Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 10 September 2013
10 Sep 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme (Amendment)
Given the amount of time that is available to me, I will truncate my remarks.
This is not the way to do it. I fully appreciate why the corporate body felt it necessary to bring forward its proposal. However, we should all be allergic to on-the-hoof legislation, as it tends to assist not justice, but the law of unintended consequences. On very rare occasions, when there is urgency, it may be unavoidable, but such urgency has now gone—I concur with Patrick on that.
Let us look at the motion that is before us. It says that for
“any period during which a member of the Parliament is imprisoned”
the deduction of 90 per cent of their salary is mandatory. No discretion is provided as to the nature of the conviction or the length of the conviction—it might be one month or one week. In addition, I heard the word “remand” used. Being on remand can involve innocence—many people on remand are innocent. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
No discretion is provided in relation to whether a 90 per cent deduction is suitable in all circumstances. Does that mean that MSPs can do 10 per cent of their work behind bars? Is availability for work the test? The corporate body kept talking about “performance of functions”. Someone who is seriously ill cannot perform their functions. I would not want that test to apply in those circumstances. If that is the test, it should not be applied only in the circumstances that we are discussing.
What principles are being applied? Should it be possible to exercise discretion in relation to the penalties that are imposed? Even sheriffs exercise discretion. My contention is that the Parliament should not agree to the proposal without considered examination, let alone proper debate—Patrick Harvie and I have had four minutes to respond—but should remit it to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or an ad hoc committee to consider principles and process. We might arrive at the same amendment to the scheme—so be it—but it will have been properly considered.
Let us not agree to the motion simply to be seen to do something or to appease certain segments of the media. I know that members across the chamber are being whipped. What is proposed is just wrong. I am breaking the whip, and I am asking members who share my unease to break the whip. If they cannot vote against the motion, I ask them to abstain. Let us do this properly—we have time to do it properly.
This is not the way to do it. I fully appreciate why the corporate body felt it necessary to bring forward its proposal. However, we should all be allergic to on-the-hoof legislation, as it tends to assist not justice, but the law of unintended consequences. On very rare occasions, when there is urgency, it may be unavoidable, but such urgency has now gone—I concur with Patrick on that.
Let us look at the motion that is before us. It says that for
“any period during which a member of the Parliament is imprisoned”
the deduction of 90 per cent of their salary is mandatory. No discretion is provided as to the nature of the conviction or the length of the conviction—it might be one month or one week. In addition, I heard the word “remand” used. Being on remand can involve innocence—many people on remand are innocent. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
No discretion is provided in relation to whether a 90 per cent deduction is suitable in all circumstances. Does that mean that MSPs can do 10 per cent of their work behind bars? Is availability for work the test? The corporate body kept talking about “performance of functions”. Someone who is seriously ill cannot perform their functions. I would not want that test to apply in those circumstances. If that is the test, it should not be applied only in the circumstances that we are discussing.
What principles are being applied? Should it be possible to exercise discretion in relation to the penalties that are imposed? Even sheriffs exercise discretion. My contention is that the Parliament should not agree to the proposal without considered examination, let alone proper debate—Patrick Harvie and I have had four minutes to respond—but should remit it to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or an ad hoc committee to consider principles and process. We might arrive at the same amendment to the scheme—so be it—but it will have been properly considered.
Let us not agree to the motion simply to be seen to do something or to appease certain segments of the media. I know that members across the chamber are being whipped. What is proposed is just wrong. I am breaking the whip, and I am asking members who share my unease to break the whip. If they cannot vote against the motion, I ask them to abstain. Let us do this properly—we have time to do it properly.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is consideration of motion S4M-07629, in the name of Linda Fabiani, on an amendment to the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme. I c...
Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP)
SNP
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 c...
Stewart Maxwell (West Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Linda Fabiani
SNP
No, I am sorry but I do not have time. I must get on.We also recognise that there is limited confidentiality available for any prisoner dealing with the rang...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Two members have asked to speak—Patrick Harvie and Christine Grahame. I can give you two minutes each.16:54
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Green
When the other approaches that Linda Fabiani mentioned—namely, disqualification and recall—were considered, it was clear that there were technical barriers t...
Stewart Maxwell
SNP
Will Patrick Harvie give way?
Patrick Harvie
Green
I am afraid that, as I have only two minutes, I do not have time.I am concerned that a member might be given a response that would not give effect to the gen...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
Given the amount of time that is available to me, I will truncate my remarks.This is not the way to do it. I fully appreciate why the corporate body felt it ...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I call Mary Scanlon to wind up the debate.16:58
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Con
As my SPCB colleague Linda Fabiani has said, the motion that is being considered represents the unanimous view of all of us on the corporate body.There is a ...
Stewart Maxwell
SNP
Both Linda Fabiani and Mary Scanlon have said that a member would not be deducted 90 per cent of their salary for not performing their role if it was through...
Mary Scanlon
Con
That is a very good point. I appreciate that it probably requires further explanation, and I am about to cover it.I understand, as Christine Grahame suggeste...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
Thank you, Mrs Scanlon.