Hansard

As convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have the responsibility of lodging and speaking to motions that seek the Parliament’s agreement to the committee’s recommendation of a sanction in instances where a breach of the conduct rules has occurred. I do so today, following the committee’s consideration of a report referred to it by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The report was referred to the committee after the SPCB concluded that there had been breaches of the code of conduct by Michael Matheson MSP, in relation to the use of mobile data via a SIM card and a device issued to him by the Parliament.

The SPCB had considered three excluded complaints—an excluded complaint is one that does not fall within the remit of the Ethical Standards Commissioner—and determined that breaches had occurred in respect of sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the code of conduct.

The committee considered the report at five meetings during March and May. It was tasked with considering the question whether to recommend any sanctions to the Parliament; it was not tasked with reviewing the SPCB’s investigation or decisions, as it does in other cases.

As members will be aware, the SPCB reached its decisions on 14 March 2024 and referred its report to the committee on 19 March 2024. The committee has sought to conclude its consideration as swiftly as possible, while ensuring that Michael Matheson was given the opportunity to make representations to us and that those representations and the SPCB report were fully considered.

In the Parliament’s 25 years, this is the first instance of an SPCB referral to a standards committee of the Parliament. The committee has set out in its report that it intends to reflect generally on the process for excluded complaints and has invited reflections from the SPCB. Those reflections do not evidence any concern that the process that was followed up to this point was not adequate or correct.

The committee sought to avoid any form of running commentary on the matter under consideration. I note the disappointment of the whole committee that, at the final stages of our consideration, speculation appeared in the media before we had reached decisions and concluded our considerations.

Since March, the committee has carefully considered all the information that was available to it in the SPCB’s report, in both written evidence and personal representations by Mr Matheson. That has enabled the committee to take into account a fuller picture, including the role of an outdated SIM card and the charges that were incurred; the circumstances of the usage; the allocation of £3,000 from Mr Matheson’s office cost provision; the knowledge that Mr Matheson had at the point of allocation; and the actions that Mr Matheson took between his stating that he had become aware that non-parliamentary usage had occurred and his personal statement to the chamber.

During our consideration, we noted areas where we believe that more action should have been taken on the part of the Parliament in relation to the replacement of an outdated SIM card. The committee also acknowledges the impact on Mr Matheson and his family of the significant media and other intrusions that took place. Following its consideration, the committee was unanimous in its view that sanctions should be recommended and that there should be a period of exclusion and a financial element to the recommended sanctions. It is, however, important to acknowledge, as set out in the committee’s report, that two members of the committee, Alasdair Allan and Jackie Dunbar, noted that they agreed with the financial element but considered that it was in the higher range of available sanctions.

The one area on which there was not unanimous agreement was the duration of the period of exclusion. After discussion, the committee was not in a position to give a unanimous recommendation on a suspension period from Parliament. A majority of members of the committee agreed that a duration of 27 days was appropriate. As set out in the committee’s report, some members of the committee—Oliver Mundell, supported by Annie Wells—had originally supported a longer period of exclusion. Others—Alasdair Allan and Jackie Dunbar—supported a shorter period, as, in their view, the period was

“extremely severe when compared to previous cases.”

The issues under consideration by the committee are ultimately about the use of public finance, those funds being used only for legitimate purposes, the degree of trust that there must be both in and outside the Parliament, and the ethical standards with which members must conduct themselves in all matters, as articulated in the Nolan principles and the code of conduct. Any failure to meet those standards has an adverse impact on the reputation of the expenses scheme, members and the Parliament as a whole.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6), Complaint against Michael Matheson MSP (SP Paper 597), and agrees to impose the sanctions recommended in the report that the Parliament excludes Michael Matheson MSP from proceedings of the Parliament for a period of 27 sitting days and withdraws his salary for a period of 54 calendar days to take effect from the day after this motion is agreed.