Expert sought to review MSP complaints after Tories 'put process in disrepute'
It comes around one year after MSPs voted to sanction former health secretary Michael Matheson after he lied about an iPad roaming bill of around £11,000, racked up by his family watching football in Morocco.
Matheson had initially tried to charge the taxpayer for the bill, claiming it had been accrued while doing official work, but was later forced to admit his deception and resign from government.
MSPs then supported a motion sanctioning Matheson – who was suspended from sitting as an MSP for 27 days and lost 54 days of salary – but that motion also criticised Tory MSPs for the way the complaints process had been handled.
Former health secretary Michael Matheson charged the public £11,000 for an iPad roaming billHolyrood's Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee had reviewed the case and decided on the punishment to be recommended – but Conservatives Stephen Kerr and Annie Wells both made public statements on the case while they were supposed to review it in an unbiased manner.
Kerr resigned his position due to the public pronouncements, but Wells remained in place.
The motion agreed by MSPs said that Wells had run 'the risk of the committee report being open to bias and prejudice and the complaint being prejudged, thereby bringing the Parliament into disrepute'.
It further called on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) to 'initiate an independent review of the Parliament's complaints process to restore integrity and confidence in the Parliament and its procedures'.
That motion was passed in May 2024, and the SPCB has now begun advertising for someone to take on the review.
READ MORE: All jobs lost and students in limbo after Scottish arts college collapses suddenly
The parliament said that the review is 'expected to equate to up to 40 days' work for the successful applicant', and that the SPCB is looking to appoint a suitable expert before summer recess.
The outcome of the review will be a report to the SPCB by the end of 2025.
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said: 'The Parliament instructed the SPCB to undertake an independent review of the complaints process.
'The focus will be on the process for recommending and agreeing sanctions on MSPs.
'The SPCB has today advertised for a suitably qualified expert to carry out the review.
'The expectation is the role should be no more than 40 days' work for the successful applicant.'
Applicants have until May 29 to submit a quotation for the work as well as supporting documents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
A macro-economic route to end poverty
Increases in government spending add to money already circulating in the economy, but if the dams and diversions remain all this new money ends up in the hands of the banks, landlords, monopolistic corporations and the wealthy. To explore how reforms can be made to the way our economy works, a useful start is to consider an important concept in macro-economics: sectoral balances. The start point is to understand that one person's spending is another person's income. When governments spend, they end up with a deficit unless they tax back the whole amount. That deficit is matched by an equivalent surplus in the non-government sector. READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll Cumulative annual deficits add up to what we know as the 'national debt', which is the total amount of money circulating in the economy. Understood this way it makes no sense to think that the national debt should be paid off. There are two main components to the non-government sector: a domestic private sector and an overseas sector. The domestic private sector can be broken down further into an industrial sector (manufacturing and services), a financial sector and a household sector. The poorest section of the population occupies the lowest deciles within the household sector; they are the ones most likely to rely on debt to purchase even the most basic essentials and the least likely to own assets or have any savings. The money in the economy barely reaches them and what little money they do have to spend eventually finds its way back to the banks, landlords, big corporations and the wealthy. Since an overseas sector surplus means that some of the national debt is held by foreign actors, such as foreign governments and financial institutions, we need to consider the extent to which this functions as a drain on the economy. If money is lost to the domestic economy, there is less available to reach the poorest. However, a zero overseas sector surplus is not an appropriate objective either. Foreign governments and businesses need to hold a certain amount of our currency in order to facilitate trade – they need our money to buy our exports. Overseas governments and investors like to hold some of our government debt (in the form of government bonds), and demand for them is a good indicator of confidence in our currency and its value. Some losses from the economy can be avoided by reducing reliance on imports, particularly for strategic essentials such as food or energy and critical materials. Capital outflows to foreign investors from the Scottish economy currently amount to about 6% of GDP – or £11 billion per year. The Scottish Government has very limited capacity to grow the economy whilst Scotland remains part of the UK, which is why there has been a focus on attracting foreign investment. However, once independent and having our own currency we can rely less on foreign investment, and should then seek to grow our own companies instead. Increasing domestic ownership of our businesses and resources will reduce the outflow of profits, meaning more money is retained and circulated within the economy. Realistically, some foreign investment will be needed, especially where we lack home-grown technology and/or know-how but, in future, foreign investment should be limited to the degree that is supports long-term industrial and economic strategy. Scotland should establish