in this Parliament.

We need that right, because the sanction that has now been agreed by every MSP, apart from those on the SNP benches, would have led to a recall at Westminster. It is almost three times the length of suspension that requires a recall at Westminster. If an MP is suspended from the House of Commons for more than 10 days, their local constituents have the right to say whether they are fit to continue in their job.

As I said earlier, I strongly believe that Michael Matheson does not just need to be suspended for 27 days—he needs to be sacked. He must leave this Parliament.

Even if SNP MSPs do not agree with that, what is their objection to saying to the people of Falkirk West, “Judge Michael Matheson. Judge his conduct in this scandal in a by-election”? Michael Matheson can be the SNP candidate. If, as we have seen today, every SNP MSP supports Michael Matheson to receive no sanction at all, they should call a by-election and go out and campaign with him. They should knock on doors with Michael Matheson in Falkirk West and ask the people of his constituency whether they believe that he is trustworthy and has integrity. If any of the nationalist MSPs has integrity, surely they would agree with that.

Douglas Ross compared things with Westminster. Does he accept that the Westminster process is somewhat more independent and not run by other MPs?

I am very glad that John Mason raised that point, because I read in Michael Matheson’s lengthy personal statement about his concerns with the process of the corporate body. I find it puzzling that Michael Matheson has been so dismissive of the process of the corporate body investigating Michael Matheson. Who was it that referred Michael Matheson to the corporate body for investigation? It was Michael Matheson.

If there is an issue with the system, it started with Michael Matheson referring himself to a body that he now thinks did not look at his claim in as appropriate a way as it could. However, we of course know that the corporate body looked at it in considerable detail. It looked at the facts of the case, and it is an open and shut case.

Michael Matheson could see that there were issues in his roaming bill. He actually said in his statement that he feels he was assisting Parliament in claiming £3,000 out of his office costs to pay for that bill. His story to this Parliament, the public and the press then repeatedly changed. We all remember nationalists lining up to say, “There’s nothing to see here. Draw a line under this and move on”. He had the support of the former First Minister and stayed in the Government for months.

The nationalists did not want to take interventions earlier, so I ask SNP members whether they really believe that the situation has been at no cost to the taxpayer. Let us not forget that Michael Matheson left the Government with a payment from the taxpayer of almost £13,000. The original bill that he tried to claim from the taxpayer was £11,000 but, because he resigned the day before the corporate body published its report, he got £13,000 from the taxpayer for resigning in disgrace.

However, resigning from the Cabinet and the Scottish Government is not enough: Michael Matheson should do the right thing and resign from the Parliament. I cannot understand how MSPs on the SNP benches—and, indeed, on the Green benches, given the Green amendment—are willing to continue to support someone who has brought our Parliament into such disrepute.

We know that the formal agreement between the SNP and the Greens has broken down, but we now seem to have the Bute house agreement 2.0. Strangely, the Government is not amending my motion. I am not sure that I can remember a case in which the Government did not want to amend a motion from the main Opposition party on our debating time. It has left that to the Greens.

If Mr Hepburn wants to intervene, I am more than happy to give way. I know that he is a new Minister for Parliamentary Business—perhaps he forgot to lodge an amendment—but does the SNP agree with my motion? Is that why the SNP does not want to amend it or is the party working with the Greens behind the scenes to contrive to vote it down?

People—not just in the Parliament but across Scotland—can see that Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater might have been kicked out of ministerial office but that the Greens and the SNP are still working closely together. In this case, it is not for the environment, for the climate or to do good for Scotland, as they often claimed that they would do, but to protect Michael Matheson. It is to protect someone who lied to the Parliament, said to the press and the public that there was nothing to see and continued regardless.

Mr Ross, I remind you and other speakers in what I am sure will be an emotionally charged debate to be careful with the language that we use.

I am grateful, Presiding Officer.

The Greens will rush to the defence of the SNP again tonight and move their amendment—an amendment that, in normal times, the SNP would have lodged.

People across Scotland are watching in disbelief. They watched in disbelief last week when John Swinney defended the indefensible, and they watched today as SNP MSPs refused to vote for any sanction against Michael Matheson. John Swinney is now refusing to take action even within the party. He has not even suspended Michael Matheson when, in a normal job, he would have been sacked by now.

Standards in public life matter. The SNP is quick to accuse others but not so quick when the question relates to one of its own. Michael Matheson deserves to be sacked for the scandal. If the SNP and Green MSPs will not vote for that, and if they choose to defend him and defend the indefensible, it will be up to the voters across Scotland to judge on 4 July. Looking at the gloomy faces on the SNP benches, I think that they know what is coming.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that Michael Matheson should resign as an MSP for misusing taxpayers’ money and making misleading statements.

15:53  

This is definitely groundhog day. There have been two debates on the same subject, one after the other, so I apologise to members and people who are listening if I repeat some of the points that I made earlier. I believe that they bear repetition.

Others will question the Conservatives’ motivation, so I will consider that for a moment. Do I suspect that the Conservatives lodged the motion calling for Michael Matheson to resign because there is a general election? Yes, I do. Do I suspect that it was also prompted by John Swinney’s extraordinary attempt to defend the indefensible? Yes, I do. Do I suspect that the Tories have noted the recent poll in The Scotsman, in which 65 per cent of those who were surveyed said that Michael Matheson should resign? Yes, I do.

That said, it is clear that neither John Swinney nor, indeed, Michael Matheson, consider that to be a course of action that they intend to follow. In fact, I saw a television clip of Michael Matheson last week saying that he intended to stay, and to stay for many years to come. I gently point out that that will be entirely a matter for the people of Falkirk West. It is breathtakingly arrogant to suggest otherwise.

The issue has had real cut-through with members of the public. The majority are clear that Michael Matheson should go. A number of people in my constituency, as I have met them going about my business, have said to me that, if they had abused their expenses in that way, they would have been sacked. That is the real world that the majority of people are living in, in contrast to the bubble that is Holyrood.

It is worth recapping the events. Michael Matheson misused a Parliamentary device, an iPad, that he took on his holiday to Morocco. He ran up roaming charges of £11,000, which is an eye-watering sum of money. I consider myself to be a hard-working and diligent MSP—my constituents will decide the truth of that. However, I would be hard pressed to spend that kind of money on roaming charges—and I work during my holidays, much to my family’s horror and the dismay of my hard-working staff. Christmas and New Year are the quietest periods for parliamentarians, as our constituents, quite rightly, have other priorities on their minds. Any MSP would be hard pushed to run up a bill of £1,000, never mind £11,000, during that time of year.

Does Jackie Baillie agree that, if it is to be believed that the data roaming charges were solely used for parliamentary purposes, that that would have required someone to type and send an email every 10 seconds continuously for 24 hours during the Christmas holidays? Could any members on the SNP benches believe that?

I will not dispute the information and data that has been given. That is the one time of the year that our constituents take a break and decide not to email us, so I struggle to understand how that could be achieved.

As I said earlier—the public might not know this—we all get emails from Parliament staff reminding us when there are changes to broadband providers; several, in fact, if we do not respond. We also get emails before recesses, asking us whether we are going on holiday and where, so that packages can be adjusted. Nobody in the Parliament can say that they did not know.

When the parliamentary authorities raised the matter with Michael Matheson on at least four occasions, he denied that there was any problem whatsoever. He had sight of the detailed bill and, to be frank, when it was released to the public, it took people on Twitter all of two minutes to work out that usage was highest when football games were on. It was obvious. Michael Matheson is not a stupid man. I believe that he knew, and that he said nothing. The tragic thing is that he has paid a high price for it. His reputation is in tatters, he has had to resign from ministerial office and he has been sanctioned by the Parliament. Had he held his hands up, apologised and paid back the money straight away, it might have caused a day’s uncomfortable headlines, but many of us who have children would have understood. Teenage boys love football and it is a passion that many will share with their fathers. If it had been my daughter, I would have known, but in her case, she would have been watching either Netflix or Taylor Swift’s “Eras” tour. We know these things about our families. To be frank, the problem was not the original sin but the cover-up, lies and obfuscation. There was no admission of error, no apology, no contrition. Instead, there has been denial, deflection and dishonesty.

As I said before, the most problematic for me were the questions from Parliament staff about the scale of the iPad bill and Michael Matheson’s flat denials. The pattern of denial—misleading the Parliament, misleading the press and, ultimately, misleading the people of Scotland—continued right up to the end and showed contempt for all three. That is a profound error of judgment from someone who should have known better.

Michael Matheson has been in the Parliament since 1999. He has been a Government minister for much of the SNP’s tenure, and I regret the fact that his career is, in effect, over. 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 being denied because this Parliament has no provision to recall MSPs.

The UK Parliament can initiate a recall petition if a member is suspended for 10 days or more. We have seen that used in Scotland in the case of Margaret Ferrier, who travelled while infected with Covid and recklessly endangered the safety of others.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you.

Her constituents recalled her, there was a by-election and the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West elected Labour’s Michael Shanks by a resounding majority. They decided what should happen in those circumstances. So, it is right that we should rectify this omission. It is right that the people of Falkirk West should have the opportunity to recall their MSP, too.

