Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 10 September 2013
10 Sep 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme (Amendment)
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 suggested, that not everyone who is in prison will have committed a serious criminal offence and, indeed, that it might be considered that some people were in prison because of a matter of conscience. It is for the courts to distinguish whether imprisonment is merited in an individual case, based on the criteria that they apply. It is not for the Parliament to distinguish the treatment of individual cases on the basis of the conduct giving rise to the sentence imposed or the motivation for that conduct. The principle would remain that persons who have been imprisoned by the courts would be unavailable to undertake the full range of parliamentary duties, and therefore it is our view that their salary should be reduced accordingly.
I also understand the point that Stewart Maxwell rightly raised that there may be unease about the position of anyone in custody on remand, given the presumption of innocence. Whether an individual should be detained on remand is again a matter for the courts. What is a matter for this Parliament is how the salaries scheme should treat the resulting impact on the ability of any member held on remand to perform his or her parliamentary functions. That gives rise to exactly the same issue that applies to persons in prison following conviction. Having considered this carefully, our inescapable conclusion is that the same principle that is core to the issue applies; accordingly, in our view, the salaries scheme should treat those circumstances in the same manner.
I sincerely hope that members consider our proposal to be appropriate and proportionate and that they support the motion.
I understand, as Christine Grahame suggested, that not everyone who is in prison will have committed a serious criminal offence and, indeed, that it might be considered that some people were in prison because of a matter of conscience. It is for the courts to distinguish whether imprisonment is merited in an individual case, based on the criteria that they apply. It is not for the Parliament to distinguish the treatment of individual cases on the basis of the conduct giving rise to the sentence imposed or the motivation for that conduct. The principle would remain that persons who have been imprisoned by the courts would be unavailable to undertake the full range of parliamentary duties, and therefore it is our view that their salary should be reduced accordingly.
I also understand the point that Stewart Maxwell rightly raised that there may be unease about the position of anyone in custody on remand, given the presumption of innocence. Whether an individual should be detained on remand is again a matter for the courts. What is a matter for this Parliament is how the salaries scheme should treat the resulting impact on the ability of any member held on remand to perform his or her parliamentary functions. That gives rise to exactly the same issue that applies to persons in prison following conviction. Having considered this carefully, our inescapable conclusion is that the same principle that is core to the issue applies; accordingly, in our view, the salaries scheme should treat those circumstances in the same manner.
I sincerely hope that members consider our proposal to be appropriate and proportionate and that they support the motion.
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.