Chamber and committees

Apologies for being late, Professor Logan. I will circle back a little and pick up on some of the questions that Michelle Thomson asked. I had a constituent email me the other week. She has a luxury fashion brand and she was talking about what she calls “the female entrepreneurial dilemma”. I will read what she has emailed me:

“As a female entrepreneur, I often feel like I am fighting with one hand tied behind my back. The gender disparity in access to funding is staggering. Despite the fact that one in five entrepreneurs in Scotland is female, only 2% of the funding is allocated to women. I have personally experienced the frustration of pitching my business to male investors who seem disinterested or dismissive simply because it is in the fashion industry. It’s high time for the Scottish Government to step up and support female-led businesses like mine.”

My question is: what can we do to help Antoinette?

I am really sorry.

—and desperation, and have no doubt—

I am. It speaks of fatigue—

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and Public Appointments Committee recommended that Michael Matheson be suspended for 27 days and have his salary withdrawn for 54 days, which we voted for earlier this afternoon.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—

—it will stick in people’s minds.

I am sorry, Deputy First Minister, but we will have to pause, because the interpretation is not coming through.

In your letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, you stated:

“By providing leadership, focus and priority across public bodies further progress can be made for Scotland’s languages.”

I note the careful use of “Scotland’s languages”, rather than the title of the bill in that. Is legislation needed in order to do that?

Okay.

Michelle Thomson, thank you for your patience. It is over to you now.