Hansard

I thank members of the SPPA Committee and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland for their consideration of this case.

As a former member of the committee, I recognise its important work in upholding the values and standards of this institution. The Green group therefore respects the decision that has been made by the SPPA Committee and the commissioner that my colleague Maggie Chapman breached the code of conduct, and we do not wish to reopen that decision.

However, we struggle to agree with the decision to impose a sanction, because it goes against the recent precedent set by the Parliament in dealing with omissions to declare a financial interest. Since the start of session 5 in 2016, the SPPA Committee has upheld five complaints against members relating to a failure to declare a registered financial interest, and only one of those resulted in a sanction.

In that case, the member in question had asked parliamentary questions on an issue in which they held a live financial interest and could have potentially benefited financially from the outcome. It was also the second time that a complaint was upheld against them on the same issue, the first time having resulted in no sanction.

In another more recent case, a member failed to make verbal declarations of substantial gifts from a lobbying organisation, but the committee concluded that

“the finding of a breach is sanction enough.”

The case against Maggie Chapman, however, relates to a previous employment that had long since concluded at the time that the item of business took place in Parliament, so there was no way that Ms Chapman could have benefited financially from the subject that was under discussion on that day.

I am concerned, because the decision sets a precedent for declaring past employment, suggesting that every member in the chamber remains financially tied to all our previous employers for an indefinite period. Imposing a sanction today also undermines the previous position that members are able to make their own judgment on these matters.

In another case, again in 2016, the SPPA Committee admonished a member but imposed no further sanction because

“it is a matter of judgment for the member on whether a registered interest is sufficiently relevant to particular proceedings to require a declaration.”

Yet in this case, the committee has decided that it was not sufficient for Maggie Chapman to use her own judgment, despite her clearly making no attempt to conceal her previous employment, which was declared in her written register of interest.