SNP MP Patrick Grady should be removed from the municipality for two days for violating parliament’s policy on sexual misconduct, an independent committee has recommended.
In a report, the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) said it had confirmed allegations of sexual abuse against the former SNP chief whip after a party official lodged a complaint related to an incident at a social work event in a pub in 2016.
An investigation was followed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who concluded that Mr Grady had made “undesirable sexual progress” towards the then 19-year-old, which “included touching and stroking the applicant’s neck, hair and back”.
Created after the MeToo scandal, the IEP concluded: “Unwanted physical contact, with sexual intent, from a senior MP to a junior staff member, even just once, is a significant policy violation.
“This should be marked by some period of removal from the House.
Deciding on its sanction, the panel found that “relative age [36 compared to 19 years old at the time of the incident] and the authority of the defendant, unlike the applicant ”is an aggravating factor.
However, the commission added that Mr Grady’s “genuine remorse” for these actions and efforts to address his behavior had been taken into account in setting the sanction.
Publishing its report on Tuesday, the IEP added that the recommended sentence had been reduced “because the complainant had repeatedly violated confidentiality”; and these violations were “a deliberate attempt to publicly discredit Mr Grady, which led to him suffering from ‘intrusive media activities and abuses on social media'”.
They added: “For all the reasons we have set out, in this case it must be short and will be a little shorter than it could have been with regard to the applicant’s confidentiality breaches.
“We believe that the defendant should be removed from the Chamber for two days and that no day should be a Friday.
Speaking to the municipality – following the publication of the IEP report – Mr Grady told lawmakers that he accepted the findings “in full”.
“My behavior and the intention behind it were a significant violation of the code of conduct and the policy of sexual misconduct,” he added, acknowledging the age mismatch with the 19-year-old staff.
He added: “I apologize to the complainant without reservation for his conduct and for the disorder and suffering he has caused them.”
“I am deeply sorry for my behavior and I am deeply sorry for my actions and consequences.
“Any violation of the code of conduct and related policies risks damaging this chamber and causing stress and frustration not only to the complainant but also to the wider parliamentary community.”
Add Comment