Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of James Hynd’s Reference in the Scottish Government Harassment Procedure
This note provides a comprehensive examination of the Scottish Government’s introduction of a harassment complaint procedure in late December 2017, focusing on James Hynd’s role and his 27 November 2017 email referencing “one man.” The analysis aims to identify the individual Hynd likely meant, considering the timeline, allegations, and official responses, while acknowledging the controversy and complexity surrounding the issue.
Context and Timeline
In late December 2017, the Scottish Government, led by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, introduced an untried and unauthorized procedure for handling harassment complaints against former ministers, without UK Government approval. This was significant as it extended beyond current ministers to include former ones, even if no longer employed by the state. Less than two weeks later, in January 2018, two complainants came forward with allegations of harassment against Alex Salmond, the former First Minister, under these new rules. The complaints alleged incidents from 2013, four years prior, with no prior formal complaints, raising questions about timing and intent.
Allegations of “malice aforethought” surfaced, suggesting Sturgeon ordered immediate implementation on the day the procedure was completed by senior civil servant James Hynd. Further, it was claimed complainants were coached by senior civil servants and held back from formal complaints until the new rules were in place, strengthening views of targeted action.
James Hynd’s Involvement
James Hynd, Head of Cabinet, Parliament and Governance Division, was central to the review and update of the harassment complaint policy, commencing on 1 November 2017. Initially, the review focused on current ministers, but it was extended to include former ministers, a change proposed by senior civil servant MacKinnon on 7 November 2017. Hynd was initially unhappy, seeking legal opinion before proceeding, indicating concerns about the scope.
Hynd’s role involved compiling eight draft procedures, responding to suggestions from senior civil servants and Sturgeon’s Special Adviser, a politically appointed figure exempt from civil service impartiality. This adviser, personally recruited by Sturgeon, was involved in draft reviews and advised changes, adding a political dimension to the process.
Key dates include:
- 7 November 2017: Hynd met with Richards and MacKinnon; MacKinnon proposed including former ministers, tabling a “routemap” draft, which Hynd was reluctant to adopt without legal advice.
- 8 November 2017: Hynd delivered the first draft, noting “neither of the pathways involving Ministers look right,” indicating procedural concerns.
- 13 November 2017: Hynd wrote to senior civil servants about alerting Sturgeon to complaints against current ministers, emphasizing her involvement.
- 15 November 2017: Hynd emailed Evans’ private secretaries, doubting informal resolution of ministerial complaints, especially sexual harassment, would be acceptable to Sturgeon, underscoring her desire for direct involvement.
- 16 November 2017: The draft was sent to the UK Government’s Cabinet Office for approval, which was not forthcoming on 17 November 2017, citing implications for UK-wide politicians and double standards compared to civil servants.
- 17 November 2017: Hynd circulated a second draft to senior management, including Liz Lloyd at her request, and met with Somers, Evans, and Lloyd to discuss progress, though no record was kept.
- 24 November 2017: A meeting occurred to discuss Sturgeon’s instructions and revise the draft, ensuring Evans could investigate complaints without Sturgeon’s interference, highlighting tensions in responsibility.
- 27 November 2017: Hynd emailed Richards, saying, “Have looksee at the next draft procedure. All hands to the deck!!! Why so much urgency over one man??,” the focal point of this analysis.
Analysis of the “One Man” Reference
Hynd’s email on 27 November 2017, expressing urgency over “one man,” must be contextualized within the procedure’s development and subsequent events. The timing, just before the procedure’s finalization, and the allegations against Alex Salmond in January 2018, suggest Salmond was the likely target. The extension to former ministers, despite initial resistance and UK Cabinet Office concerns, aligns with this view, especially given allegations of coaching and delays in complaints, implying preparation for Salmond-specific action.
Official statements, however, deny targeting. For instance, Leslie Evans, Permanent Secretary, testified at the Holyrood Inquiry that the procedure was not “designed to get Alex Salmond” (Sky News: Alex Salmond: Scotland’s top civil servant denies harassment policy was ‘designed to get’ former first minister). Similarly, the Belfast Telegraph reported Evans’ denial of targeting (Harassment complaints procedure ‘not designed to get Alex Salmond’ | BelfastTelegraph.co.uk). Yet, the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints’ report highlighted serious flaws, suggesting corporate and individual failings, with Hynd under investigation for false statements by August 2024 (Report of the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints | Scottish Parliament).
The Wikipedia page on the scandal notes irregularities, such as Judith Mackinnon’s prior contact with complainants, violating procedures, and Sturgeon’s meetings with Salmond’s representatives, adding to perceptions of targeted action (Alex Salmond sexual harassment scandal – Wikipedia). The BBC also reported Salmond’s judicial review win in 2019, ruling the investigation unlawful, with costs awarded, reinforcing procedural concerns (What is behind Alex Salmond’s new legal fight with the Scottish government? – BBC News).
caltonjock 