I genuinely do not understand the attitude that has been adopted by John Swinney this week. Instead of upholding the highest standards of office, he chose to protect a friend. Instead of upholding the integrity of Parliament, he chose to attack members of the standards committee. Of course, John Swinney has form in undermining the Parliament and the ability of its committees to do their job, but what utterly poor judgment. This is about John Swinney, as First Minister, putting party before country, defending the indefensible and being out of touch with the people of Scotland.

I hate the sleaze and scandal that we have seen with the Tory Government, but I am afraid that the behaviour of John Swinney over the past week has been straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook. If members need any proof of that, they should look at the preceding debate. Frankly, I am astonished that the SNP failed to support a motion that it had succeeded in amending. By doing that, the SNP demonstrated its contempt for the Parliament and, more important, the people of Scotland. It has undermined the committee and the Parliament, and it has demonstrated yet again that it always puts party before country.

There is a pattern of behaviour here from the SNP. This is a party that is currently under live police investigation, that lied to the Sunday Mail over membership numbers and that covered up for the fact that its auditors quit.

Ms Baillie—

I am coming to a close, Presiding Officer.

I know. As I indicated to Mr Ross, I think that we need to be taking care with the language that we use in this debate, and I encourage you to do likewise.

I would be nothing other than careful, and everything that I have said is factual.

The people of Scotland need to have a right to recall their MSPs, but, until that happens, I think that Michael Matheson should do the decent thing and consider his position.

I move amendment S6M-13365.1, to insert at end:

“, and further believes that the people of Scotland should have the same right to recall MSPs as they do to recall MPs from the UK Parliament, if they are found to have behaved inappropriately by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.”

16:03  

I was not expecting today to be the Scottish Parliament’s finest ever day, and I think that that expectation is going to be met. I am in no doubt at all that Michael Matheson’s actions have severely damaged trust in our Parliament and deserve serious sanction. That is why the Greens made it clear that we would vote for the sanctions that were proposed by the committee, and we would have voted against any attempt to water down those sanctions, had such a proposal been made.

I suspect that Michael Matheson knows only too well that, as Jackie Baillie said, if he had been honest and up front about the situation from the outset and had made it clear from day 1 that he had made a mistake, that he had repaid the money and that he was sorry, he would not have won many fans, but it would not have resulted in this long-running scandal. His actions were serious and, appropriately, the sanction that has been agreed to is the most severe sanction that the Scottish Parliament has ever agreed to. I have to say that I think that the SNP should have accepted that and should have voted for the sanction.

However, the proposition that is before us in this second debate that we are now having goes so far beyond the sanction that was proposed that there is only one comparison that I can think of. The only time I can recall when the Parliament voted for a motion that called for a member to resign was when an MSP was sentenced to 12 months in prison after being convicted on multiple counts of domestic violence. Michael Matheson’s actions were serious, but they were not that. I hope that no one in the Parliament would suggest that they should be compared with that level.

My party and I have serious concerns about the process. Far from being fair and objective, many aspects of how the situation has been handled have been partisan. There is quite clearly agreement that there has been a serious breach of the code of conduct. We supported the sanction for that reason. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee process is the only one that we have, and its proposal for the sanction was the only one that was brought, but we need to be clear that that leaves a lot to be desired. There is no consistency about the severity of sanctions that should be used in different cases. This is a harsher sanction—significantly so—even than that for a case of sexual harassment that was dealt with in session 5.

A committee member made public comments before taking evidence and then did not step back from the process. That opens the possibility of at least the appearance of a lack of impartiality. There has been the question about John Swinney’s correspondence to committee members not being provided to them. There was, of course, the leaking of draft recommendations before a last-minute decision to significantly increase the proposed sanction. That leaves us no way of knowing what the committee would have done if that leak had not happened. We cannot know whether that affected its final decision.

I am afraid that the convener’s reference to the commissioner is of no real help. We all know that action after the fact in such a case is pretty unlikely. We need a process that is beyond reproach in the first place.

This is not the first time that MSPs entrusted with a confidential process have acted in that way. At least one member of the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints in session 5 leaked evidence that victims had given confidentially. That was a far more serious situation than this one, but both situations show that we do not have a process that we can properly trust to be impartial compared with what would take place in another workplace. What kind of process would be capable of that? What kind of process could we have that would not be subject to partisanship?

A power of recall has been proposed again in this debate. That is a worthy issue to bring for discussion. I support the principle, at least for the most serious cases, of an equivalent approach to someone in another job and walk of life losing their job for an offence such as gross misconduct. However, I have argued in the past that, for that kind of process to be above reproach, it must be conducted and decided on independently, not by politicians, and set out on clearly defined ground so that it is not susceptible to the shallow partisan politics that we are seeing today. Let us be clear: that is what we are seeing today.

The Conservatives have some nerve to pretend that they are acting out of principle today after their leader went election campaigning in Falkirk just days ago. They might have maintained the pretence that they are acting out of concern for parliamentary standards at least until after the vote had taken place, but they could not be bothered to do so, because they know that no one will take them seriously. I will treat the idea that a man who served in Boris Johnson’s Government is now presenting himself as the standard bearer of truth and decency in politics with the contempt that it deserves.

I began by saying that Michael Matheson’s actions have severely damaged trust in Parliament. I think that that is right. That is why he has been investigated, that is why the committee proposed a sanction, and that is why my colleagues and I voted for that sanction. I did so without the slightest pleasure.

I worry that far too many people who have been part of this process see it as a political opportunity to milk some advantage during an election period. Some of the Tory behaviour that we have seen, particularly in bringing this second debate to the chamber, demonstrates that that is what the Tories are here for and that, rather than addressing the damage that has been done to the reputation of Parliament, they seek to exacerbate it.

I move amendment S6M-13365.2, to leave out from “should” to end and insert:

“has been investigated by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB), and that decisions on sanctions are a matter for Parliament on the recommendations of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee; rejects the calls for sanctions that go far beyond those recommended by the committee; believes that the Parliament requires a sanctions process that can retain confidence across all political parties; recognises that concerns have arisen in relation to the lack of a consistent tariff of sanctions, the potential pre-judging of a case by an MSP who did not recuse themselves from the process, and the leaking of draft recommendations by the committee, and agrees, therefore, that reform of the current arrangements for considering sanctions against MSPs is urgently needed.”

16:10  

I am a long-time advocate of recall for members of the Scottish Parliament. That has been a welcome innovation at Westminster, and it has restored some degree of faith among voters and changed the relationship between members of Parliament and the parliamentary rules. It is with regret that the perfect was allowed to become the enemy of the good when I pressed several years ago for a cross-party consensus in the Scottish Parliament for its introduction here. The excuse that was deployed by party leaders at the time was that the list system meant that power was not handed back to the voters, but was controlled by the party whips. If we think that the list system is undemocratic, we should change the list system. Our list system has always invested power in the parties to order the list in the way that they wish, but I believe that considering that all MSPs should be free from recall just because we do not have a by-election for the list misses a big opportunity for change.

In the House of Commons, a 10-sitting-day suspension followed by a petition that is signed by 10 per cent of the electorate in that seat would trigger a by-election. The member who is suspended is entitled to stand in a subsequent by-election. It works. Several members have been subject to the process. It is becoming an established part of our democracy. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament is capable of developing a system of equal integrity compared with that which is established in Westminster.

The 27-day suspension that was recommended by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for Michael Matheson, which we have only just agreed to, is far in excess of the 10-day threshold that triggers the House of Commons process. If Michael Matheson were a member of the United Kingdom Parliament, he would now be subject to a constituency petition. In the absence of a recall mechanism, we will support the motion, which calls for his resignation so that a by-election can occur. Michael Matheson would be entitled to stand in that by-election.

I attended the North Shropshire by-election following the departure of Owen Paterson. Members will recall that Conservative MPs tried to change the rules to benefit him and to save him in his position. That was very much seen as one rule for the Conservatives and another rule for everyone else. They subsequently lost that by-election to the Liberal Democrats. There is a risk that, by acting in the way that Mr Swinney is over Michael Matheson’s case, he will be seen in a similar way by the voters.

I therefore believe that it would only be right for Michael Matheson to act voluntarily here as he would be required to act by law in Westminster. He should step down so that a by-election can be held. If he wishes to stand in that by-election, he would be entitled to do so. If his party—the SNP—wished to adopt him as its official candidate, it would be entitled to do so, and if the voters of Falkirk West wished to re-elect him as their MSP, they would be entitled to do so, too.

I have always found Michael Matheson to be a pleasant and courteous member of the Scottish Parliament. I was especially impressed by the way in which he took over as justice secretary after the somewhat turbulent years of Kenny MacAskill. It is therefore with some regret that I support the motion, but I must adhere to the recall policy that I have always supported.

16:14  

None of us can say that we have gone through life without making any mistakes. None of us can say that we have not told the odd porky now and again. We are all human, and none of us is perfect. We occasionally get things wrong. The test is how people react when that happens. We all live by sets of rules and, as elected representatives, we have rules that we are expected to, and must, abide by. We must accept that, if we break those rules, there can and should be consequences.

