COVID rulebreaker Margaret Ferrier could face a by-election as a Commons standards watchdog recommended she should be suspended from Parliament for 30 days.
The Rutherglen and Hamilton West MP was found to have damaged the reputation of the House of Commons and put people at risk after taking part in a debate and travelling by train while suffering from Covid-19.
She has already been ordered to complete a 270-hour community payback order by a court after admitting culpably and recklessly exposing the public “to the risk of infection, illness and death” as a result of her behaviour.
Ferrier now faces losing her seat in a by-election if the proposed suspension is backed by MPs, as anything longer than a 10-sitting day punishment can trigger a recall petition.
READ MORE: MSP Karen Adam on what an independent Scotland should look like
If 10% of her constituents back it, a by-election will be called.
Ferrier developed Covid symptoms on September 26, 2020 – a Saturday – and took a test, but still went to church and had lunch with a family member the following day.
On the following Monday, while awaiting the result of the test, she travelled by train to London, took part in a Commons debate and ate in the Members’ Tearoom in Parliament – that evening she received a text telling her the test was positive.
But instead of isolating herself, she travelled back to Scotland by train the following morning.
Daniel Greenberg, parliamentary commissioner for standards, said Ferrier had breached the code of conduct for MPs “by placing her own personal interest of not wishing to self-isolate immediately or in London over the public interest of avoiding possible risk of harm to health and life”.
She also breached the code because “her actions commencing from when she first took a Covid-19 test to when she finally begins self-isolation have caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, and of its members generally”.
The Commons Standards Committee recommended she should face a 30-day suspension, which MPs will be asked to approve.
The Committee found she had “acted dishonestly” by misleading the SNP’s chief whip and added: “Ferrier’s actions knowingly and recklessly exposed members of the public and those on parliamentary estate to the risk of contracting Covid-19 and demonstrated a disregard for the parliamentary and national guidance in place.”
The MP admitted that her actions had breached the rules on the reputation of the House, but denied the other breach.
She told Greenberg: “Whilst I made an error in judgment, I do not believe that I placed my personal interest above the public interest during the period in question.
“However, I did make a series of poor decisions that flowed from my original error which compounded the situation.”
She said: “There was not a moment where I was consciously aware of a conflict between personal and public interest and made a decision to prioritise my own”.
Meanwhile, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray said there should be a by-election in the seat.
READ MORE: Meet Scotland's new Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth
He said: “Margaret Ferrier’s reckless actions put people at risk and rode roughshod over the rules everyone else followed.
“It is right that Parliament has thrown the book at her for this unacceptable behaviour.
“There are still serious questions for the SNP to answer on what they knew and what they did at the time. Ferrier should do the right thing and stand down as an MP.
“Even Nicola Sturgeon called for her to resign – now (Scottish First Minister) Humza Yousaf must do the same.
“If Margaret Ferrier doesn’t resign the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West can exercise their right to boot her from office. Her constituents deserve better and that means a by-election.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel