JAMES Hamilton will consider if the Scottish ministerial code should be updated and if it should exclude the First Minister’s chief of staff and other government special advisers being involved in harassment probes.
The leading Irish lawyer cleared Nicola Sturgeon of any breaches of the code in relation to her meetings with Alex Salmond during the investigation into complaints made against him under a new procedure for dealing with harassment.
He also cleared the First Minister of any breach of the code relating to her actions in the judicial review brought successfully by Salmond against the Government. In his 61-page report Hamilton said he had been asked by the Government whether any changes to the code were needed.
Responding to the matter, he said in chapter 16 of the report: “The ministerial code: special advisers. Paragraphs 4.15 to 4.19 of the ministerial code deal with special advisers.
“Much of these provisions deal with appointment, distribution of posts, salaries and terms and conditions of appointment. Special advisers are subject to a code of conduct which was last revised in March 2017. This may need some further revision in the light of the implementation of the procedure.”
He added: “If the First Minister is to remain excluded from any involvement in the procedure consideration might be given to whether this should also apply to the chief of staff and other special advisers.”
He went on to raise the possibility of whether special advisers should be bound by stricter rules on recording contacts with people outside the Government.
“Consideration might also be given to whether some of the provisions of the ministerial code which apply to ministers should also apply with appropriate modifications to special advisers, for example, the requirement to record external contacts,” he said.
Towards the end of his report Hamilton addressed the remit he had been given on whether changes to the code were needed. He said he would not present any of his assessments on any such revisions in the inquiry into the First Minister, but would present his views in a new document. He added he would carry out the new work once any changes had been made to the Government’s complaints procedure if revisions were to be done. He said he would also involve the Government’s second adviser on the code, former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini QC in the work.
“The remit also invited me to consider ‘whether the ministerial code might need revision to reflect the terms of the procedure and the strict limitations it places on the involvement of the First Minister in cases which fall to be considered under the procedure’”, he said.
“In view of the urgency of addressing the other issues relating to alleged breaches of the ministerial code which are referred to in the remit I decided to defer consideration of this. It would also in my opinion be appropriate that the other independent adviser also take part in this process. It would also seem sensible to await decisions on what changes if any are to be made to the procedure. It might also be appropriate to consider the matters relating to special advisers referred to in Chapter 16 in this context.”
Earlier this month one of Salmond’s accusers rejected claims the First Minister’s chief of staff intervened in the complaints against him. The unnamed woman said allegations by David Davis that Liz Lloyd knew of the Salmond probe in February 2018, or got involved, were “fundamentally untrue”. Davis used parliamentary privilege in the Commons to make claims about Lloyd and the First Minister. However, one of the women who accused Salmond hit out at Davis’s comments.
In a statement, she said: “I am aware of comments from David Davis MP, in which he suggests the chief of staff to the First Minister, Liz Lloyd, was aware of and ‘interfered’ with complaints against Alex Salmond in February 2018. These allegations are fundamentally untrue and are being deliberately misrepresented.” The First Minister said she strongly refuted “the suggestions and insinuations from David Davis”.
Asked about Hamilton's follow up report and a need to revise the ministerial code, a Scottish Government spokesman said: “We agree with Mr Hamilton’s advice on this point and will await the further consideration of both independent advisers on the ministerial code.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel