The Scottish Government’s “Fairness at Work” policy, in place up to Dec, 2017, provided a framework for addressing workplace issues, including harassment, but it was primarily designed for Civil Servants and did not explicitly cover complaints against ministers.
A specific procedure for handling harassment complaints involving current or former ministers was introduced in Dec, 2017, building on the expectations of the Ministerial Code and the existing Fairness at Work policy.
Below is an overview of the harassment reporting procedures, focusing on the Permanent Secretary’s role in reporting ministerial misconduct and the requirement to advise the First Minister, based on available information.
The, “Fairness at Work” policy was the Scottish Government’s internal framework for addressing workplace concerns, including bullying and harassment, primarily for Civil Servants.
While the policy set out mechanisms for reporting workplace issues, it was not specifically tailored to handle complaints against ministers until the new procedure was introduced in Dec, 2017.
Staff could raise concerns through various channels, such as a senior manager, HR, or a trade union representative.
These concerns would typically be escalated to the Director of People for consideration and to ensure support for the complainant.
The policy focused on workplace issues among Civil Servants, with limited guidance on handling complaints against ministers.
Allegations involving ministers were generally addressed under the Scottish Ministerial Code, which outlined expectations for ministerial conduct but lacked a detailed process for harassment complaints.
The policy encouraged informal resolution where possible, such as mediation or discussion, but formal complaints could be pursued if informal routes were insufficient.
The process emphasized fairness, dignity, and respect, with support offered to staff raising concerns.
Prior to Dec, 2017, the Permanent Secretary, as the head of the Scottish Civil Service, had a duty to ensure a safe workplace and uphold the Civil Service Code’s values of integrity, honesty, objectivity, and impartiality.
However, there was no specific, formalized procedure for the Permanent Secretary to report ministerial misconduct, particularly harassment, until the new procedure was established.
The Ministerial Code placed responsibility on the First Minister to oversee ministerial conduct, but the process for handling complaints against ministers was less defined.
The Permanent Secretary is responsible for the day-to-day management of Civil Servants and ensuring compliance with workplace policies.
If a complaint involved a minister, the Permanent Secretary would typically need to navigate the Ministerial Code, which required the First Minister to address breaches of conduct.
The “Fairness at Work” policy did not explicitly mandate the Permanent Secretary to report ministerial misconduct directly to the First Minister.
Instead, such issues were handled on a case-by-case basis, often relying on informal escalation or consultation with HR and legal advisors.
In the absence of a dedicated procedure, any allegations of ministerial misconduct would likely be escalated to the Permanent Secretary, who would then decide how to proceed, potentially involving the First Minister or legal advisors, depending on the severity of the issue.
There was no explicit requirement in the “Fairness at Work” policy or the Ministerial Code, as they stood before Dec 2017, mandating the Permanent Secretary to advise the First Minister “timeously” (promptly) about ministerial misconduct.
The Scottish Ministerial Code (pre-2017, versions) placed ultimate responsibility for ministerial conduct with the First Minister.
If a serious issue arose, the Permanent Secretary would likely need to inform the First Minister to ensure compliance with the Code, but the timing and process was not strictly codified.
In practice, the Permanent Secretary would likely advise the First Minister of significant issues, such as harassment allegations, as part of their duty to maintain a safe workplace and support the government’s operations.
However, without a formal procedure, this depended on the Permanent Secretary’s discretion and the specifics of the case.
The #MeToo movement and increased public attention to workplace harassment in 2017, prompted a review of the Scottish Government’s procedures.
31 Oct 2017, Scottish Ministers commissioned the Permanent Secretary to review and update harassment policies, leading to the development of the new procedure before the end of Dec 2017.
Before this, the process for advising the First Minister was less structured.
The new procedure, agreed in Dec 2017, and published in Feb 2018, formalized the process for handling harassment complaints against current or former ministers.
Formal Reporting to the First Minister: The new procedure explicitly required the Permanent Secretary to inform the First Minister when a formal complaint of harassment was raised against a current minister.
The First Minister would then instruct the Permanent Secretary to investigate the complaint and provide a report of the facts or seek a mutually agreed resolution.