a Foreign Investment Evaluation Agency to assess all proposals for foreign investment to ensure it is aligned with strategic priorities. We should welcome foreign investors who respect our values and will uphold the guarantees of fundamental socio-economic and human rights written into our future Constitution. The FIEA remit should include the evaluation of prospective foreign investors' commitments and record before recommending the issue of a 'licence to operate' in Scotland. Foreign investors must not be able to rely on 'investor-state dispute settlement' provisions in trade agreements. Any litigation against the Scottish Government by an investor must be dealt with in the Scottish courts where the constitutional rights of citizens can be given due weight against the rights claimed by investors. If foreign investors are deterred by the conditions, we must ensure that our own financial institutions step up to the mark to support the formation and development of Scottish capabilities including the recruitment of essential talent from overseas if necessary. In the next article, we will turn our attention to how the domestic private sector surplus can be redistributed so that sufficient money reaches the most disadvantaged households in our society.
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
It's time to put renewed emphasis on life skills for our young people
Worse, the same report suggests that the prospect of securing a good job is just as dependent now as it was 20 years ago on who you know, rather than what you know. Perhaps most worrying, the report suggests that in a world where the nature of work is changing very rapidly, young people are being prepared by the education system for a career in traditional professions which might not even exist in the very near future, so significant is going to be the impact of AI. You could dismiss the report, except for the fact that it comes from a source as authoritative as the OECD. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is a Paris-based think tank that is, admittedly, dominated by the world's richest countries, but it is also noted for producing the best comparison statistics on education in the world. READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll In fact, the report is so persuasive because what the researchers did was compare current world data with data from 20 years ago, when they first undertook work of this sort, and they would appear to be shocked to find that so little has changed. I am not surprised by this. If anyone had told me when I was at university, in the 1970s, that I would be making most of my income as a social media content creator, I would have been bemused by the suggestion. No-one had heard of the internet, or YouTube, or electronic recording data of the type we now use. Nor did any of the technology we use to consume social media exist back then. I make the point for a good reason. If my own career has changed this radically, and the rate of change in the nature of work is increasing and things are changing more often, what is it that we should now be training young people so that they have skills that may support them for decades, rather than a year or two at most after they leave either school or university? I have had six university appointments over the past 28 years and I appreciate the value of an academic education. But what I also realise is that this type of education, which dominates Highers and university courses, does not suit most people. In fact, in many disciplines, unless you want to be an academic, it is not much use at all. That is most especially true as far too many courses do not encourage much critical thinking at undergraduate level. All that means I am not surprised by what the OECD has found. I know that there might be exceptions to my comments in the case of some applied disciplines, such as medicine or veterinary science, and some engineering courses, but even then, these subjects exist in a real-world context once the person studying them has left university. To ignore this fact when they are training is quite ridiculous. So, what do I suggest we should do? I think the time has come for the unnecessary focus on academic disciplines in education to go. If the tiny minority who want to pursue a career in that area need concentrated training, that is for postgraduate education, above all else. At the level of Highers, in particular, the focus has to be very heavily on life skills. Of course, two or three more specialist subjects should be taken, but as important as these might be, so are essential and transferable life skills to ensure that people have the opportunity to change careers as time develops, as will inevitably happen to almost everyone now. So, what skills do I think are required? Try this list, which are things that matter to me now as an employer (which I am): Effective written communication Effective verbal communication Applied numeracy, including how to construct business-oriented spreadsheets Basic bookkeeping, accounting and budgeting An outline of the tax system Website creation and management The essentials of marketing Time management Basic employment law and contract law There is no job that exists for anyone over the age of 21 that does not require most skills, and most young people arrive in employment missing many of them. If, however, young people arrived with them, it would then be relatively easy for employers to provide more vocational training after the age of 21, using apprenticeship schemes if appropriate. Even those schemes are, however, at present, being hindered by a lack of these basic essentials, even among graduates. My suggestion is that at least 40% of the required undergraduate courses should also be cut on these issues. The result would be degrees that might be useful, and more fun to study, which is an issue that really matters to me when I know that so many students do not get very excited by their undergraduate university courses at present. Scotland could make these changes. Everyone would be a winner.
