Calls for Watson to be stripped of title

Key points

• Lord Watson convicted of fireraising at hotel after political awards ceremony

• Protest as Mike Watson to stand down as MSP but remain a Lord

• Under the law, Mr Watson cannot renounce peerage or be stripped of rank

Key quote

"The footage also shows the accused [Lord Watson] returning to the room shortly thereafter and looking over at the burning curtain, as if checking the situation. He then left and made no attempt to report what he had done or the fact that the curtain was burning" - Adrian Fraser, depute procurator-fiscal

Story in full THE disgraced Labour MSP Mike Watson should be stripped of his peerage following his conviction for wilful fire-raising at an upmarket Edinburgh hotel, politicians demanded last night.

Watson, who could face a prison sentence, resigned from the Scottish Parliament yesterday after admitting starting a fire at Prestonfield House. He was immediately disowned by the Labour Party and will be expelled from it within the next few weeks.

However, he will remain a member of the House of Lords - at 192 a day, plus expenses, for every day he attends.

He is also expected to get about 15,000 a year in pension entitlements from his time as an MP, an MSP and a minister, and he will get a "winding-up allowance" of 18,867 from Holyrood to help clear out his desk and pay off his staff.

Under current legislation, he cannot renounce his peerage or be stripped of his title by the government, and politicians are demanding a change in the law.

Mike Rumbles, a Liberal Democrat MSP and the former convener of the Holyrood standards committee, said: "My personal view is that it would be appropriate if he is stripped of his peerage."

He said that if Watson had resigned from the Scottish Parliament, he should also stand down from the House of Lords.

Mr Rumbles said: "If he has felt it right to resign from the Scottish Parliament, which is a law-making body, then the House of Lords is a similar law-making body and it is completely inappropriate for him to resign from one and not the other. It is incongruous."

He went on: "It is regrettable - but there it is," adding that it was a matter for the Westminster parliament.

This message was reinforced by Alex Neil, the SNP MSP who stood against Watson in an acrimonious by-election in Glasgow Central in 1989.

Mr Neil said: "I think, as a general rule, people who have been convicted of a serious crime should not be allowed to sit in any parliament, and that includes the House of Lords."

He pointed out that serious criminals were prevented from sitting in the Commons and at Holyrood, and said: "It should be the same for the Lords."

The government did attempt to change the law and make it possible to strip peers of their titles if convicted of serious offences after Lord Archer was jailed for perjury, but this failed to get through Westminster.

Measures that would have led to peers convicted of a serious offence being stripped of their membership of the Upper House and their titles were to be included in the House of Lords Reform Bill, which the government had hoped to push through parliament in the last session.

But the bill, which would also have removed the final 92 hereditaries from the second chamber, was dropped after Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, acknowledged that it would have faced entrenched opposition from peers.

It is not known whether the government intends to resurrect the plan in any future Lords' reform legislation.

Watson refused to talk about his future when he left Edinburgh Sheriff Court yesterday, instead issuing a statement through a spokesman in which he announced his intention to resign from the Scottish Parliament.

However, his sudden resignation brought to an end one of the most astonishing and embarrassing political scandals of recent times.

Watson had faced two charges of wilful fire-raising at Edinburgh's Prestonfield Hotel following last November's Politician of the Year Awards sponsored by the Herald newspaper. The first charge related to the reception area of the hotel and the other to the Yellow Room. He pleaded guilty to the first, and not guilty to the second. The Crown accepted his pleas.

The depute procurator-fiscal, Adrian Fraser, told the court Watson had attended the awards ceremony and, later, a private function.

Witnesses saw him at a bar, where staff were clearing up, and he was rude to them and "asked forcefully for more wine". He would not accept that no more alcohol was to be served and, to calm down the situation, staff gave him an open bottle of wine from a nearby table.

About 15 minutes later, the fire alarm was activated. Staff located the fire in the reception area, and put it out.

Mr Fraser said CCTV footage showed Watson entering the reception and lifting something from a cabinet. He took hold of a lamp and started pointing it around the room, as if using a torch. He then bent down for a number of seconds at a curtain and left the room.

"At that point, the curtain was smouldering. As the accused left, he placed something in the sporran of the kilt he was wearing. The footage also shows the accused returning to the room shortly thereafter and looking over at the burning curtain, as if checking the situation," Mr Fraser said.

"He then left and made no attempt to report what he had done or the fact that the curtain was burning. Shortly thereafter, flames are seen to travel up the curtain ... and the room then filled with black smoke.

"Part of the evidence linking the accused to the fire was that he was later found with matches which he appeared to be attempting to conceal."

A senior fire officer said occupants of the hotel had been put in a potentially very dangerous situation.

Watson's drink-fuelled behaviour was said by his lawyer to be "incomprehensible", and it was suggested aspects of his private life might have played a part.

Watson, 56, was allowed to remain on bail until he is sentenced later this month. While background reports, including a community service assessment, were ordered, the charge is so serious that a prison term cannot be ruled out, even for a first offender.

The former minister declined to comment as he rushed from court with his wife, Clare, 31.

However, the statement issued on his behalf said: "This has been and continues to be a traumatic time for Mr Watson, his wife and immediate family. He fully recognises that his inexplicable actions on that evening, which were totally out of character, have caused great distress to a number of people."

Watson will learn his fate when he returns to court in three weeks.

His constituents in Glasgow Cathcart, who will now face a by-election in October or November, reacted in anger to his conviction and made it clear they expected him to step back from all forms of politics.

James McPherson, 45, said: "He cannot be trusted. He should not be in a position of authority. He should stand down. He should not be allowed in politics again and he certainly should not profit from this."