The Permanent Secretary was tasked with ensuring that staff raising complaints received necessary support throughout the process and that any further action within the civil service was addressed.
For complaints against current ministers, the Permanent Secretary would oversee the investigation, ensuring it adhered to HR best practices and legal advice.
For former ministers, the Permanent Secretary would inform the relevant Party leader if the minister belonged to a different administration, and the investigation would proceed as far as possible, even if the former minister declined to cooperate.
The First Minister would not be involved in an investigation process to maintain impartiality, but would be informed of the outcome and be responsible for any further action if the minister was from the ruling administration.
The “Fairness at Work” policy lacked a specific mechanism for handling harassment complaints against ministers, and there was no explicit requirement for the Permanent Secretary to advise the First Minister timeously.
Such notifications were likely handled informally, guided by the Ministerial Code and the Permanent Secretary’s discretion.
The new procedure introduced in Dec 2017 addressed these gaps by formalizing the Permanent Secretary’s role in reporting to the First Minister and outlining a clear process for handling complaints against ministers.
The review commissioned in Oct 2017, spurred by the #MeToo movement, indicates that the Scottish Government recognized the need for a more robust process, leading to the formalized procedure by Dec 2017.
Special Advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.
They are exempt from the general requirement that civil servants should be appointed on merit and behave with impartiality and objectivity.
But they are otherwise required to conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code.
As set out in the Ministerial Code, all appointments of special advisers require the prior written approval of the First Minister, and no commitments to make such appointments should be entered into in the absence of such approval.
Their appointment ends at the end of the Administration which appointed them or when the appointing Minister leaves the Government or moves to another appointment.
The responsibility for the management and conduct of Special Advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment.
It is, of course, also open to the First Minister to terminate employment by withdrawing consent to an individual appointment.
Special Advisers should conduct themselves with integrity and honesty.
They should not deceive or knowingly mislead Parliament or the public.
They should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or the private interests of others.
They should not receive benefits of any kind which others might reasonably see as compromising their personal judgement or integrity.
They should not without authority disclose official information which has been communicated in confidence in Government or received in confidence from others.
The principles of public life set down by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, at Annex B, provide a framework for all public servants.
Special advisers should not use official resources for party political activity.
They are employed to serve the objectives of the Government and the Department in which they work.
It is this which justifies their being paid from public funds and being able to use public resources, and explains why their participation in party politics is carefully limited.
They should act in a way which upholds the political impartiality of civil servants and does not conflict with the Civil Service Code.
They should avoid anything which might reasonably lead to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes.
The highest standards of conduct are expected of special advisers and, specifically, the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life.
Any Special Adviser found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing Minister.
The employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.
Special Advisers are employed to help Ministers on matters where the work of Government and the work of the Government Party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved.
They are an additional resource for the Minister providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available to a Minister from the permanent Civil Service.
The sorts of work a Special Adviser may be called upon to do if their Minister wishes it comprise: Reviewing papers, drawing attention to any aspect which they think has party political implications and ensuring that sensitive political points are handled properly.
Giving assistance on all aspects of departmental business, providing advice when matters arising are party political in nature.
Checking facts and research findings from a party political viewpoint.
Preparing speculative policy papers reflecting the political viewpoint of the Party.
Contributing to policy planning including ideas which extend the existing range of options available with a political viewpoint in mind.
Liaising with Party officials ensuring that policy reviews and analysis take full advantage of ideas from the Party.
Encouraging presentational activities from the Party which contribute to the Government’s and Department’s objectives.
Helping to brief Party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy. Liaising with outside interest groups including groups with a political allegiance assisting their contribution.
Speechwriting and related research, including adding party political content to material prepared by permanent civil servants.
Representing the views of the First Minister to the media from a Party viewpoint, if it is authorised by the Minister.
Providing expert advice as a specialist in the political field.
Attending Party functions (but not to speak publicly at Party Conference’s) maintaining contact with Party members.
Taking part in policy reviews organised by the Party, or officially in conjunction with it, for the purpose of ensuring that those undertaking the review are fully aware of the Government’s views and the First Minister’s thinking and policy.
SNP disciplinary procedures complaints handling and the cynical dismissal of government minister Mark Macdonald
The Chief Executive of the SNP, Peter Murrell, is married to Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of the Scottish Government.