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
Scotland's constitution needs help if people want to see change
You can't assume that we will always have a progressive government in an independent Scotland. At one time, people associated progressiveness with the SNP, though we're now less sure. In fact, it's my personal expectation that the SNP will disappear after independence and we'll have left, right and centre parties as most countries have, whatever their names will be. A fresh start; that's what we could have – that's what we need. Community groups have long learned that, if you want change, to make things different, you need to define it yourselves, put it into words so there is no doubt – and then get people to support the plan. As a country we're the same, we can't leave it to others, especially the political parties who are decidedly vague about what their version of 'change' means. READ MORE: Scottish independence support at 58 per cent if Nigel Farage becomes PM – poll The sort of things that we would aspire to hold dear, would want to define and want safeguarded in our constitution could be: Defining our control over specific territory, land, sea and air, with the people sovereign and the parliament accountable to the electorate Protecting the right and obligations of citizenship, human rights and rights to education, health and social care, the principle of a minimum wage, etc Setting the status and appointment of the head of state, their role, duties and limitation of powers Defining the parliament, its chambers, committees and high-level procedures Setting the powers of the Parliament; scrutiny; discipline and recall of MSPs; how to have referendums on things like EU or EFTA membership; how citizens might call for referendums; citizens assemblies Establishing the civil service; restriction of external influences; NGOs and their powers Setting the currency, powers of tax-raising and the role of the central bank Ensuring the independence of the judiciary; auditing; control of broadcasting Controlling the use of natural resources; environmental protection; public access to land and water; prohibition of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons Establishing defence, security, emergency services and armed forces. If these subjects are important to us, then we need them enshrined in a constitution. Only a handful of countries in the world don't have written constitutions and the UK is one of them. That's why you can be forgiven for feeling that the UK Government sometimes makes up the rules as it goes along. Let's ensure that Scotland has a written constitution, drafted in everyday language that folk can understand, that can be taught in schools and of which citizens can be proud. Within the headings above, you would want the key principles, public values and rights to be made clear. That's what our site is all about; it's more than a website, it's an interactive platform that allows you to have your say. It's at By registering on our site, you can read comments, make yours and propose changes to the draft constitution and, most importantly, vote for your preferences. We are not trying to protect our draft constitution because our sole charitable purpose is to encourage consultation and engagement. Where the draft ends up depends on you. We need to be campaigning all the time, and so a constitution should be serving a far more immediate purpose for us all. It should be the tool to help answer the doorstep questions such as, 'How will an independent Scotland be different from now?' and 'How would the new country be set up?'. Chiselled in Iona marble on the Canongate Wall of our Scottish Parliament, the late Alasdair Gray reminded us to 'work as if you live in the early days of a better nation'. Should we not still be doing that? Although some parties have gone quiet, is it not up to us to assert ourselves, day and daily? Drafting the constitution is our opportunity to shape that better nation. We will be happy to give a presentation to your local group too, to take this further. Because the talk is basically a guided tour of the interactive platform it really lends itself to a Zoom meeting and we have given around 25 of these around the country already. Let's hear from you! is a registered Scottish charity with the aim of advancing participative democracy within the community of Scotland. You can read more than 1000 comments across 15 articles and participate in preparing a Scottish Constitution. Join in and have your say in how you think an independent Scotland should be governed. To interested groups, the Constitution for Scotland team offer a 'Guest Speaker' introduction, demonstration and Q&A session within your own Zoom meeting. For more information and to arrange an event, please contact info@