I do not know Michael Matheson. I have never had a conversation with him, and I do not have a view on what he is like as a person. However, I do know that he committed a serious error that involved a huge bill to the public purse, that he then tried to wriggle out of it and that he stumped up only when he was bang to rights. I can also say that there is an arrogance about his response to the inquiry into his behaviour and the suggested punishment that I find distasteful. I was astonished by the First Minister’s comments last week, but at least common sense has prevailed in the chamber.

I read the reports from the corporate body and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The job of the first was to establish whether Mr Matheson, who asked it to investigate, had breached the rules under which we operate as MSPs, and its findings were crystal clear—Mr Matheson was guilty and had not met the standards of behaviour that people expect us to hold to.

It was not the corporate body’s job to decide what should happen to Mr Matheson, if anything. That was the job of the committee, and that was its only job. It was not its job to reinvestigate, as it made clear in its report. We know what it suggested, and we have just voted on it. A 27-day suspension and 54 days without pay is a record, but the offence is extremely serious. We have just voted on that. Bizarrely, the SNP abstained, and I was disappointed in Kate Forbes’s comments, but we must move on.

I briefly turn to the explanation that Mr Matheson provided, which was that his sons watched two football matches on their own device, that they used his iPad as a wi-fi hotspot to do so and that he knew nothing about it until much later. A football fan, such as Mr Matheson, would surely have known that his sons were going to watch an old firm game and would surely have discussed what they watched afterwards. In fact, it would be natural for him to have watched the game with them. Most people would think that a father and his sons might discuss how they were going to watch key football games before they even went on holiday.

If Mr Matheson worked for a private employer and did what he did, he would be out on his ear. He is lucky that he does not. He is also lucky that he does not sit in the United Kingdom Parliament because if he did—election aside—he could have faced a recall process that would no doubt have seen the end of his political career. However, he faces no such process here, because we have none. That is why he should resign.

That legislative deficit needs to be fixed, which is why I am introducing a member’s bill that, if supported, will do just that. It will also tackle the very important issue that Willie Rennie raised about what we do with regional members. I have a solution for Mr Rennie. I hope that the bill will be published before the summer recess. I had planned to say that I hoped that the legislation would never be used—I do hope that—but, as I said, we are all human, and humans make mistakes, so there will be other Michael Mathesons. There will be Scottish Parliament equivalents of Margaret Ferrier and Peter Bone. Some time in the future, if Parliament votes to have a recall process, it will be used.

I will outline the details of my proposals in the next few weeks. My bill is intended to protect the Parliament’s integrity, and I hope that those who say that they value that will support it. The public will expect nothing less.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you clarify a point of parliamentary procedure? I understand that, although there was no Government amendment to the motion, the Government would be entitled to have an opening speaker in the debate, but I noticed that you did not call a Government speaker. Will you advise me on why that was?

The Scottish Government elected not to put forward a representative, and that is not a matter for the chair.

16:19  

I will start by saying something that has not yet been mentioned. We should all remember that we are talking about a colleague—a man with a family and with feelings. It is important that we reflect that.

The motion that the Conservative Party lodged was intended for a debate on whether Michael Matheson should resign as an MSP but, in reality, it has exposed a sanctions process that does not retain the confidence of all political parties in the chamber. We are now in a situation where the integrity of the sanctions process has been brought into question.

This case has made it apparent that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee process is open to prejudice, bias and—it is important to note—political motivation.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I will not take an intervention, because I want to make progress.

Surely we can all agree that the system needs to be totally unbiased. As it stands, the parliamentary process that we have as MSPs, to stand in judgment on each other, has been brought into serious question.

Let us be clear that Michael Matheson was indeed found to be in breach of the MSP code of conduct by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Will the member take an intervention?

Not just now, Mr Kerr.

Michael Matheson acknowledged the mistakes that he made—I believe that they were genuine mistakes that he was not initially aware of—and then paid back the full amount of the data roaming bill. There has been no cost to the public purse. Because of the incident, the committee was granted, through standing orders, the ability to propose sanctions on the member by a motion to the Parliament.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry—I will not give way just now.

Although everyone in the chamber can agree that a sanction is necessary when a member has contravened the code of conduct, the process of developing and determining sanctions is opaque and lacks clear guidance. It is within that ambiguity that politically motivated decision making and bias can arise. It is due to those biases and motivations that such a disproportionate sanction was brought to Parliament.

Will the member give way on that point?

I will not give way just now, Mr Kerr. I am aware that members want to come in, and I will try to take their interventions if I can.

Before this case was brought to committee and before any evidence was heard, social media posts by Stephen Kerr and Annie Wells, who are both members of the committee, commented on the issue and questioned Mr Matheson’s integrity. Those posts clearly indicated that they had prejudiced opinions.

I welcomed Stephen Kerr’s decision to step down from the committee; he cited that it would have been wrong to sit on the committee having previously made public comments on the case. Mr Kerr’s decision set a clear precedent about the conduct that Parliament should expect from members—[Interruption.] I am talking about facts in this instance. That was a precedent for members who may sit in judgment on such cases and, in many ways, it mirrored the conduct of Chris Bryant MP, who also recused himself recently.

However, the other committee member did not step down and, after publicly prejudging the case, put forward the politically motivated sanction that we have before Parliament today.

Will the member give way on that point?

I will not give way just now.

Presiding Officer, is there a way to stop heckling? I have said that I am not taking interventions just now.

Mr MacGregor, please resume your seat for a second. Members are perfectly within their rights to ask for an intervention, and whether to take an intervention is entirely at the discretion of the member who is speaking. If I consider that the attempts to make interventions are in bad faith, as a means of disrupting the member who is on their feet, I will intervene. At this stage, I do not judge that to be the case.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. If a member mentioned another member, it would be in good faith for them to consider taking an intervention. Is that a fair point to make about order in this chamber?

As I said, Mr Kerr, whether to take an intervention is entirely at the discretion of the member who has the floor.

Fulton MacGregor, please continue, and I will give you the time back.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I accept your judgment on that.

In addition, details of sanctions and discussions were leaked to the media ahead of the publication of the final decision and, as far as I know, no investigation into the leak has taken place in the committee. Confidence in the system is at a low, and reform is needed.

There have been sanctions in the past, including one for a member who we have discussed, who was excluded from all meetings of Parliament for leaking an embargoed committee report to the press. When sanctions have previously been imposed, there have been no guidelines on what sanction should be imposed, and the development of sanctions has been decided solely by the committee on an ad hoc basis.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will not take an intervention just now.

There is no right of appeal, and it is now becoming glaringly obvious that sanctions that are decided by MSPs can be subject to party political biases. When no guidelines exist, there is too much room for politically motivated decisions.

I stress that I am saying not that there should be no sanctions but that the sanctions need to be proportionate, transparent and fair. I am not the only person to suggest that the process is open to political interference. In 2008, when the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee proposed just a one-day ban from Parliament for failing to declare leadership campaign donations as gifts, Jackie Baillie said:

“Wendy Alexander has paid a high price for a report that some commentators have described as partisan. Some members may regard what they have done as a political victory, but wiser heads will reflect on the consequences for the Parliament and for democracy. Let the wiser heads in this Parliament dismiss the report, which is unfair, unjust and, frankly, plain wrong.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2008; c 10443.]

I greatly appreciate the member giving way. Does he not recognise that, in this case, a member who knew that something had gone wrong—that there had been a mistake—thoroughly misled both the press and Parliament when he knew fine well what had happened? That is a breach of the standards in public life. It is not comparable to a situation in which people disclose what happened. The situation that we are looking at involves a clear breach of faith, where the standards in public life were broken.

I accept the member’s point, which he is right to make, but I am not the first person to say that the process is open to political bias. His colleague Jackie Baillie made the same point in 2008. Therefore, as I am about to say in relation to the two amendments, there might be scope to change that.

The amendments that the Labour and Green parties have lodged address different concerns. I am happy to look at them in a bit more detail. The Labour amendment seeks to introduce a recall system similar to the one that is used in Westminster, and I and my party colleagues are happy to support that. However, the system can be introduced only if members have complete confidence in the way in which it will be utilised. If we are to emulate the Westminster recall system, the approach must also include an independent process that contains a right of appeal—other members have made that point, too.

Likewise, along with my party colleagues, I am happy to support the Green amendment, which underlines the need for reform and the current weaknesses in the process and procedures. The amendment also comments on the disproportionate nature of sanctions and the need for clear guidance on sanctions. Importantly, the amendment stresses the need to have confidence in the system, while condemning the committee leaks and prejudicial comments. On that note, I am happy to take an intervention from Annie Wells.

I would like Fulton MacGregor to reflect on saying that I was suspended from the Parliament for leaking a committee report. I was suspended for commenting on an already-leaked report—it was not leaked by me.

Fulton MacGregor, will you wind up now?

I note that the member has had the chance to put that on the record, and I thank her for her intervention.

The issue has highlighted the clear need for reform in our sanctions process. Michael Matheson has been a key member of the chamber since the Scottish Parliament was established. He has been a powerful legislator, introducing almost 20 bills in his time in government, including the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Bill, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill, the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill. I remember that it was a very emotional day when the last of those was passed; there were tears all round. I mention that because Michael Matheson is an MSP who actually cares about people.

