16 November 2017: James Hynd- Head of Cabinet, Parliament and Governance Division, emailed (Private Secretary 1 to Evans). (Policy on Complaints Against Ministers.)” As requested”. James.
Afternote: In his statement to the Holyrood Inquiry Hynd said he had been charged with developing a new complaints procedure policy by the Cabinet on 31 October 2017. and “for the avoidance of doubt” Sturgeon was keen that the new policy should be overhauled to include former ministers.
Comment: But Hynd later responded to Mackinnon talking about the “route map” she had sent him following her meeting with Evans asking if the pathway concerning former ministers was informed by legal advice. Hynd was not the person who raised the “former ministers” aspect of the new procedures
16 November 2017: Hynd forwarded a copy of the draft policy to the office of the UK Government, Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood seeking approval to implement the new procedure. It was not forthcoming. See the exchange of heavily redacted mail correspondence and transfer of the draft procedure to London.
Leslie was keen that you had the chance to see the proposal a) for any
thoughts/advice you could offer and b) to make sure that any approach of this sort would not cause difficulties at your end of things. Very happy to discuss on the phone if that would be easier and quicker for you.
17 November 2017: Hynd circulated to the Scottish Government civil service senior management team, and Lloyd (first sight, at her request) a second draft procedure titled “Handling of sexual harassment complaints involving current or former ministers.”
17 November 2017: Approval was not forthcoming. Instead the response expressed grave concerns about implications for politicians throughout the UK if the Scottish Government would be permitted to act in isolation from the other governments of GB and Northern Ireland introducing a process for complaints about ministers and former ministers which had not been universally approved.
The cabinet Office instructed that the policy changes should be deferred until such time as the other governments had completed their own reviews.
Reference was also made to the unfairness of the revised policies which demanded standards of personal conduct for Scottish politicians greatly in excess of those for civil servants which remained unchanged. Double standards were not acceptable. The document was unfit for introduction.
Afternote
Afternote 1: 16/17 Nov 2017, Hynd /Somers and the Cabinet Office in London exchanged views:: The “Cabinet Office” in London exposed the hypocrisy of the intent behind the proposed changes and rightly blocked the proposals.
16 Nov 2017, 22:27: Hynd: to: Cabinet Office, London “As we have just briefly discussed, I attach a draft paper setting out the process to be followed in the event that we receive a complaint of sexual harassment against a former Minister. For completeness, the draft also describes the process for dealing with a complaint against a current Minister. As you will see, there are a couple of areas still in development where we have still to decide between alternative options but hopefully overall you will get the gist of what we are seeking to do. Leslie was keen that you had the chance to see the proposal:
(a) Any thoughts/advice
(b) to ensure that our approach , if implemented, would not cause difficulties at your end. Very happy to discuss on the phone if that would be easier and quicker for you.
16 Nov 2017, 22:35: Cabinet Office, London: to: Hynd: “Of course. I can’t see a paper attached.”
16 Nov 2017, 23:29: Hynd: to: Cabinet Office, London: “Thanks. I sent it from my iPhone. Hopefully it’s come through this time.”
17 Nov 2017, 10:48: Cabinet Office, London: To: Hynd:
“Hi James. This feels very uncomfortable to be highlighting a process for complaints about Ministers and former Ministers. I am doing a quick review for Jeremy on whether our processes have kept pace with developments/concerns – would it be possible to wait?”
17 November 2017: Hynd forwarded the Cabinet Office response to Sturgeon’s Principle Private Secretary (PPS), John Somers.
17 Nov 2017, 11:03: From: John Somers: To: Hynd. “Oh dear, I did wonder if that would be their reaction. Not sure how long their review will take but FM and Perm Sec. keen to resolve quickly and to discuss on Tuesday.
I suspect we don’t have a policy on former civil servants.
But we are looking at this in the context of the overall review of policies and the justification for having something about Ministers is the action that Parliament is taking in light of allegations about MSP conduct –which includes a recent SG Minister?
Might be worth getting Nicky’s take on the question about civil servants…”
Afternote 2: Questioned by the Holyrood Inquiry Hynd said: “Sturgeon was keen to take national leadership on the matter and delaying implementation of the new procedure was not an option for her.”
Comment: Of note was that the procedure for civil servants was not updated to include retrospective consideration of harassment allegations.
Afternote 3: Lloyd in her written statement to the Holyrood Inquiry said the inclusion of herself in the circulation of the draft procedure created a requirement to identify and amend the ministerial code since the code was Sturgeon’s responsibility.
Comment: But the Ministerial Code and the proposed complaints procedure was the business of the Civil Service and Lloyd had no legitimate input.
Afternote 4: So there it is. A complaint of sexual harassment against a former male Civil Servant, would not be investigated, It would be for the complainant to inform the police.
17 November 2017: Somers and Evans exchanged notes of progress with Liz Lloyd.
20 November 2017: Somers, Principal Private Secretary, to Sturgeon met with Ms A, at her request, in the First Minister’s office. She told him the purpose of her informal meeting with Sturgeon was to relate to her information that she thought would improve the organization. She stressed she was not making a complaint, she simply wanted to assess with Sturgeon her options on how she could best share her experiences.
Ms A was denied access to Sturgeon by Somers but was thereafter subjected to intense pressure from senior civil service managers and other senior political and legal persons to register a complaint against Alex given assurances that all of her concerns would be resolved to her satisfaction through use of “newly drafted” all-encompassing procedures, which she would have a hand in compiling. In this regard she placed her trust in and was used by the Scottish government as a sacrificial lamb in a political vendetta against Alex.
Afternote: Somers (gatekeeper to Sturgeon) told the Holyrood Inquiry that he had not briefed Sturgeon about his meeting with Ms A or her request for a private meeting with the her upholding his commitment to her to keep the details of their conversation secret. He said: “I wouldn’t tell Sturgeon because it wasn’t my experience to share. That was my first priority. Secondly, had I done that, I would have put Sturgeon in a state of knowledge about something she couldn’t have taken action upon at that point.”
The last sentence of Somers statement revealed the true intent of cruel denial of access to Sturgeon by Ms A since the decision to prevent Sturgeon from access to any knowledge of a complaint had been taken beforehand.
caltonjock 