Chamber and committees

This week, the First Minister gave clarity on one issue, when he called on the United Kingdom Government to recognise the state of Palestine and end arms sales to Israel. However, the same clarity is needed on the Scottish Government’s devolved responsibilities in relation to Israel’s genocidal action against Palestine.

The United Nations has published a list of about 90 companies that it considers to be complicit in the illegal settlements that Israel has been constructing on Palestinian territory in the west bank. In November, my colleague Ross Greer asked the former First Minister to agree that those companies should be banned from receiving public sector grants and contracts in Scotland from within the devolved Government’s responsibilities. The then First Minister agreed in principle that no company that is profiting from occupation should profit in Scotland, too.

It is now seven months and tens of thousands of deaths later, including those of at least 13,000 children. In the west bank, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by Israeli soldiers and extremists, but the Scottish Government has not yet taken action to ban companies that are on the UN’s list of complicit companies from receiving grants. Will the First Minister send a clear signal today by immediately banning those companies from receiving grants and other support from the Scottish Government?

This is in a time when the world is recoiling in revulsion at the appalling attacks, including the most recent attacks against Palestinians sheltering in Rafah. It is shocking and inexplicable that, at the same time—

I strongly agree with every element of what the First Minister said that the UK Government should do, but he is not yet providing clarity on what the Scottish Government should do within its powers. I mentioned the companies on the list that the UN deems complicit in illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. The First Minister might have been moving on to answer in relation to arms companies that are provided with grants and other forms of financial support by the Scottish Government. He is right that those grants do not support the production of munitions, but that simply is not enough. If we contribute to building a bigger bomb factory, we do not get to say that we have not funded the production of the bombs. Even since 7 October, Raytheon, BAE Systems and Leonardo have all received eye-watering sums from the Scottish Government’s agency, Scottish Enterprise.

—as the Scottish Government is calling for an end to arms sales, it is directly funding those manufacturers. Will the First Minister change that policy immediately?

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.”

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?

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.

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 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 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.