It’s a simple question but one which the current First Minister is having great difficulty with.
Should any government minister found to have broken the ministerial code be required to resign? It’s black and white, yes or no, with not much room for shades of grey.
Nicola Sturgeon’s reluctance to answer is based primarily on the fact that her actions on a number of issues are being investigated by James Hamilton, a former head of the prosecution service in Ireland. He is due to deliver his verdict on her conduct very soon.
So, in response to this question from opposition MSPs the First Minister has simply replied “Let’s wait and see what Mr Hamilton comes up with.”
With an election looming on May 6 to choose who will govern Scotland for the next five years is that answer good enough? I do not believe it is.
The people of Scotland have a right to expect that those who would govern in their name are above reproach and if they do get things badly wrong are prepared to face the consequences of their actions.
My own experience of this goes back to 1999 in the first months of the then new Scottish Parliament.
At that time there was a huge weight of expectation on not only the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition government but also every one of the 129 new MSPs. How would things be different from Westminster? That was the question.
The new administration’s biggest headache was the spiralling costs associated with the new parliament building. At one stage there was a real fear the project could be cancelled.
In one big debate then First Minister Donald Dewar revealed that the new anticipated cost had risen to £109 million. The trouble was that this was not the correct figure – a fact not immediately discovered.
The officials responsible for the project had not included the sum set aside for contingencies, around £80 million from memory, on the grounds this money was unlikely to be needed.
It’s fair to say that when Donald Dewar discovered what had happened he was extremely upset as he felt that by presenting the lower figure in such a key debate with the fate of the whole project on the line he, to use his own words, had “misled parliament.”
To a politician such as Donald there was no greater crime. He took his Ministerial responsibilities very seriously.
A meeting was convened with the then head of the Scottish civil service, Sir Muir Russell, to decide what should be done. Donald certainly felt this was so serious he would have to resign.
The ministerial code states that “ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the first minister.”
It was pointed out to Donald that the mistake was not his. He had not knowingly misled parliament as he had not known about the sum set aside for contingency spending and had truthfully reported the current estimate at the time.
The matter was resolved by sending a letter of apology to the then leader of the SNP, one Alex Salmond, and Mr Dewar also corrected the Official Record so that the true figure was recorded.
The Fraser Inquiry into the costs of the parliament building subsequently cleared Mr Dewar of any misconduct but that came four years after his death.
It’s also worth noting the then Head of the civil service, Sir John Elvidge, apologised for what had happened something the current holder of that post should be considering over this current fiasco.
There’s no doubt in my mind if Donald had felt he was to blame and that he’d broken the code he would have resigned.
Contrasting example from the current First Minister
Compare that to the actions of the current First Minister. On several occasions she told parliament the first she heard of allegations of sexual harassment by her predecessor, Alex Salmond, was on April 2, 2018.
She then had to admit she’d “forgotten” about another meeting four days earlier when this was discussed.
Bluntly, the First Minister, misled parliament about when she first heard the allegations against Mr Salmond.
Then there’s the issue of her meetings with Mr Salmond to discuss the complaints made against him by two female civil servants. The First Minister says that meeting comes under the umbrella of party business as she thought Mr Salmond was going to quit the SNP.
However, as soon as Mr Salmond produced the letter from the Permanent Secretary detailing the allegations against him it became a government matter and the subsequent conversation should have been recorded and a note given to the Permanent Secretary.
This was not done, nor were notes taken at three subsequent meetings.
Elsewhere in the ministerial code it says “basic facts of government meetings with external individuals should be recorded, including a list of those present, and the reasons for the meeting.” That didn’t happen and is also a breach of the ministerial code.
The rules of conduct also apply to special advisers, they are bound by the civil service code. I’m in no doubt if I’d leaked the name of a complainant to someone close to the alleged perpetrator my feet would not have touched the floor on the way out.
Why does this matter? It matters because the Scottish Parliament was created to do things better, to do things differently, to give the people living in Scotland confidence that those governing them would be above reproach.
Should Ministers who breach the Ministerial Code be required to resign? There should be no debate, the answer is yes.
David Whitton is a former Labour MSP who served as a media adviser to former first minister Donald Dewar.
