Meeting of the Parliament 29 May 2024
I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its report on the complaint about Michael Matheson. It is difficult to sit in judgment of our colleagues but, given the severity of the situation, the committee arrived at a judgment that Mr Matheson should be excluded for 27 sitting days, with the further sanction of losing his salary for 54 calendar days. I believe that the committee’s recommendations reflect the seriousness of the member’s actions. What is not disputed is that sanction should be applied, and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee was unanimous on that point.
Michael Matheson used a parliamentary iPad inappropriately by allowing his family to use the device as a hot spot to watch football games while on holiday in Morocco. Those of us with experience of teenage children understand and have sympathy with the challenges. Had Michael Matheson confessed when he was first challenged, it might have led to one day’s uncomfortable headlines and an acknowledgment from all of us that there but for the grace of God we go. The problem was that there was no admission of error and no apology or contrition. Instead, there appears to have been denial, deflection and dishonesty.
Emails from Parliament staff to remind members about changing broadband providers were ignored for years. Emails to remind members to tell Parliament if they were going abroad, so that their broadband package could be adjusted, were also ignored. Most problematic of all is that questions from Parliament staff about the scale of the iPad bill were largely ignored and ultimately denied. Even the most diligent MSP cannot run up an £11,000 roaming charges bill, especially at Christmas, when constituents have other priorities. However, that pattern of denial continued, misleading Parliament, misleading the press and, ultimately, misleading the people of Scotland.
It is the cover-up, rather than the original sin, that is always the problem, and it is the contempt in his actions for the Parliament, the press and the public that I am most disappointed by. It is a profound error of judgment from someone whom I have always had a great deal of respect for, despite our being in different political parties. He is one of the class of 1999—we entered Parliament together—and he should have known better. Although I would clash with him regularly about health policy, I recognised his commitment to the national health service. However, that has all been swept away by his actions.
I am disappointed by the SNP’s amendment, but not surprised. It clearly cannot politically amend the scale of the sanction as it knows that it cannot win the vote. Instead, the amendment is an attack on the committee and, by extension, on the Parliament. This is about John Swinney protecting his friend. This is John Swinney undermining the integrity of the Parliament—something that he already has form on. This is about John Swinney putting party before country.
Ultimately, it should be for the people of Falkirk West to decide whether they want Michael Matheson to continue to represent them, but their voice is denied because the Parliament has no provision for a recall petition. I will discuss that in the debate that follows. It is surely an omission that we should rectify.
The public is right to expect the very highest standards from their MSPs, but Michael Matheson’s actions have brought our politics into disrepute, and John Swinney’s attitude in wanting to protect an SNP MSP adds fuel to the fire. It is truly a case of party before country every time with the SNP, so I hope that members will vote in support of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to restore integrity to our politics.
15:17