THE SNP yesterday claimed credit for having forced the new Labour convener of a parliamentary committee to resign her membership of a housing association in Glasgow because of an alleged conflict of interest over stock transfer plans.
Johann Lamont, MSP for Glasgow Pollok, told fellow MSPs she had decided to quit the management committee of the Glasgow Housing Association because there might be a perception her work there would influence her judgment as convener of the social justice committee which deals with housing.
The GHA is involved in organising the council tenants' ballot over the proposed stock transfer which will take place in November and will be the organisation to which the houses are initially handed over.
Anti-stock transfer campaigners had already threatened court action with regard to the possibility of Ms Lamont's taking over as social justice committee convener. And the SNP, which also opposes the large-scale transfer, complained that while a GHA board member, Ms Lamont would also be in charge of the process providing the legislative framework for its operation should the tenants vote yes.
Before taking the chair of the committee yesterday, the Glasgow MSP said she had been ''quite upset'' by suggestions that because of GHA's role in securing the best possible package to put before tenants, she would be prevented from doing the very serious work of the committee.
She insisted there was no conflict of interest as tenants would decide if the Glasgow stock transfer went ahead, but said she had decided to tender her resignation from the GHA in order to focus on the work of the social justice committee.
''This will not give the opportunity to those who would seek to obscure the work of the Glasgow Housing Association,'' said Ms Lamont. She also hoped it would end opportunities for ''mischief-making'' over the transfer proposals.
Her move was welcomed by all parties represented on the committee. For the SNP, Sandra White said she was pleased Ms Lamont had resigned from the GHA, as honesty and integrity had to be paramount in the parliament, and Brian Adam said she had made ''a wise decision''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article