An arrangement unique and universally deprecated in Western democracies since it blurs the division of responsibilities and in consequence can lead to a form of Government detrimental to the well being of the electorate.
In Jan, 2021, in a statement to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry, Peter Murrell categorically stated that Party policy dictated the policing of complaints within the Party was the responsibility of the Party Executive and it did not share case details with any other organisation unless the complaint highlighted a “clear act of criminality.”
At no time in the Autumn of 2017, did the Party inform any Scottish Government civil servant or special advisor of a complaint by a Party member against a minister of the Government.
02 Nov 2017, Mark Macdonald, MSP and Government Minister, was invited to attend a meeting with Deputy First Minister, John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, at which he was informed that there had been “chatter” among Party members about him in relation to the “MeToo” movement.
03 Nov 2017, The rules of conduct pertaining to Special Advisers created a conflict of interest when Liz Lloyd, Special Advisor and Chief of Staff to the First Minister convened a second meeting with Mark at which she briefed him about a sexual harassment complaint that had been lodged against him by a Party member.
She went on to advise him that his position as a minister of the government was no longer tolerable and he would need to resign.
The conduct of Liz Lloyd breeched the ministerial code applicable to Special Advisors and should have resulted in her immediate dismissal. It also begged the questions? Why was the complaint not dealt with by Peter Murrell, since it had been lodged by a Party member to a Party official and was therefore a Party matter? Who authorised her actions? Where did she get her information from? These questions remain unanswered.
04 Nov 2017, Nicola Sturgeon phoned Mark in the afternoon and told him he would be expected to resign from the Government that evening, which he did.
16 Nov 2017, Mark was suspended by the SNP after a second complainer came forward against him.
The entire event was investigated and concluded by the SNP without reference to the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government’s “Fairness at Work” policy (in place until Dec, 2017) was primarily designed for civil servants and did not explicitly address complaints against ministers.
A new procedure for handling harassment complaints against current or former ministers was introduced in Dec 2017, prompted by the #MeToo movement.
Key points about the pre Dec 2017, procedures relevant to Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial Code:
The Permanent Secretary was responsible for maintaining a safe workplace and upholding the Civil Service Code but had no explicit mandate under the “Fairness at Work” policy to report ministerial misconduct directly to the First Minister “timeously” (promptly).
Such issues were handled ad hoc, often relying on the Ministerial Code, which places responsibility for ministerial conduct with the First Minister.
There was no formal requirement for the Permanent Secretary to advise the First Minister immediately, though in practice, serious allegations would likely be escalated at the Permanent Secretary’s discretion.
The Ministerial Code requires ministers to act with integrity, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure transparency in government business.
Sturgeon’s statement emphasizes her adherence to these principles by forwarding SNP or MSP-related communications to her ministerial office and ensuring all government business is recorded and subject to FOI legislation.
This suggests an effort was made to maintain a clear distinction between her government and party roles, as required by the Code.
Mark MacDonald, a former SNP minister who resigned on 04 Nov 2017, raises questions about Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial Code, particularly regarding the conduct of her Special Adviser, Liz Lloyd, and the handling of SNP disciplinary matters versus government processes. The details provided, combined with web sources, highlight potential issues:
02 Nov 2017, Mark MacDonald met with Deputy First Minister John Swinney and Liz Lloyd, where he was informed of “chatter” among SNP members related to the #MeToo movement.
03 Nov 2017, Liz Lloyd, Sturgeon’s Chief of Staff and a Special Adviser, convened a second meeting with MacDonald, informing him of a sexual harassment complaint lodged by an SNP member and advising him that his position as a minister was untenable, effectively prompting his resignation.
05 Nov 2017, Sturgeon personally called MacDonald, confirming he was expected to resign that evening, which he did.
16 Nov 2017, MacDonald was suspended by the SNP after a second complaint, handled entirely within the party without reference to the Scottish Government.
The Special Advisers’ Code of Conduct, requires Special Advisers to act with integrity, avoid conflicts of interest, and not use their position for party political purposes.
They are temporary civil servants bound by the Civil Service Code, which emphasizes impartiality and objectivity, though they are exempt from the merit-based appointment requirement to provide politically aware advice.
