Shamed MSP Mark Mcdonald faces fresh investigation
Sleaze row MSP Mark Mcdonald is to face a fresh inquiry into his conduct after a former SNP colleague complained about his return to the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Parliament’s standards committee announced that the complaint would be referred to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life for investigation.
The step was announced in a statement which also said MSPS on the standards, procedures and public appointments committee believed there should be a “more robust process” for dealing with sexual harassment.
Should the public standards watchdog and the committee agree there is a case to answer sanctions under the MSPS’ code of conduct can be imposed. In the most serious cases they can include excluding an MSP from the parliament or withdrawing allowances and salary.
The investigation was announced as an answer to a freedom of information request confirmed that the former children’s minister had collected a £7,000 resettlement grant given to those who step down as ministers.
An SNP investigation into Mr Mcdonald has already found that the Aberdeen Donside MSP sent inappropriate and unwanted text and social media messages to women. The party investigation is also said to have found that he caused distress to women through unwanted attention and exploitation of his position of power.
A summary of the inquiry said there had been “persistent behaviour over an extended period of time”. Before Mr Mcdonald returned to Holyrood after a four-month spell away from the Scottish Parliament, the SNP MSP James Dornan wrote to the standards committee to lodge a complaint.
Mr Dornan said Mr Mcdonald’s presence at the parliament would be a “clear negation” of its duty of care to staff, arguing that he should not be in the same workplace as his victims.
The statement, read by committee convener Clare Haughey MSP, said: “Under the Commissioner’s Act, the committee may refer certain complaints to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life for investigation. Broadly speaking, the role of the commissioner is to independently establish the facts of a complaint. The committee will then consider whether it agrees with the commissioner’s findings and any question of sanctions. We believe this is the most appropriate way of handling this complaint.”