The SNP MP Margaret Ferrier is facing a possible by-election as a parliamentary standards watchdog recommended she should be suspended for 30 days.
But it emerged that three Conservative MPs who will have a say over Boris Johnson’s political fate over Partygate tried to reduce the suspension of Ms Ferrier to avoid a potential by-election.
The Rutherglen and Hamilton West MP was found to have damaged the reputation of the Commons and put people at risk after taking part in a debate and travelling by train while suffering from Covid.
The cross-party standards committee recommended she should face a 30-day suspension, which MPs will be asked to approve.
Ms Ferrier now faces losing her seat in a by-election if the long suspension is backed by MPs – since anything longer than a 10-sitting day punishment can trigger a recall petition.
If 10 per cent of her constituents back the petition, a by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West will have to be called.
Three Tories and one SNP MP on the standards committee – who will have a say over Mr Johnson’s political fate – tried to reduce the suspension of Ms Ferrier to avoid a potential by-election.
The minutes of the decision show Tory privilege committee members Alberto Costa, Sir Bernard Jenkin and Sir Charles Walker and the SNP’s Allan Dorans all tried to reduce her sentence to nine sitting days – less that the recall petition trigger.
Tory Andy Carter and Labour’s Yvonne Fovargue – who also sit on both committees – opposed the reduction and voted it down with the backing of the lay members on the standards group.
But all six MPs backed Sir Bernard’s call to say the Recall of MPs Act 2015, which says a suspension of 10 days means a recall petition is triggered, “requires review”.
The two committees are different, as are the offences, but the Ferrier report gives an insight into the considerations going on behind the scenes in Mr Johnson’s case.
Mr Johnson awaits the outcomes of the cross-party privileges committee investigation into whether he lied to parliament over Partygate. If the committee recommends a penalty of at least 10 days, then he too could face a recall petition and possible by-election in Uxbridge and Ruislip.
Ms 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 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, she travelled back to Scotland by train the following morning.
She has already been ordered to complete a 270-hour community payback order by a court after admitting to recklessly exposing the public “to the risk of infection, illness and death”.
Parliamentary commissioner for standards Daniel Greenberg said Ms 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 self-isolation have “caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, and of its members generally”.
Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray said there should be a by-election in Ms Ferrier’s seat, saying it was right for parliamentary authorities to have “thrown the book at her”.
Mr Murray added: “Ferrier should do the right thing and stand down as an MP. If she 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.”
Ms Ferrier admitted she had breached the rules on the reputation of the House, but denied the other breach, saying: “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.”
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”.
