At the (virtual) Party Conference at the weekend, a large number of amendments will be proposed to the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ Constitution. Many of these are recommended by a Working Group (of which I was a member) appointed by the Executive. Others are proposed by the Executive themselves, mostly intended to improve or clarify the wording, and largely uncontentious. There is one, however, which was not recommended by the Working Group and which I believe should be strongly opposed.

Since the formation of the Party in 1988, the Constitution has set out the grounds on which a Party Member can be expelled from membership and the procedure by which this can be done. Until 2009, there was no provision for suspending a person’s membership while the grounds for expulsion were investigated or considered. A power to suspend was then inserted into the Constitution, largely because there could be occasions when the Party’s reputation might be at risk if it did not seem to be taking action about something unacceptable. The length of time for which a member can be suspended was limited to three months, after which it must lapse. The concept of “innocent until proved guilty” is an important one to anyone of liberal mind. Suspension, even for a short time, does deprive somebody of their rights and needs to be justified.

The Executive is proposing to Conference to increase the length of time for which a Party Member may be suspended to six months. I understand that the reason arises from our adoption of the Federal Party’s disciplinary process a few years ago. This process was a response to concern about the Party’s handling of complaints of inappropriate behaviour by Party Members, and it can be quite protracted, though cases now average about six weeks.

The Working Group received a submission that a suspension ought not to be limited to three months when the disciplinary process has been invoked and an investigation not completed by then. The Group, however, considered that the three month limit is still appropriate, but recommended as a compromise that a suspension could be extended for a month at a time, and only when the procedure had been invoked and was not complete. This recommendation was not taken up, and the amendment being put to Conference now would allow a six months’ suspension, whether the disciplinary process is continuing or not.

I have asked on three occasions why the Working Group’s proposal was not thought sufficient, but have received no explanation of that specific point. I believe a unilateral extension to six months of the limit for suspension would pose a significant risk to the rights of a member, especially if (for example) that person is a Parliamentarian or Councillor or aspiring candidate, since the member would not be able to participate in any Party activity while suspended.

We should hope that the Party and its members will always act in good faith, but a system that allows such a long period of suspension is open to abuse and we have seen in other parties examples of how rules can be used to frustrate the legitimate ambitions of their members. We are also the Party that stood up to Blair’s proposal to detain people for 90 days. That was a good example of Liberal principle and we should apply it here too! I hope you will join me in voting against the six-month suspension.

* John Lawrie is something of a legend in the Scottish Party. He is an authority on matters constitutional, experienced senior returning officer, a former Scottish Treasurer and Edinburgh Councillor, who has been a member of the party for almost 60 years.