HOLYROOD'S standards watchdog has upheld a complaint against Labour MSP Sarah Boyack.
An SNP activist complained to the Scottish Parliament's Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, claiming the politician had failed to "include remuneration from her previous employment as the Head of Public Affairs at Scottish Federation of Housing Associations in her Register of Interests."
They also criticised her for not declaring her wages "as an interest at a meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee on 11 September 2019."
The complaint was probed by the Ethical Standards Commissioner.
Their investigation upheld the first part of the complaint, saying it was a breach of the Code of Conduct and the Members Interest Act 2006.
However, they said the second part of the complaint was not a breach of the Code or the Act.
The Holyrood committee said they agreed with the Commissioner’s report.
However, as it was "a minor and inadvertent breach" there would be no sanction.
Bill Kidd, the SNP convener of the committee said: "The complaint against Sarah Boyack was not related to a matter from which she could have gained any financial benefit and there was no attempt to conceal the information which Ms Boyack made available on the Parliament’s website.
"Furthermore, she took steps to update her register when the Commissioner informed her that she had concluded a breach had occurred."
Boyack made a surprise return to Holyrood in August last year after the resignation of Kezia Dugdale.
As the next candidate on Labour's Lothian list from 2016 she was suddenly offered the opportunity to become an MSP again.
She promptly left her job with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations to return to parliament.
The committee said this had to be taken into consideration.
Kidd said: "In addition, there are not many examples of Members having registered remuneration received prior to their return as an MSP. This meant there was limited precedent to draw on which might have informed how the relevant rules should be applied in practice.
"Taking into account these considerations, the Committee has decided not to recommend a sanction on this occasion."
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