Hansard

I rise to speak to the motion, which sets out an amendment to the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme.

Recent events have highlighted concerns about how, in circumstances in which an MSP has been convicted of an offence, he or she is treated both by the Scotland Act 1998 and under the rules governing this Parliament. Questions have been asked as to whether a member who is serving a prison sentence should receive their full salary.

Recommendations on what provision the Parliament should make for the payment of salaries to members of the Parliament and members of the Scottish Government are a matter for the SPCB and I move this motion on behalf of all my colleagues on the corporate body. Having considered this matter carefully, we are in unanimous agreement that the salaries scheme should properly reflect the reciprocal relationship between salary and the performance of functions.

We recognise that a number of factors could prevent a member from being in a position to perform their parliamentary functions. After looking at the range of circumstances in which that might occur, we consider that the Parliament should be invited to agree a mechanism whereby any member who is sent to prison by the courts should have his or her salary reduced to reflect the fact that any member in such a position would not be able to fulfil the full range of their parliamentary duties. I will explain the reasoning for this position in more detail shortly.

First, though, I stress that this is not a punitive measure. Questions of punishment are strictly for due legal process and the courts to decide and are not a matter for us. However, all of us on the corporate body believe that once the courts have exercised their role the salaries scheme should reflect the impact of any sentence on the performance of a member’s parliamentary functions. In considering this motion, the Parliament will be given the opportunity to arrive at its own view on the matter.

Last week, members received a letter from the Presiding Officer, explaining the corporate body’s decision on a salary reduction. It might be helpful to add that our initial consideration of advice from officials looked at the Parliament’s powers in respect of the disqualification of a member and of recall. I therefore assure members that we have considered those issues. There are complexities with regard to legislative competence and policy that will require careful consideration and the Parliament might wish to look again at such issues in the future. We also looked in detail at the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament” and it is clear that, as the code presently stands, it covers only members’ parliamentary duties and specifically does not extend to a member’s private and family life.

In the light of that analysis, the Presiding Officer instructed officials to examine the issue of payment of salary to a member who is serving a prison sentence and to bring forward advice to the corporate body. We met as a corporate body last Thursday morning to consider that advice and, having looked carefully at the matter, we reached a unanimous conclusion that any serving member who is unable to carry out the full range of an elected representative’s functions as a result of serving a prison sentence should not receive a full salary provision. We were also advised that modifications could be made by resolution of the Parliament under section 81(1), as read with section 83(5), of the Scotland Act 1998 to give effect to that policy. It is under those provisions that we have lodged the motion to which I am speaking today.

I again stress that the modifications set out in the motion do not seek to encroach upon the role of the courts. Our approach should in no way be interpreted as a punishment—that is for the courts. We have been mindful of the legal advice that we have received, namely that our decision should be underpinned by the following principles: first, that the provision made should respect the principle that salary is payable in return for the performance of parliamentary and other public functions; secondly, that the provision must not be motivated by punishment, retribution or censure; and thirdly, that the provision should be proportionate, of general application and consistent across the scheme in its treatment of members, office-holders and members of the Scottish Government who receive a salary supplement.

In agreeing with those principles, we then had to consider the scope of the modification and the amount of any reduction proposed, taking account of the availability of a member to perform his or her parliamentary duties while in prison.

I turn first to scope. We agreed that any action we were proposing should not reduce the salary of any member who could not fulfil their parliamentary role for reasons outside their control. I stress, therefore, that when members are unwell or require compassionate leave of absence, or when something such as adverse weather conditions impacts on their role, they will not be affected by this proposal. In our view, that would be a proportionate approach and it is important that we place that on the record.

We have taken the view that the proposed reduction should cover any member of the Parliament who has been sent to prison by the courts. That would include anyone who has been imprisoned for a criminal offence, who has been committed to civil imprisonment or who has been imprisoned for contempt of court. It also includes a member who is on remand, as they would similarly be unavailable to undertake the full range of duties.

It is also important to make it clear that the modification will not affect members’ staff, who should be entitled to be paid, as we would expect that a member’s office would remain open for the duration that a member is in prison. This provision concerns solely the Parliament salaries scheme, which does not cover staff.

I turn to the proposed reduction in salary. In looking at the range of duties to be undertaken, we have based our decision on the definition of “parliamentary duties” that was previously agreed by the Parliament and that forms part of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme. The definition has the support of the Parliament and has stood the test of time. It is, therefore, a definition that we consider can be relied upon to determine broadly the range of key duties of members.

It was evident that a considerable amount of a member’s duties relate to attending meetings of the Parliament and its committees. There is also a key representative function requiring the ability personally to be present and to pursue matters on behalf of constituents.

Prisoners’ ability to communicate with the outside world is severely restricted. We therefore consider that that has to impact considerably on any role for an imprisoned member.