Of course, those are just some of the examples of good legislation that Michael Matheson has introduced in Parliament. His record also includes voting for progressive policies and voting to mitigate cruel policies of the UK Tory Government. Rather than have him resign, I would say that we need more MSPs like Michael Matheson, who legislate—[Interruption.]—to stand up for people in our society who need support and protection.

Will the member give way on that point?

What we do not need—

Mr Kerr, resume your seat. Mr MacGregor, conclude your remarks.

What we do not need is those who use a privileged position to heap misery on the most marginalised in our society.

To sum up, I will support the amendments that Labour and the Green Party lodged. Members must have confidence in our sanctions process, and this politically motivated attempt to remove a member by handing out an incredibly disproportionate sanction has highlighted the urgent need for reform.

16:29  

I am not sure which doors Fulton MacGregor is knocking on, but they are clearly not on the same planet that we are all on—if they were, he would understand that the last thing that people are asking for is more politicians like Michael Matheson.

The old adage that the cover-up is worse than the crime refers to the fact that attempts to conceal wrongdoing can lead to more severe consequences than the original misdeed. However, in the case of Michael Matheson, both the misdeed and its cynical concealment will rightly shock anyone who believes in public service or justice.

Mr Matheson emerges out of the scandal as someone who cynically sought to put his career and his bank balance before the reputation of this Parliament; as someone who fought to save his own skin when he should have been fighting to save our national health service; and as someone who was given repeated opportunities to tell the truth about an improper expenses claim and simply did not.

The sum of money that is involved is not just eye-watering; it is also pertinent and instructive. It exposes why Michael Matheson may have decided to break the rules of this Parliament and, in doing so, the bond of trust that exists between MSPs and the people whom we serve. Had Mr Matheson returned from Morocco to discover a roaming bill of £11 or £1,100, I suspect that he would have just paid it and moved on. However, the fact that it was a staggering £11,000 must surely have been the determining factor when he decided to risk his career, and his reputation, which now lies in tatters, by loading that cost on to the taxpayer.

Mr Matheson still has questions to answer, but I suspect that he will dodge them today, just as he has done in the past. However, questions remain for the former First Minister and, indeed, for the present First Minister. Humza Yousaf stood by his minister, whom he described as a “man of integrity”. Why? Mr Swinney stands by his friend and refuses to sack him. Why? What does Mr Matheson know? What grit is he aware of in the SNP’s oyster that means that he cannot be sacked? Why is John Swinney burning political capital to prop up his pal? Those are all very valid questions, but where is Mr Swinney today to answer them, and why is nobody from this Government willing to stand at the Government front bench and account for their actions today?

I turn to the First Minister’s shocking attempt to smear my colleague Annie Wells—a stunt that has spectacularly backfired this afternoon, as chaos rules in this Parliament, with the SNP’s amendment passing but the SNP then not voting for the amended motion. Mr Swinney is meant to be the brains of the operation. If that is so, it is no wonder that many people think that the operation is in serious trouble.

In an act of political self-harm that must, frankly, have even astonished his colleagues, Mr Swinney has sought to lay the blame elsewhere. Last week, he mounted a pathetic rearguard offensive to deflect attention from the fact that he was defending, and is continuing to defend, the indefensible. John Swinney cynically sought to focus on process rather than do what every single one of my constituents wants him to do: to sack Michael Matheson forthwith.

For the record, I am proud to have Annie Wells as a friend and colleague. I am proud that she is willing to speak truth to power. I am proud that she stood her ground as a member of this Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and I am proud that she did not bend or buckle under the sustained pressure of the SNP’s cynical and orchestrated attempt to discredit her reputation.

Our constituents are rightly appalled by Michael Matheson’s actions, but they are now equally appalled by John Swinney’s mismanagement of the affair. The Scottish Conservatives and the public will welcome the sanction that was proposed and voted for today, but it is clear that it does not go far enough. It is not good enough that Mr Matheson has been sent home without pay. He should now be sent packing, with his P45.

However, Michael Matheson still has time. At the 11th hour, he can admit that the game is up and resign. If he does not, John Swinney must dismiss him from the SNP. If the First Minister fails to do so, in key seats across Scotland, voters can pass a verdict on Michael Matheson, John Swinney, Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon, and vote Scottish Conservatives to beat the SNP on 4 July.

16:34  

Wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity are the values that, 25 years ago, this Parliament committed itself to and that every parliamentarian must live up to. Those words are also inscribed on the mace at the front of the chamber.

On the opening day of this Parliament, Donald Dewar said:

“We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: ... to do right by the people of Scotland”.

It is for each of us to reflect on how we do right by those who have sent us here. To my mind, that means taking responsibility for our actions and responding accordingly.

Claiming thousands of pounds from the people who sent us here and then misleading the press and the public about it, I believe, shows no wisdom of judgment. I believe that it shows no integrity in holding oneself to account, and it shows a lack of compassion for those who are sitting and watching our proceedings, aghast at what has taken place here today. I think that that damages all of us and the very institution of Parliament.

The events of the past month, and of the past week in particular, have shown an utter failure on the part of the SNP and, in particular, John Swinney, to do anything to guard against that damage. We have had the unedifying spectacle of the SNP and the First Minister spending weeks and months trying to defend Mr Matheson. Just a week ago, the First Minister rejected sanctions in an extraordinary performance at First Minister’s questions. Then, this morning, we heard that the SNP was performing a U-turn and would back the sanction. However, SNP members got themselves into a situation this afternoon in which they sought to abstain—they did not vote on any sanction at all, and then refused to vote for the motion that they had successfully amended. To call it an “unedifying spectacle” is an understatement.

It is, of course, welcome that the sanction has now been applied, but there are serious questions to answer around the judgment that has been exhibited by the First Minister and SNP members over the past week, which has been

“riddled with inaccuracies and reeks of prejudice”.

That sounds familiar, but those are not John Swinney’s words from last week but the words of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson defending himself as the House of Commons Committee of Privileges investigated Tory sleaze, including partygate. Along with his allies, the former Prime Minister deflected, and attacked Harriet Harman for having made public comments and for, in his view, politicising the process.

Now we have the First Minister, no less, and allies of the former health secretary making similar criticisms about the impartiality of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I have to say that some of the language that was used in the chamber this afternoon, particularly in relation to the convener of the committee, was outrageous. It should be a moment when we hang our heads in shame because such behaviour has been imported into this Parliament, watched over by the SNP.

Those have been astonishing misjudgments by someone who is supposed to be the experienced set of hands and fresh leadership. Perhaps we should not be surprised, because, sadly, this is not new. My colleague Jackie Baillie outlined in some detail the record of failure in this regard by the SNP.

It is clear that if Michael Matheson does not do the right thing and resign, the saga will be recorded in the growing list of SNP sleaze incidents for months and years to come. The SNP acts with an impunity and a hubris that shows that it thinks that this will never come back to haunt it. All the while, faith in our politics and our devolved system slip further and further.

That is why, if Michael Matheson does not do the right thing and resign, the Labour amendment is so important. It sets out our belief that it is time for Parliament to have a recall mechanism to empower our constituents, so that they can hold us accountable when we fall short of the expectations that we set for ourselves and that they have set for us. We have already seen the introduction of such a system at Westminster. It was used in Scotland in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West recall petition and by-election last year, although I point out that, in the process leading up to the sanction of Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP Allan Dorans sought to vote with the Conservatives to reduce her sanction to nine days in order to avoid having a recall petition and subsequent by-election. That tells us everything we need to know about the SNP’s priorities—party first, country and constituents second.

It is beyond doubt that this Parliament must have a right of recall. It will be for Parliament to consider such proposals in the coming weeks and months, but today it is for Michael Matheson to reflect on his own behaviour. I am sure—and my dealings with him have shown me—that he is a decent man. He must now reflect on what has taken place. He must reflect on the judgment and the view of the Parliament. He must do the decent thing and resign.

If, however, he clings on and the Government continues to defend the indefensible, it is clear that the public will sit in judgment on this saga, and they will have their say very soon. Is it not clear that the people of Falkirk West deserve the same chance to decide who represents and speaks for them in this place, and to have the opportunity for a fresh start?

16:40  

Michael Matheson has indicated that he made mistakes. He has been found to have broken parliamentary rules and has now been sanctioned. It follows that, after the process that was put in place, the sanction was inevitable. In my opinion, however, this debate is just sheer political opportunism. It is a debate following on from a sanction against an MSP, which we have just debated—

Will the member give way on that point?

I have just started.

That sanction was undertaken based on a process that was flawed and, in my opinion, it risks bringing the Parliament into disrepute. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee process was open to prejudice, bias and political motivation, when it should have been totally unbiased. If we were supporting a constituent with a case in which the process was clearly flawed, we would highlight the flaw so that the constituent could get a fair hearing. In any court process where a jury is used, consideration is given to the make-up of the jury so that it is made up of independent people with no link to the case that they are about to consider.

With the best will in the world, if that was the SNP’s position, should it not have brought a proposal to amend the sanction and then voted for the sanction that it thought was appropriate, rather than refusing to back any sanction?