Lloyd’s involvement, addressing a complaint lodged by an SNP member against MacDonald, a government minister, blurred the lines between party and government roles.
Critics, including Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP, argued that Lloyd’s role as a Special Adviser made her involvement in handling an SNP complaint “improper,” as it should have been managed by SNP officials like Peter Murrell, the party’s Chief Executive.
The involvement of Lloyd, who was aware of the complaint and briefed MacDonald, raises questions about whether she accessed information improperly or acted beyond her remit.
The Ministerial Code requires ministers (including the First Minister) to ensure their Special Advisers adhere to their Code of Conduct. Sturgeon’s failure to address Lloyd’s actions could be seen as a lapse in oversight, potentially breaching the Ministerial Code’s requirement to manage Special Advisers’ conduct.
Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and SNP Chief Executive, testified to the Holyrood Harassment Inquiry in Jan 2021, that the SNP did not share complaint details with government officials or Special Advisers unless there was a “clear act of criminality.”
He claimed he first became unaware of the complaint against Macdonald on 03 Nov 2017, at a meeting with Lloyd the day before MacDonald’s resignation,
This contradicts suggestions that Lloyd acted on SNP-related information, raising questions about how she obtained details of the complaint and who authorized her to confront MacDonald.
The Ministerial Code states that the First Minister is responsible for approving Special Adviser appointments and can terminate their employment.
Sturgeon’s failure to discipline or dismiss Lloyd for her involvement in the MacDonald case, despite allegations of improper conduct, could be seen as a failure to enforce the Special Advisers’ Code, avoiding her responsibilities under the Ministerial Code.
Sturgeon’s call to MacDonald on 04 Nov 2017, to confirm his resignation suggests she was aware of the complaint and endorsed Lloyd’s actions.
Her statement to the Holyrood inquiry emphasizes that she ensured government business was conducted through official channels and subject to FOI legislation, but the MacDonald case suggests an overlap between party and government matters, which the Ministerial Code is in place to prevent.
The lack of clarity about how Lloyd accessed the complaint details and why the matter was not handled solely by the SNP (as Murrell claimed was party policy) raises questions about Sturgeon’s adherence to the Code’s requirement to maintain a clear distinction between roles.
When questioned about the MacDonald case, a Scottish Government spokesperson stated only that MacDonald resigned following allegations “from outside the Scottish Government” about his personal conduct, without addressing Lloyd’s role or the process. The limited response did not clarify whether Sturgeon ensured proper procedures were followed, as required by the Ministerial Code.
The MacDonald case provided a “template” that should have been applied to complaints against Alex Salmond but was not.
The Salmond case, which involved allegations of sexual misconduct, further complicates the assessment of Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial Code.
Salmond accused Sturgeon, Lloyd, and others of a “malicious and concerted effort” to damage his reputation, alleging Lloyd was involved in the civil service investigation as early as 01 Nov 2017, months before Sturgeon claimed to have known about it.
A 2019, judicial review found the Scottish Government’s investigation unlawful due to procedural flaws, costing taxpayers over £500,000.
Sturgeon referred herself to an independent inquiry led by James Hamilton, which cleared her of breaching the Ministerial Code.
in 2021, A Holyrood committee found she had misled parliament (but not knowingly).
Allegations surfaced that Lloyd had leaked information about the Salmond probe to the Daily Record in Aug 2018, (later deemed potentially unlawful).
Her alleged interference in the investigation process raised similar concerns about her conduct as in the MacDonald case.
Sturgeon’s continued retention of Lloyd as Chief of Staff, despite these allegations, is inconsistent with the Ministerial Code’s requirement to ensure Special Advisers act within their Code of Conduct.
Unlike the MacDonald case, where Lloyd directly confronted the minister, the Salmond investigation involved a formal (albeit flawed) process under the new harassment procedure introduced in Dec 2017.
The MacDonald case was handled as a party matter with government involvement (via Lloyd and Swinney), while the Salmond case was a government led investigation.
The inconsistency in applying a clear process, suggests potential lapses in adhering to the Ministerial Code’s emphasis on transparent and proper procedures.
