The bizarre case of Margaret Ferrier: what happens next?
When news initially broke of Ms Ferrier's apparently outrageous failures to observe basic Covid-19 related public health rules, I didn't rush to judgement. Several other MPs have broken the rules, as indeed did the PM's advisor, Dominic Cummings, who went as far to give a barely credible defence of his actions to a press conference. I imagined further information would come to light in the days afterwards, which would give us a fuller picture of what happened and, potentially, why.
Indeed, a fuller picture has emerged and it does not reflect well on Ms Ferrier. It is bad enough that she has committed such blatant Covid-19 breaches - including attending public venues while awaiting a test result (which proved positive) and travelling from London to Scotland on a train after receiving the result, lying to her party whip about her reasons. Worse still is that she appears willing to learn nothing, defiantly refusing to step down as an MP and entering a war of words with the party that has suspended her.
There have been some criticisms of the SNP leadership's handling of the matter. Ms Ferrier has claimed that, in an initial telephone call from party officials, they explained "they were sorry. They were going to have to take the whip off me but I would get back in because I was co-operating and had been honest." This has naturally led some to question whether calls from the First Minister and other senior SNP figures for her to resign are genuine.
I think anyone who has experienced anything of personnel maangement will understand that such decisions should not be made in haste. It would have surprised me if the initial phone call from SNP bosses had been to urge her to instantly resign. Disciplinary processes are important, and to thank people for their co-operation (not least in order to encourage it) is quite normal. However, something doesn't quite ring true with Ms Ferrier's comment that "I had been honest", not least as she had blatantly lied to the SNP's Westminster whip, and I think we should be aware of the possiblity that she is not being entirely truthful in her recounting of the conversation. I don't know what words passed between people, but I'm not going to openly criticise SNP senior personnel on such a flimsy basis. Whether or not "the door was open", as the Daily Telegraph suggests, I'm quite confident it isn't now.
Criticism of Ms Ferrier has come from all quarters, including her own party. The First Minister has called on her to resign as an MP. Ian Blackford has claimed that her determination to cling on to her job puts the cause of Scottish independence at risk. A former staffer, Derec Thompson, has hit out at the MP he worked for as a parliamentary aide, claiming she "is thinking of nobody but herself...Margaret has tried to paint herself as a victim in all of this. She's not a victim, she's a failure. By hanging on to her highly-paid position, Margaret continues to fail her constituents, her staff, her colleagues, and all the activists who worked tirelessly to get her elected." An unnamed SNP colleague perhaps created the ultimate put-down when decribing her as "hard of thinking".
The battle lines have been drawn this week. They are not, some opportunistic sniping aside, between the SNP and opposition parties but between the SNP and the MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. On one side we have the beleaguered and increasingly isolated parliamentarian - refusing to take any responsibility for her actions, claiming her constituents support her, playing the victim and resolved to continue to sit in parliament. On the other, we have an image-conscious party that understands having Ms Ferrier continuing to sit as an MP is much more of a problem than an unwelcome by-election.
It's difficult to have much sympathy for Ms Ferrier, not only because her actions were so unreasonably dangerous but because of the way she had previously heavily criticised Dominic Cummings for similar. Having previously challenged Mr Cummings' "integrity" and the way he had "undermined public trust", she comes across as not a little hypocritical, and the laughably pitiful excuse that the virus "makes you act out of character" is unlikely to go down well with the thousands of others who have contracted the virus and followed the relevant rules. The lack of contrition really has been astounding.
What happens next? The SNP have suspended Ms Ferrier and may well take the decision to expel her altogether. Even if that happens, she will not be dislodged as a constituency MP. We know that Ms Ferrier self-referred to the standards commissioner, who will now have a decision to make. We also know that the police opened an investigation on 2nd October.
It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of either the commissioner's report or the police investigation. However, there is scope for each of these to potentially lead to a recall petition (the most likely outcome in my view, although one that is far from assured).
Unfortunately processes are slow and the SNP, who would love to put this debacle behind them, will have to live with at least several weeks of acrimonious defiance from Ms Ferrier. The longer this draws on, the worse it is for them. Every day that Margaret Ferrier sits as an MP is a problem for a party that understands the value of its public image.
It would appear that Ms Ferrier has resolved to stay on for as long as possible, perhaps for financial reasons: she does, after all, have a further four years of pay to collect and there's not a thing the SNP can do about it. This is where the standards commissioner will be key.
A petition of recall can be exercised in the following situations:
A custodial prison sentence;
Suspension from the House of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, following a report by the Committee on Standards;
A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.
The latter doesn't apply and, as Covid-related offences do not carry a custodial penalty, the first is highly unlikely unless the police investigation throws up other offences... which leaves only the question of suspension from the House of Commons.
The Standards Committee will report and it will surely report that serious breaches have occurred. What is less certain is the length of any suspension. In recent years, John Macdonnell received a 5 day suspension for removing the Mace, Conor Burns was suspended for 7 days for intimidating a member of the public, Paul Flynn was served with a 5-day suspension for accusing Philip Hammond of lying, while Ian Paisley Jr was out of the House for 30 days for failing to declare family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan government. In the scale of seriousness, I would like to think that recklessly endangering public health during a pandemic and lying to party whips about reasons for travelling would be considered as issues of greater concern than those cited.
It is my hope, and actually also my belief, that the Standards Committee will determine that Ms Ferrier has breached the standards expected of parliamentarians and that the punishment will be sufficient to trigger a recall petition. If that happens, I am convinced that well in excess of the required 10% of her constituents will sign the petition - including many members and supporters of the SNP.
The alternative would be for the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West to continue to be served by someone who has lost all trust, who would be persona non grata among her former Westminster colleagues, who lacks both credibility and integrity, and whose political judgements are, at best, highly questionable. This would be a headache for the SNP, but more importantly would be a tragedy for Margaret Ferrier's constituents. They deserve so much better.
Comments