Today, we had to listen to the debate. The amendments that are taken forward are entirely up to members in the Government but, nonetheless, we had to listen to the debate in terms of what was proposed today.

Why would the Parliament allow a process in which one of the committee members had already prejudged the outcome but remained on the committee to vote in its considerations? That contradiction is highlighted even more by the fact that another member of the committee recused himself for that reason, and I congratulate that member for doing so. Stephen Kerr resigned from the committee in March 2024, and he said:

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

He went on to say that continuing

“would have been wrong, having made so many public pronouncements”

on the matter. He continued:

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

For the record, it is important to state that, in that same set of remarks, I called on Michael Matheson to resign as a member of the Parliament. In any other workplace, if someone attempted to take £11,000 of expenses that were not due, they would face instant dismissal. All that the motion that is before us does is recognise that this workplace is no different from any other workplace—

Mr Kerr, I think that Mr McMillan needs to have the chance to respond.

I acknowledge the comments that Mr Kerr just made, but his comments that I quoted suggest that he wanted an independent process in the inquiry. The complete lack of consistency in approach is galling and does the committee and the Parliament absolutely no favours whatsoever.

A number of constituents have contacted me about the situation, some of whom favour a sanction and some of whom are very much against one. However, when someone contacts me and claims that the committee was, and I quote,

“acting like a kangaroo court”,

that says it all.

Aw, no.

Mr Kerr might not want to hear them, but those are comments from a constituent of mine.

I genuinely do not understand why the Conservatives thought that it would be fair and beyond reproach to keep Annie Wells on the committee.

The next point of contention is something that every Parliament and committee suffers from, and that is leaks from private discussions. Those have happened before and, sadly, they will happen again. However, what was reported last week supports the point that the committee has acted with prejudice, bias and political motivation.

Despite the committee having just five members, details of the sanctions and the discussions were leaked to the media, with the Daily Record reporting on Wednesday 22 May, ahead of the final decision on Thursday 23 May, that

“The Record can reveal suspension will be the sanction—but MSPs were divided on whether it should be for longer than 10 days ... A Holyrood source said there was a view on committee that the optics would be bad if a 10 day-plus sanction was applied and Matheson stayed on as an MSP.”

The final line in the committee’s report, which was referenced today by the committee’s convener, states:

“Finally, the Committee notes its disappointment that material relating to the Committee’s deliberations appeared in the media prior to its decisions being reached and announced.”

I am not sure whether the convener has asked for any investigation into the leak—although I note his comments in the earlier debate—but what has happened highlights yet again that there was not going to be a fair process.

There is also the question of why the reported 10 days changed to 27 days overnight. What changed? A cynic would say that the calling of a general election led to people seeing an opportunity to push for a by-election on the same day.

It is time for the SPCB to initiate an independent review of the Parliament’s complaints process to restore integrity to and confidence in parliamentary procedures. If no review takes place, we will be in trouble and no one will or should have faith in the process again. Members of the Parliament, now and in the future, need to rely on, trust and have confidence in the Parliament’s processes and procedures.

I take it that you are concluding, Mr McMillan.

I am.

I have absolutely no qualms about the Labour amendment, but it is crucial that people realise that, as well as the recall process, Westminster has an independent complaints process and an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If we are to have any type of recall process, before we get to that point, we need to have an independent process.

16:47  

The Scottish Conservatives lodged this motion calling on Michael Matheson to

“resign as an MSP for misusing taxpayers’ money and making misleading statements.”

Surely it should not need the Scottish Conservatives to do that; Michael Matheson should have resigned for misleading the public and the Parliament long ago.

Frankly, the SNP’s subsequent handling of the situation has been appalling. Doubling down, it has put the party before the people of Scotland, and Fulton MacGregor appears to be saying that the SNP’s position is that we need more Michael Mathesons—I tell you what.

In the real world, someone would lose their job for what Michael Matheson did. In businesses across the country—large and small—misusing expenses is a sackable offence. It is black and white in the world outside this parliamentary bubble, but First Minister John Swinney has chosen to defend the SNP MSP—his friend.

The Scottish Parliament’s Standards Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommended that Michael Matheson be suspended for 27 days and have his salary withdrawn for 54 days, which we voted for earlier this afternoon. The penalty should have been, and could have been, far more severe.

However, despite a cross-party group of MSPs, including SNP MSPs, reaching that conclusion, John Swinney said that the investigation into Michael Matheson’s £11,000 data roaming scandal was prejudiced. He said:

“Michael Matheson had made mistakes. He resigned and lost his job as a member of the Cabinet and he paid the roaming costs in question. There was no cost to the public purse ... I do not believe that the sanction can be applied.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2024; c 13.]

Has the First Minister conveniently forgotten that Michael Matheson was reimbursed following his £11,000 claim for roaming charges on a family holiday? It was agreed with the Parliament that the bill would be paid out of the public purse, including £3,000 from his own office costs allowance. That is all taxpayers’ money. There was no cost to the public purse, as the First Minister stated, because, several months later, Mr Matheson came clean and eventually paid back the money because he was found out.

Last week, I was stunned to witness John Swinney turn on my colleague Annie Wells during First Minister’s question time. Sitting next to Annie on Thursday, I felt the full ferocity of the attack as it was made, all while John Swinney attempted to portray his friend Michael Matheson as a victim in this whole sorry situation. It was quite something to behold. Let us remember that SNP members on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, alongside Annie Wells, also felt that Michael Matheson should be sanctioned, so this performance by the First Minister was completely unnecessary and uncalled for.

What is more telling is how members of the public who were watching FMQs from the gallery that day perceived the entire sorry situation and how out of kilter that was with public opinion. Immediately afterwards, I popped to the chat room, where we often go after FMQs to meet pupils from our areas. I met S3 and S6 pupils from Forrester high school. It is a shame that the First Minister is not here because I do not have to tell him where that school is: that is the school that he attended. Those pupils had just been at FMQs and the very first question came from a young lad. His hand shot up and he asked, “What’s all this about an iPad and £11,000?” When the pupils found out, the chat room erupted. They were absolutely scunnered, stunned and thought that it was outrageous.

So, my first question to the First Minister, if he had been able to be in the chamber this afternoon, would have been: does the SNP think that it is a good idea to send a message to our young people that it is ok for our politicians to not tell the truth in public office and to abuse taxpayers’ money?

To be honest, I am astounded that this sorry saga got to this point because, at the same time that the iPad scandal was unravelling, this is what happened to me. In Edinburgh, we have a £2 flat-rate bus fare, or a capped fare, if you are hopping off and on all day, and that is often the mode of transport that I use to get to meetings and surgeries across my constituency. I had submitted an expenses claim for a bus fare and, this time, I had not provided the information that explained where I got on the bus and where I got off the bus. I had to redo that claim —for a £2 bus fare. Given the rigour involved and the email exchanges that took place for a £2 bus fare, I can only imagine the email exchanges that were pinging back and forth justifying an £11,000 roaming bill.

I will touch briefly on Jackie Baillie’s amendment. My colleague Graham Simpson has already spoken at length about the process that he is developing for his member’s bill, one element of which relates to establishing a system of recall for MSPs.

In all parties, most parliamentarians go into politics with the intention of serving their constituents dutifully and to the best of their ability. However, in all parties, there are examples of times when representatives have abused their position or failed to meet the standards that the public have the right to expect. John Swinney has displayed a staggering lack of political nous by defending the indefensible Michael Matheson from sanctions that were approved by all members, including SNP members, of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and were voted on today. That speaks of fatigue—

Ms Webber, you need to conclude your comments.

I am. It speaks of fatigue—

Thank you—

—and desperation, and have no doubt—

Ms Webber, you are over the time that the business manager asked for.

—it will stick in people’s minds.

16:52  

Michael Matheson made a mistake and has apologised for it. He has, rightly, repaid the roaming charges in full, with no cost to the public purse. Even though the investigation has been tainted when it comes to natural justice, what is proposed is one—

Will the member give way on that point?

No, not just now. I have just started.

What is proposed is one of the largest sanctions in the history of this Parliament. Michael Matheson has shown genuine remorse and has taken full responsibility for the serious matters that occurred. No person, regardless of their position, is immune to making mistakes, but I recognise and agree that elected members must be held to a very high standard, and I agree that Michael Matheson clearly made mistakes. This was a mistake, and he has clearly paid the price. It is not a matter over which to resign as an MSP.

If the price of a mistake is resignation, Douglas Ross should have resigned a long time ago, but we know that this motion is really—

Will the member take an intervention?

Okay.

I am grateful to the member for giving way. Can she explain the SNP position today? The SNP amended the motion so that it was worded in the way that it had drafted the amendment, and then it opposed the motion. Can she explain to fellow MSPs and the public the SNP’s thinking behind that?

I thank the member for the intervention. I actually thought that you were standing up to concede your obvious double standards, given your £28,000 expenses scandal, but obviously not.

The member needs to speak through the chair, please.

My apologies, Presiding Officer.

It is the usual attempt, on the part of Mr Ross, to score political points instead of making a serious contribution to this Parliament, with aggressive, shouty behaviour that he should have left in the playground. Especially evident this time is the breathtaking hypocrisy contained in his contribution—which surely even he must have been aware of.