The Permanent Secretary, Leslie Evans, was not explicitly mentioned in the MacDonald case, but the “Fairness at Work” policy would have required her involvement if a formal government complaint had been lodged.
Since the complaint came from an SNP member and was initially handled as a party matter, it’s unclear whether Evans was informed.
However the absence of a formal government complaint about MacDonald meant the Permanent Secretary had no clear obligation to advise Sturgeon timeously under the pre-Dec 2017, framework.
If Evans was aware of the “chatter” or complaint, her role would have been to escalate it to Sturgeon, but no evidence suggests she did so.
The new procedure, effective from Dec 2017, would have required the Permanent Secretary to inform the First Minister of formal complaints against ministers and oversee investigations.
The MacDonald case predates this, highlighting the ad hoc nature of the earlier process.
Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial Code in the context of harassment complaint procedures and the MacDonald case can be evaluated as follows:
Strengths:
Sturgeon’s submission to the Holyrood inquiry emphasizes her efforts to maintain separation between her government and SNP roles, forwarding party-related communications to her ministerial office and ensuring compliance with FOI legislation.
She referred herself to an independent inquiry (led by James Hamilton) regarding her conduct in the Salmond case, demonstrating a willingness to be scrutinized, and was cleared of breaching the Ministerial Code.
Her commissioning of a new harassment procedure in Oct 2017, following the surfacing of the #MeToo movement, shows proactive steps to improve complaint handling, addressing gaps in the “Fairness at Work” policy.
Lloyd’s involvement in the MacDonald case, confronting a minister about an SNP complaint, contravened the Special Advisers’ Code by engaging in party political matters.
Her failure to discipline or dismiss Lloyd suggests a potential breach of her responsibility to manage Special Advisers’ conduct, as required by the Ministerial Code.
The MacDonald case highlights a lack of clarity in separating SNP and government processes, particularly with Lloyd’s role and Sturgeon’s subsequent call to MacDonald.
This was inconsistent with the Ministerial Code’s requirement to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain clear distinctions between roles.
The lack of answers to questions about how Lloyd obtained complaint details and who authorized her actions (as you noted) undermines transparency, a core principle of the Ministerial Code.
The Scottish Government’s vague response about MacDonald’s resignation does not fully address these concerns.
Allegations of Lloyd’s interference in the Salmond probe and Sturgeon’s delayed reporting of meetings with Salmond (e.g., not mentioning a 29 Mar 2018, meeting until later) led to a Holyrood committee finding that she misled parliament, though not knowingly. While the Hamilton investigation cleared her of a Code breach, the committee’s finding suggests potential lapses in transparency.
The lack of disciplinary action against Lloyd, despite allegations of improper conduct in both the MacDonald and Salmond cases, raises questions about Sturgeon’s enforcement of the Special Advisers’ Code which could be considered to be a failure to uphold the Ministerial Code’s standards for managing advisers.
The MacDonald case was handled as a Party matter with government involvement, while the Salmond case followed a flawed government process.
Peter Murrell’s claim that the SNP did not share complaint details with government officials contradicts Lloyd’s actions in the MacDonald case, suggesting either a breakdown in communication or undisclosed coordination.
This raises further questions about conflicts of interest, given Murrell’s universally deprecated marriage to Sturgeon blurring responsibilities.
Nicola Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial Code in the context of harassment complaint procedures up to Dec 2017 is mixed.
She took steps to maintain separation between her government and SNP roles and commissioned a new harassment procedure to address systemic gaps, aligning with the Code’s emphasis on integrity and accountability.
However, the Mark MacDonald case revealed potential lapses, particularly in overseeing Liz Lloyd’s improper involvement in a party complaint, which blurred government and SNP roles and may have violated the Special Advisers’ Code.
The Permanent Secretary’s role in reporting ministerial misconduct was not clearly defined pre-Dec, 2017, and there’s no evidence Leslie Evans was required to advise Sturgeon timeously in the MacDonald case, as it was initially an SNP matter. The lack of transparency about Lloyd’s actions and the inconsistent handling of complaints (compared to the Salmond case) suggest weaknesses in Sturgeon’s adherence to the Ministerial Code’s requirements for transparency, conflict avoidance, and adviser management.
caltonjock 