Listen
Ministerial Code complaint
22/01/2010
First Minister Alex Salmond published the response he has received from former Presiding Officers Lord Steel and George Reid, in which they conclude that the referral under the Ministerial Code regarding the issue of class sizes "is not appropriate for the panel to consider", with a lack of "supporting evidence" to justify such a course of action.
The First Minister welcomed the response, and released the text of the letter.
The First Minister referred the matter to the former Presiding Officers on December 8, 2009.
Today he said:
"Having received this welcome reply from the Panel of former Presiding Officers, I have written to Tavish Scott - who on reflection did not wish to pursue this complaint - and to Hugh Henry who did, as well as to the Presiding Officer.
"After considering the matter, the former Presiding Officers clearly did not consider the matter substantial enough to warrant further investigation, given a lack of supporting evidence to justify such a course of action.
"I am entirely satisfied with this outcome, and have written to Hugh Henry saying that I regard the issue of his complaint as closed.
"This is the third time that a matter has been referred to the Panel, and in all three cases nothing of substance has been found.
"Having the former Presiding Officers prepared to serve in this way gives our Ministerial Code a strength which is not available elsewhere. However, Lord Steel and George Reid do make the strong point in rejecting this referral - as they did in their last report - that their role should not be regarded as a 'long-stop' for Points of Order and the normal process of parliamentary debate."
This is the third time that a matter has been referred to the Panel, utilising the arrangements established by the First Minister when he published his updated version of the Scottish Ministerial Code in June 2008.
The text of the letter from Lord Steel and George Reid follows here:
You wrote to us on 8 December 2009, asking our advice in our capacity as independent advisers to you on matters relating to the Scottish Ministerial Code. You had received complaints from Tavish Scott and Hugh Henry about your responses during exchanges in the Scottish Parliament concerning the Scottish Government's class size commitment being delivered in this Parliamentary session.
Following a review of the documentation, we made a request to both complainants to offer further evidence. Tavish felt the matter was closed following a letter from you and had no wish for us to investigate. Hugh did offer further questions but having considered these carefully, we have come to the shared view that this referral is not appropriate for the panel to consider. As we set out in our last report, our presumption is that most issues of this kind should be resolved in the course of Parliamentary debate and we should not become a kind of long-stop to Points of Order to the Presiding Officer. As you made clear to the Parliament when introducing the revised Code in June 2008, it should not be "an all-purpose complaints mechanism".
Evidence that a Government remains committed to their political goals in the face of cautionary advice from officials does not suggest, in itself, a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament. An exhaustive investigation of discussions amongst Cabinet Ministers and advice from civil servants - prompted only by supposition of what mayor may not have been said, but without supporting evidence - does not appear to be an appropriate use of the Panel nor do we think that such an inquiry would yield any conclusive recommendations.
In the words of the Independent Adviser to the Prime Minister, an analogous role appointed by the UK Government, our purpose "is not to provide a running commentary on matters concerning the standards of conduct of Government Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament and it is in that forum, and through the cut and thrust of political debate, that their actions should primarily be questioned". As a result, we note that Sir John Bourne had no referrals, and Sir Philip Mawer has only dealt with one.
There is no barrier to Opposition leaders using FMQs to press such issues and, if required, the Presiding Officer may wish to allow these to run longer to accommodate further debate. Other mechanisms, such as Members lodging motions to be taken at shorter notice under Rule 8.2.6, could also allow issues to be raised. The Presiding Officer may wish to consider whether these approaches would allow complaints such as this to be more readily resolved in the Chamber.
We continue to be available to investigate cases where there is clear, prima facie, evidence of potential breaches of the Ministerial Code.
GEORGE REID
DAVID STEEL