We remember when Mr Ross reluctantly apologised for the £28,000 expenses scandal debacle. There was no offer of resignation there—just a grovelling apology.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have taken an intervention. I am not taking any more.

There are two choices available to the Tories—was it a muddle or was it a fiddle? We accepted then Mr Ross’s version that it was just a muddle—but what a muddle it was. He was quoted in a newspaper article at the time as saying that he did not know why he failed to declare £28,000, and he added the following grovelling apology:

“This was a big mistake, by me, for which I’m deeply sorry. I know how badly I performed here and how much I’ve let people down and for that I’m very sorry.”

On that point, will the member take an intervention?

I have said that I am not taking any more interventions.

On that point?

Mr Ross, the member has made it clear that she is not taking any more interventions.

An apology was good enough for the Tories then, but it is not now.

The motion is a partisan move. It is not one made out of integrity or any morals. If it was, surely the Tories would have more to say on the fact that their party presided over Boris Johnson’s partygate scandal, the PPE scandal, the lobbying scandal and the bullying claims about senior members of the Cabinet and the crashing of the economy that has inflicted hardship on so many—to give just a few examples.

The Tories are a party of misusing taxpayers’ money and making misleading statements. This is clearly a hypocritical, partisan and self-interested move. If our Tory colleagues cared so much about doing what is right, they surely would have called out those in their own party for all their wrongdoings over their decades in charge—but they do not and never will. [Interruption.] If they cared about what was right, they would not be presiding over the two-child policy and its abhorrent rape clause, they would have acted to ensure that WASPI women were fully compensated, and they would not have turned their backs—[Interruption.]

We need to hear from the member who has the floor. That is Ms McNair and none of the members who are making the noise at the moment. Please continue, Ms McNair.

I repeat that the Tories would have acted to ensure that WASPI women were fully compensated and they would not have turned their backs on those impacted by the infected blood scandal for so long.

No—the Tory motion is not about doing the right thing. It is about political point scoring. [Interruption.] It is a schoolboy-like attempt at scoring political points, and gut-wrenching hypocrisy just drips out of it.

16:57  

It is astonishing for me to be in the position of being held up by the nationalists as a paragon of parliamentary virtue, but I do take my duties as a parliamentarian very seriously. I also take my responsibilities to all my colleagues very seriously, and the attack on the integrity of my colleague Annie Wells is unwarranted and totally unfair. I would add that there have been comments directed to the convener of the standards committee this afternoon that are a parliamentary disgrace.

As I played a key role in the public disclosure of Michael Matheson’s wrongdoing and then went on to make serial comments about his guilt, it was right that I should stand down from the committee, but the assault on the integrity of Annie Wells is beyond the pale. It is one of the most despicable things that I have heard in this chamber as long as I have been a member of this Parliament.

The First Minister’s conduct last Thursday in defending Michael Matheson is something that I believe he will never live down. What we got from John Swinney was all the fake piousness of nationalism. It was party first—it is always party first. The SNP members care only for party and their own jobs and careers. Well, here is some news: the gravy train is coming to an end for the SNP careerists.

The other astonishing thing that has come out of this fiasco is John Swinney’s obsession with my social media. He sent 37 pages—37 pages!—of my social media posts to the convener of the standards committee. He is my most active follower on social media.

It has also become clear that John Swinney would go to any length to defend Michael Matheson. I wonder why.

The evidence of the report, which was prepared by a fair and impartial investigator on behalf of the corporate body and upheld by the members of the corporate body, and the unanimous decision of the standards committee, which has two SNP members on it, was that Michael Matheson falsely claimed £11,000. He—I shall put this politely—deliberately misled the Scottish Parliament, the media and the people of Falkirk West. He was not engaged on parliamentary business in Morocco. The bill was racked up watching football. He did not try to claim £11,000 but claimed £11,000. He used £11,000 of taxpayers’ money for his own personal use. Outside the Parliament, that is called misappropriation.

It was the lowest of low points in the Parliament to watch an SNP cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, throw everybody and everything under the bus to save himself. He was aided and abetted by not one but two SNP First Ministers. They put party first and everything else second. The First Minister chose to scapegoat one of the most conscientious members of the Parliament, my colleague Annie Wells. John Swinney should be embarrassed.

The reputation of this Parliament hangs by a thread because of Michael Matheson’s actions and John Swinney’s appalling judgment. If we had the appropriate legislation to do as is done at Westminster, Michael Matheson would now face the judgment of the people of Falkirk West. However, in the absence of the power of recall, if Michael Matheson had a scintilla of integrity left in him, he would resign immediately.

I worked in business leadership for more than 30 years and I can tell members that it would be acceptable in no other walk of life for someone to fraudulently claim expenses and expect to stay in their employment. They would face instant dismissal. The people of Scotland know that only in this Parliament is it possible for someone to do what Michael Matheson did and feel so entitled as to think that they can sit it out without any prospect of dismissal—or, I would add, any thought of a police inquiry. Any casual reading of our newspapers tells story after story of employees who do exactly what Michael Matheson did and are subject to criminal proceedings.

The people of Falkirk West cannot have their say, but the members of this Parliament can. If we have any regard for this institution, we must vote to call on Michael Matheson to do the decent thing—to resign immediately and leave public life.

17:03  

As a recently conscripted member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I will not take the bait of some of what the Tories have said in their motion. However, I will make two or three separate and—I dare to hope—useful points.

I stand by the view that I expressed in the public session of the committee last week. The committee did not—and I do not—dispute the need for a sanction in this case. However, I still struggle to see the logical basis for the figure of a 27-day ban on sitting in Parliament—the sanction that three of the five committee members eventually supported—and how it was arrived at. Whatever members’ views about the case, it is factual to say that the sanction is exceptionally high, compared with any comparable incident on which the Parliament has imposed a penalty in the past.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you.

Although there is a need for a penalty in many cases, including this one, there has to be some logical basis for the sanctions that we impose.

I share the astonishment that has been expressed by a number of members that it is possible for anyone who is sitting on a committee of that kind to tweet extensively their views about the individual whom they are about to investigate, before they have heard the evidence about him or her. The real world has been mentioned a fair bit in the debate, but that would never be allowed to happen in any industrial tribunal and, if it happened in a jury, it would land someone in serious trouble. I therefore sympathise with the sentiments on that point in the Green amendment.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you.

As our committee report mentions, it is disappointing—to put it mildly—that the committee’s deliberations were in the papers before they were even finalised. All that needs to change. The bigger picture—I appreciate that the question is separate from, but related to, the specific case—is that the Parliament has to have better systems in place for the future. As our report indicates, the committee has an appetite for helping to review some of those issues, going forward.

In the first century AD, the Roman satirist Juvenal famously asked:

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

or,

“Who will guard the guards?”

In other words, whose job is it to police those whose job it is to police the rules? That has never proved to be an easy question for anyone to answer.

What can be said is that the answer that we have come up with to that question in Holyrood is open to improvement. In fact, it is ripe for reform. Other legislatures do not ask a room full of politicians to reach a non-political view about an allegation against another politician. They certainly do not ask them to do so in the run-up to a national election—yet, our Parliament likes to do exactly that, as Patrick Harvie has rightly said. Nor do a number of other parliaments ask such committees to impose penalties without reference to any clearly understood scale of severity, under rules that are not always clear and do not include a right to repeal, or ask parliamentary staff in such investigations to be put in the unfair position of writing binding reports in which their colleagues are mentioned.

To anyone who is looking in on the debate, I frankly admit that there has been a lot more political heat than procedural light in the chamber. I will conclude by simply saying this: I believe that it is now time for a proper review of how the Parliament deals with allegations against its members. The public have a right to know that such decisions will be reached according to the highest and most objective of standards.

We should learn from the example of other legislatures, where the investigation is handed over to a person from outside both the political sphere and the parliamentary staff, with that person’s recommendations being put to Parliament or its committees for a recommended sanction that is based on some kind of logical scheme. I think that that would be a good place to start, and it would be an approach that the public would expect of us in the future.

17:08  

Like many MSPs, I have been reflecting on the 25 years of the Scottish Parliament. I had the privilege of being elected for the first time in 1999, as did the First Minister. It is a bit disappointing, given the statements that he has made over the past few days, that he is not in the chamber to hear the debate.

Like Paul O’Kane, I thought back to Donald Dewar’s words in his opening speech in the Parliament, when he said:

“We are fallible. We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland”.

I feel that, in the tone of today’s debate, we have lost sight of what brought us here. It is okay to be fallible and to make mistakes, but we are not just talking about a simple mistake: we are holding to account a member of the Parliament who attempted to use taxpayers’ money for personal gain, then misled others about it, thereby breaking the code of conduct that we are all bound by.

On reflection, we have to ensure that parliamentary standards are upheld and that those who ignore them are held to account. It is absolutely vital that the Parliament demonstrates that we are all still

“striving to do right by the people of Scotland.”

In her opening speech, Jackie Baillie was measured in highlighting the importance of the need for us to take the right decision. I feel that, in mishandling the episode, the Scottish National Party and the First Minister have potentially jeopardised the integrity of the Parliament at a time when we know that trust in politicians is plummeting.

