 E liciwyr yn cyncheddurig yng Nghymru o ri ffadri am y cyfrifio 14602 yw fel Bill Kid o'r Cysybudd i'r cyfrifio ymunoedd o'r Cysybudd i'r cyfrifio 16. Fylltio 5, ac yn arweinydd annu Wells Msp, yn baut i'ch正u ar gyfer numbig a phwyl i'r cysybudd i'r cyfrifio sy'n cwestiynau i'r cysybudd i'r callu i'r cyfrifio i'r cysybudd a bwyl i'n cysybudd i'r cysybudd i'r cyfrifio 15602 yn cysybudd i'r cyfrifio ymunoedd The details of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointment Committee's consideration of the complaint made against annuals MSP are set out in the report published by committee on 1 November. The report includes a copy of the investigation by the commissioner for ethical standards in public life in Scotland. In summary, the complaint was that annuals sought political advantage by making advanced public comment on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee's report on prisoner voting in Scotland. The Parliament has made it clear previously that when a committee deems information to be confidential, notably in relation to a committee report, it should remain confidential until any agreed publication date. The Equalities and Human Rights Committee had agreed that the report in question be subject to an embargo until 14 May. However, comments on the report attributed to annuals were included in a press release issued on 11 May and subsequently reported in a newspaper on the same day. The commissioner therefore concluded that annuals had breached paragraphs 12, 15 and 16 of section 7 of the confidentiality rules contained in the code of conduct for MSPs. The Standards and Public Appointments Committee noted annuals' explanation recorded in the commissioner's report that her remarks merely reflected her party's long-standing position and had been prompted by inquiries from the press. However, her comments referred to the committee's deliberations and expressed that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist parties dissent with the committee's report. That is in breach of the code of conduct. When an MSP discloses the details of an unpublished committee report, particularly to record dissent, it seriously undermines the impact of the report and is considered deeply disrespectful to fellow committee members and to everyone involved in their inquiry. Any MSP who finds themselves in a position of uncertainty can take advice from committee or standards clerks before responding to inquiries in order to satisfy themselves that any actions that they wish to take do not breach the code of conduct. The Standards, Procedures and Appointments Committee agreed unanimously with the findings, in fact, and conclusions of the commissioner. The committee also agreed unanimously to recommend to Parliament a sanction that it considered to be proportionate and reasonable. The committee considered previous breaches of the code of conduct of a similar nature and agreed that the sanctions against annuals should mirror the sanctions given for those breaches. Therefore, the committee agreed to recommend to Parliament that annuals MSP be excluded from all meetings of the Parliament and its committees for the first five sitting days immediately after the motion is agreed to. I move that the Parliament notes the sixth report 2018, Session 5, of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee complaint against annuals MSP, S.P. paper 408, and agrees to impose the sanction recommended in the report that annuals MSP be excluded from all meetings of the Parliament and all meetings of its committees for the first five sitting days after the motion is agreed to. The Scottish Conservatives accept that annuals MSP was in breach of what we believe to be a technical charge. However, we believe that the procedure was not in the public interest. In fact, the process that we are involved in is not helping one single person in Scotland, the people whom we are all here to represent. Moreover, the proposed sanction is disproportionate to the offence. The complaint itself is regrettable and utterly unhelpful, apart from scoring political points. I also want to put on record that annuals did not seek or gain anything from the remarks that she made. The media had already published stories and Annie merely commented on those news reports that were, by then, in the public domain. In fact, the substitution of one word in Annie's statement could have made the difference between Annie receiving the proposed sanction before us and having no case to answer. In the wake of the news of this judgment, Annie Wells has been subjected to, frankly, abhorrent online abuse. This type of abuse is aimed increasingly at the female MSPs sitting behind me, and I will let you make your own judgments on why they have been singled out. Those attacks are a disgrace and none of us should ever accept that they come with the territory. Annie has been brought up before the Ethical Commissioner and Standards Committee and is potentially facing a similar sanction to those MSPs, whom this Parliament has previously determined to have deliberately and willfully leaked reports. Annie did not do that, and Annie would not do that. It is not in her nature that she would never neglect her privileged position of public office. Annie is a proud advocate of her Glasgow constituents, as well as many other important issues that she stands up for. Annie is a responsible parliamentarian and an asset to this democratic institution. That is why, after careful deliberation, we will be voting against the sanction today, and I invite others to do the same. The question on this motion will be put at decision time to which we now turn. There are three questions. The first question is that motion 14666, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on motion of remembrance, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 14665, in the name of Ash Denham, on the Prescription Scotland bill be agreed. In this case, we have to have a vote because it is an act of parliament, so can members please press their buttons now. The result of the vote on motion 14665, in the name of Ash Denham, is yes, 111. There were zero, no votes, there were zero abstentions. The motion is therefore unanimously agreed and the Prescription Scotland bill is passed. The final question is that motion 14602, in the name of Bill Kidd, on complaint against Annie Wells, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members be cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14602, in the name of Bill Kidd, is yes, 84, no, 27, there were no abstentions and the motion is therefore agreed. Point of order, Mr Stevenson. Presiding Officer, in today's members' debate at 2.30, there was considerable or program and repeated comment about the absence of two of the Government's ministers from responding to the debate. If it were to be the case that the members making those comments were aware of section 7 of the ministerial code, which governs the participation of ministers in matters that relate to their own constituency, would it have been a lack of respect and courtesy to members? Just to be clear, Presiding Officer, I have no suggestion that the members were aware of the requirements of the ministerial code in relation to my two colleagues, but it would be helpful if you could guide us as to future conduct of members in relation to a matter of this kind. Thank you very much, Mr Stevenson. I was in the chair, so I did hear all the contributions, including your own measured contribution to that debate. In this case, the ministerial code is not a matter for my interpretation, it is a matter for each individual member to make themselves aware or otherwise. In that case, although the attacks were political, they were not disrespectful. In that case, there is no point of order for me to rule on. On that note, I close this meeting of Parliament.