People are getting tired of a Government that puts self-interest before the national interest, and they are tired of the accusations of bullying, the Covid rule breaking and the WhatsApp deleting. This week’s events add to that narrative. By his refusal to acknowledge the findings of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the First Minister has undermined the vital structures that make this Parliament work. Accountability is an essential component of a democracy, and the standards committee is one of the most important ways of ensuring that all of us in this chamber are accountable. We also have the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, which we set up in 2002.

There are ways in which people can complain about us, and we all have to go through the process. If we disregard the standards committee when it does not suit us or it goes against our party, we potentially bring the work of our Parliament into disrepute. I question SNP members having, in the previous debate, amended the motion then not voting for the amended motion.

To be clear, the committee was unanimous in its view that Michael Matheson should face sanctions, and it agreed on the need for a financial sanction for 54 days. As Alasdair Allan said, there was not agreement on what the period for which he should not be allowed to come back to Parliament should be. However, that was a discussion in the standards committee, and there is an extent to which we must respect the work of that committee.

I cannot be the only MSP who is regularly told on the doorstep that politicians are only in it for themselves. That is an issue that we all have to address. One of my constituents observed that, if they had done what Michael Matheson did, they would have automatically lost their job. I would probably not be doing my job if I did not comment on the fact that it is a bit of an irony that this debate, which rightly criticises Michael Matheson’s actions, is a Tory debate, given the previous actions of the Tories’ colleague and former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who broke the ministerial code on numerous occasions. However, this is politics, and we are all going to disagree with one another.

Fundamentally, since our Parliament was established, we have had to make sure that our constituents have been able to have confidence in it. That does not mean that people will not make mistakes, but we must be accountable. Our constituents need to know that we reflect on the changes that have been made.

A couple of years ago, we published our proposals in the Scottish Labour document, “A Stronger Scotland”, in which we suggested that we should have a right of recall and other measures to improve the operation of our Parliament. A right of recall was introduced in the UK Parliament in 2015. When the Scottish Parliament was first established, that process was an example of best practice. There is a need for us to look at the experiences of our work over the 25 years since then, and to involve everyone in that process.

Under the proposals that Jackie Baillie put forward in her speech and in her amendment, voters would, in certain circumstances in which there had been misconduct, have the opportunity to remove their MSP. That is an obvious step to strengthen our democracy and restore the electorate’s trust. They need to know that we are here to serve them and that we are accountable.

After last year’s result in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I totally get why the SNP might not be in a hurry to introduce a right of recall, but that would be the most democratic way of returning to the ideals that were outlined by Donald Dewar—that parliamentarians are here to serve the people of Scotland, and that we should always strive to do what is right. It is not too late for Michael Matheson to do what is right.

We need change, and we need it now. It cannot come soon enough.

17:13  

The one line that will stick in my mind from this debate more than any other is the one in which Douglas Ross made reference to Donald Trump before then accusing somebody else of bully-boy behaviour. All of us recognise that one of Donald Trump’s standard tactics is to accuse an enemy of his own worst traits.

I voted for the sanction against Michael Matheson because I care about the reputation of this Parliament. Michael Matheson’s actions damaged it, and approving a sanction is a necessary step in attempting to restore the Parliament’s reputation. However, after the debate that we have just had, I am very worried about the period that we are going to be moving into, because I think that most people can recall that, at the tail end of the previous session of the Scottish Parliament, which was a period of minority government, members of the Conservative Party in particular gleefully leapt on every opportunity to drag the name and the reputation of this Parliament down to their own level. I fear that they are about to do the same again, which is what they have done in today’s debate.

We have seen shallow partisanship throughout all this. I am sorry to say that we have seen a lack of judgment from SNP members, too, who should have fairly expressed the reasonable and valid concerns that they have, which I share, about the process that has taken place and then should have clearly backed the sanctions against Michael Matheson. If they did not believe that the sanction was appropriate, they should have proposed an alternative and voted for a sanction that they genuinely believed was so, even if that meant losing a vote.

I previously sat on the SPPA Committee. It is quite difficult for members who are not on the committee and are not having those private discussions to work out what an alternative sanction would look like. It is possible to have concerns over process and accept that there should be a sanction, but, by abstaining, not stand in the way of the sanction that the committee actually took forward.

I take Bob Doris’s point. Although I share many of the concerns about the process, I voted for the SPPA Committee’s proposal for the sanction, precisely because that is what is on the table. The one thing that everybody seems to agree on is that Michael Matheson’s behaviour fell far short of the standards that are expected of MSPs and should be sanctioned. Indeed, it has now been given a severe sanction.

I repeat the comparison that I made in my opening speech in relation to the second debate’s motion. As far as I can recall, the only member who has ever been subject to a vote of Parliament calling for their resignation is someone who was sentenced to 12 months in prison after conviction for multiple acts of domestic violence. Am I wrong? Is my memory failing me on this? Has that happened in any other case, or is anyone seriously suggesting that what Michael Matheson did is anywhere near as grave a crime as that? I do not think so.

I will not talk about other people’s crimes, but let us be honest: 40 years of employment law have taught me that, if an employee steals from their employer, they are considered to have committed gross misconduct—indeed, borrowing money overnight and subsequently repaying it is also gross misconduct. Gross misconduct gets people fired. Why should we not discuss that in this case? Everyone else in Scotland does.

I will come on to relevant points.

I do not think that the motion adds anything by trying to treat Michael Matheson’s case in a way that is comparable to that in which Bill Walker’s was treated. I do not think that that is appropriate or what the Parliament should vote for.

The motion adds nothing, but Jackie Baillie’s amendment adds something with serious substance, and it deserves to be discussed. There is a legitimate argument in favour of a recall process, and I am open to—and my party and I support—that principle. Let us have a debate about it. A system that works and is not susceptible to political partisanship could be found. However, it is inappropriate to try to retrofit that on to an individual case in this way. I would support an independent process, but not the version of a process where politicians decide.

In session 5, I was a member of the SPPA Committee that considered some of those issues. I supported the idea of a recall process or something comparable to a person’s losing their job for gross misconduct. However, that must be for the most extreme cases, it must be done in a way that is impartial rather than being subject to political decision making and it must carry cross-party support. In her speech, Jackie Baillie acknowledged the political motivations, including electioneering, in some of the debate. In a debate such as today’s, I cannot support simply deciding to copy the Westminster system—even Paul O’Kane’s speech demonstrated that that system itself is susceptible to political motivations.

Everyone will offer their own version of what we should do. If Graham Simpson wants to introduce his bill, he will do so and we should debate it. If he wants it to be debated in a fair, balanced and reasonable way, I urge him, seriously, not to go back to his previous habit of proposing it in a way that personalises the issue with the name of a political opponent. We all know that we could pick names from any political party and find a way to personalise the issue in that way. I hope that he will resist that temptation.

I agree with Patrick Harvie on that, and I am desisting from following that approach. I urge Mr Harvie to discuss my proposals when he sees them.

I am glad that Graham Simpson is going to desist from that approach. That would be helpful.

I am pleased that the Parliament has voted in favour of asking the SPCB to conduct an independent review of the process. I hope that it will heed the words of Gillian Mackay earlier today in recognising that harm to people is the most serious form of offence that an MSP can commit and that it should be the one that is subject to the most serious sanction. I say that not only in relation to the example of sexual harassment that I gave earlier. Jackie Baillie mentioned the case of Margaret Ferrier, whose actions directly put other people’s lives at risk. Harm to people is surely a more serious form of offence for any MSP and should be treated more seriously.

I hope that what comes from the independent review is an impartial system that is not susceptible to politically motivated decision making. It needs consistency and decisions that are made on the basis of evidence and with the right of appeal, because those kinds of things would be available to people in what has been regularly called “the real world” in this debate. We should have those principles in any system of standards and sanctions in this Parliament.

17:21  

From listening to the debate, you could begin to imagine that this was a complicated issue, but it is very far from that—it is a very simple matter. A man earning £126,000 a year wrongly claimed £11,000 on his expenses from his employer, and then he was caught. He misled the Parliament, he misled the press and, ultimately, he misled the public. It is a simple matter.

Sixty-five per cent of the public believe that Michael Matheson should resign, because they know that 99 per cent of the people whom they work with would have been sacked for exactly the same offence. However, the SNP does not support any punishment whatsoever—none at all. It puts party before country every time.

What we have seen from the fresh leadership of the First Minister in the past week has been incredible, inexplicable and incompetent. I ask members to spare a thought for his MP colleagues who will face the voters in the coming weeks. Of course, it has been easy to read their thoughts about the First Minister widely and in graphic detail in the press. This is no fresh leadership, really. It is the same John Swinney, who was once—for two days—the most popular politician in Scotland. The Parliament’s process produced an answer that he did not agree with, so he denigrated those involved, sought to undermine the procedures and sought to cast doubt on the ability of the Parliament to deal with the wrongdoing of an arrogant SNP Government that believes that it is, and should be, above reproach.

Police investigations, repeated briefings to the press of matters of blatant factual inaccuracy, a culture of cover-ups, WhatsApps deleted on an industrial scale and egregious conduct during the Salmond inquiry where evidence was withheld—John Swinney was right at the heart of it all. Scottish Labour’s amendment is the right means to deal with that egregious misconduct, and it is right that the Parliament’s democratic view is taken on that.

Jackie Baillie highlighted Rutherglen and the actions of Margaret Ferrier, which rightly resulted in a recall petition and the defeat of the SNP in that by-election. It is possible to draw that lesson more widely, because, although there have been few recall petitions, the process has triggered resignations because of the reality of the prospect of a recall. That has led to a slew of by-elections across England, where the venal corruption and grotesque misconduct of so much of the Tory party has whittled down the chaff of that dying Government. A recall procedure in Scotland could help to rebuild the faith in politics that is being washed away by two Governments that care very little about the public.

I must congratulate Jamie Hepburn on an extraordinary whipping operation. The free-thinking evaluation of the case brought the SNP to the universal position of an entirely illogical contortion. As a result, he decided not to stand and defend it but to ask SNP back benchers to do the job, instead.

The contradictions of the case were fully set out by Paul O’Kane, who was right to show how it mirrored the conduct of Boris Johnson when he questioned the UK Parliament’s right to hold him to account for his actions. The language of a “kangaroo court” was repeated again by Stuart McMillan, from the back benches. That might be an uncomfortable comparison for John Swinney, but it is based on fact, and, again, this is a very simple matter. Any man or woman who acted in the way that Michael Matheson did would have lost their job. He should lose his. The SNP believes that there should be no punishment whatsoever.

17:26  

In essence, the debate is about two interconnected issues: the question of integrity; and respect for the Parliament and its procedures. That not a single minister in the Government was prepared to speak up for their former colleague tells us all that we need to know. They have left it to their back benchers to make the case throughout the debate. We have had three ministers on the front bench throughout the entire debate, and not one of them has said a word. I am happy to give way to any of them who wants to contribute to the debate and give us the Government’s position on where matters stand.

No, they are embarrassed—and they are right to be embarrassed—because Michael Matheson acted indefensibly. He claimed £11,000 of taxpayers’ money in data roaming fees incorrectly, he misled Parliament and he misled the Presiding Officer.

Last week, John Swinney said that

“there has been no cost to the public purse”,—[Official Report, 23 May 2024; c 11.]

but this has been going on for over a year, and it has taken up a huge amount of parliamentary time and resources, so that lie should not be repeated.

As has been mentioned a few times this afternoon, I caution members on the language that they use in the chamber, cognisant of the standards to which we are all subject.

I thank Mr Findlay for that intervention. I agree with his sentiments.

Each one of us knows how the expenses system in the Parliament works. When we incur a cost, we all have to sign a declaration saying that expenses were properly incurred on parliamentary or constituency business. Michael Matheson must have made that declaration—indeed, we know that he did—and he did so fraudulently. The most generous interpretation that can be put on his behaviour is that he did not know when he signed that declaration how the roaming costs were incurred. However, either he knew that it was not a legitimate parliamentary expense or he should have made appropriate inquiries. He did not, and he induced the parliamentary authorities to pay £11,000 of taxpayers’ money that should not have been paid by refunding him costs that should have come out of his own pocket.

Better lawyers than I have already argued that that sequence of events amounts to a fraud on the public purse. That is a matter for the police, and not for the Parliament, but it illustrates the seriousness of the matter that we are dealing with and why nothing less than Michael Matheson’s resignation from the Parliament is appropriate as an outcome.

Earlier, we heard the Deputy First Minister’s defence that the money was repaid, as if that is an excuse for Mr Matheson’s behaviour. Yes, the money was repaid, but it was repaid only after the matter was publicly exposed. A thief who returns the stolen goods does not escape punishment in law.

This Parliament has agreed an unprecedented 27-day suspension and a 54-day loss of earnings but, astonishingly, the SNP members did not support any sanction against Mr Matheson. They could have amended the motion that is before us this afternoon with an alternative sanction, but they chose not to do so. They regarded him as somebody who should get off scot free.

That will be the end of the matter for Mr Matheson, as matters currently stand. As we have heard during the debate, had he been a Westminster MP, he would potentially face a recall petition, and I would not give much for his chances of re-election in a by-election in those circumstances.

We have no such mechanism here. Graham Simpson, who we heard from earlier, is bringing forward a member’s bill to bring a right of recall to this Parliament, but that is still at an early stage. If Michael Matheson were an honourable man, he would do the right thing and step down at this stage. As Willie Rennie said, he can always contest any subsequent by-election and seek the confidence of his constituents for re-election.

I have no personal animus against Michael Matheson. When he was a minister, I worked co-operatively with him on a number of issues, including lodging amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill to address the issue of private parking, and I always found him congenial and helpful to deal with. However, in acting in the way that he did on this matter, he has brought the Parliament into disrepute, and he needs to bear the consequences for that.

The point has already been made that, in any other workplace, Michael Matheson would have been sacked long ago for his actions. It is inconceivable that, in any private sector organisation or, for that matter, in much of the public sector, anyone who made a false claim for expenses of £11,000 would still be in a job. The Parliament should not hold itself to a lesser standard than that which applies to those who pay our wages. For those reasons, Michael Matheson should resign.

None of what has happened over the past few weeks reflects well on either the previous First Minister, Humza Yousaf, or the current one, John Swinney. John Swinney’s response to the decision of the standards committee to sanction Michael Matheson was not to support that decision or to recognise that Matheson deserved punishment but, rather, to launch a disgraceful attack on my colleague Annie Wells. As we know, that has led, in a totally unacceptable fashion, to social media abuse of a female member of this Parliament.

In the 27 pages of evidence that John Swinney submitted to the standards committee, there was just one reference to a social media post by Annie Wells. She was expressing an opinion on Michael Matheson’s wrongdoing, as she was quite entitled to do. As our well-respected former colleague, Andy Wightman of the Scottish Greens, said on Radio Scotland this morning,

“everyone and their dog had an opinion”

on Michael Matheson when the news broke about the scandal last year. Politicians are asked for—and freely express—opinions on matters in the news, and the idea that expressing an opinion means that Annie Wells’s role in the committee was inappropriate, is simply grasping at straws from a desperate First Minister who is determined to undermine the integrity of the Parliament in order to protect a political colleague whom he described as a friend.

In any event, Annie Wells’s comment was on the question of the guilt of Michael Matheson, not on what the appropriate sanctions should be, and the guilt of Michael Matheson has never been in doubt. His guilt was accepted by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body even before the issue came to the standards committee. What Annie Wells did was adjudicate on the punishment, not on the question of guilt, and she should not be criticised for that. Had there been concerns about Annie Wells’s behaviour, that was properly a matter for the committee convener, and not for the First Minister.

We always hear from the First Minister and others about the need to show respect for this Parliament. However, here we have had the First Minister showing contempt for this Parliament and its institutions. SNP members always like to claim some sort of moral superiority over Westminster, but this whole episode has exposed the fact that they are prepared to engage in tawdry politicking and undermine the Parliament when it suits them in order to defend one of their own.

I was in this Parliament in 2008 when SNP members of the standards committee insisted on an inappropriate and unduly harsh punishment on the former Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, for what was a technical infringement of the rules on declaring interests at that time. Who voted for that punishment at that time? John Swinney did, Nicola Sturgeon did and—yes—Michael Matheson did. They did not complain about the process then, and they did not demand a review of the process, but now, when it is one of theirs in the firing line, they take a different stance. It is the most egregious of double standards.

I will leave the last word on this to Andy Wightman, who said last week, in response to comments from Michael Matheson complaining about the process:

“Straight out of the Nicola Sturgeon playbook. Smear Committee members undermine and discredit a Parliamentary Committee—all to save your own career. Scottish Parliament standards now hugely undermined.”

That is why Michael Matheson should go, and that is why we should support the motion this afternoon.

That concludes the debate on Michael Matheson’s resignation.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Rule 7.3 of the Scottish Parliament’s standing orders relates to the conduct of members in the chamber and, in particular, to the need for members to follow the direction of the Presiding Officer. During this afternoon’s debate, which I have sat through, we heard the Conservative member Craig Hoy state:

“in key seats across Scotland, voters can pass a”

clear judgment on Michael Matheson and John Swinney and vote to get rid of the SNP on 4 July. [Interruption.] That is in direct contradiction to the statement that was made by the Presiding Officer on Thursday 23 May, when she clearly said:

“I again remind members that the chamber is not the place to be electioneering and I do not want campaigning to distract members from focusing on matters for which the Government has general responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2024; c 26.]

I therefore seek the Presiding Officer’s guidance on whether Mr Hoy’s comments are in line with her direction and, if not, what steps can be taken—[Interruption.]

Can we please hear the member?

Presiding Officer, I know that they are no interested, but your presiding over—[Interruption.]

Mr Kerr.

Presiding Officer, your presiding over the chamber is absolutely paramount and really important to me, although I know that it is perhaps not important to the members sitting to my left. I seek your guidance. Thank you.

Thank you for your point of order, Ms Harper. I have made my views on electioneering in the chamber very clear, and I would also say that the Presiding Officer in the chair at any time is usually best placed to rule on such matters.

That concludes the debate on the motion calling for Michael Matheson’s resignation.