SGHHC/S5/21/7/A COMMITTEE ON THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS AGENDA 7th Meeting, 2021 (Session 5) Monday 8 February 2021 The Committee will meet at 9.00 am in a virtual meeting. 1. Division between Scottish Government and party political matters: The Committee will take evidence from— Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, Scottish National Party. 2. Review of Evidence (in private): The Committee will review the evidence heard under item 1. Clerk to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints Email: [email protected] SGHHC/S5/21/7/A The papers for this meeting are as follows— Agenda Item 1 Paper from the Clerk SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Private paper SGHHC/S5/21/7/2 (P) SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Committee on Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints 7th Meeting, 2021 (Session 5), 8 February 2021 Phase 2: Complaints Handling Evidence session 12: 8 February 2021 1. This paper has been produced prior to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints’ twelfth evidence session where the Committee will hear evidence from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive of the Scottish National Party. 2. Peter Murrell provided the Committee with written evidence on 4 August 2020 which can be found at Annexe A. Following this submission the Committee requested further information, resulting in Mr Murrell providing an additional written submission which can be found at Annexe B. 3. Mr Murrell gave oral evidence to the Committee on Tuesday 8 December 2020. The Official Report of this session can be found here. Following this evidence session, Mr Murrell sent the Committee some follow up information which can be found at Annexe C. Following this, the Committee requested further information, resulting in a further written submission from Mr Murrell which can be found at Annexe D. 4. In line with the Committee’s written statement on the handling of information and evidence all participants must comply with the court order made by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, on 10 March 2020 preventing publication of the names and identity, and any information likely to disclose the identity, of the complainers in the criminal trial. 5. The Committee’s remit and approach to its inquiry is available on the Committee’s webpage. SGHHC Committee Clerks 4 February 2021 1 SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Annexe A Written Submission from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, SNP (4 August 2020) Dear Linda I am responding to your letter of 7 July 2020. The fact that the committee intended to seek my evidence was made known to me by a journalist on 18 June 2020. A further enquiry on 1 August 2020 from another journalist suggests that the committee will seek to ask me about matters out-with the terms of the inquiry remit or approach to the inquiry as set out in Annex C. Notwithstanding those concerns, I have prepared my response after careful consideration of your letter, the terms of the inquiry remit, and the annexes provided. There are aspects of your request that are not entirely clear but I have sought to interpret them as reasonably and as fully as I can. 1. Separation of SNP/Scottish Government roles a) The principal onus of ensuring that politicians – whether members of parliament or government ministers – do not use public office for party political purposes rests with the individual concerned. SNP MSPs abide by the Scottish Parliament Code of Conduct and Ministers abide by the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Special Advisers are bound by the Special Advisers Code of Conduct and also the Civil Service Code. b) The SNP does not know how the Scottish Government holds information. c) The SNP expects any of its members who hold public office – including ministerial office – to abide by the relevant rules of their office in terms of the appropriate separation of roles. The SNP cannot be the arbiter of what is or is not government business as we are not privy to the detail of government business. My understanding is that government business is subject to Freedom of Information legislation regardless of the channels it is conducted on. I assume therefore that a Minister or SpAd could not use party channels for government business as a way of avoiding transparency. d) You ask me for instances where ‘this’ (by which I assume you mean instances where a minister has used SNP channels when they should have used Scottish Government channels) may have been the case. I am not aware of any such instances. However, it would be entirely appropriate for Ministers to use SNP rather than Scottish Government channels for party political business. 2. SNP disciplinary and grievance procedures I attach copies of the following documents: - - Code of Conduct for Members - Disciplinary Rules - Standing Orders for the SNP Group in the Scottish Parliament - Standing Orders for the SNP Group on the United Kingdom Parliament 2 SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 I also attach the Grievance Procedure for employees of the Scottish National Party based at our Edinburgh headquarters. The Committee will be aware that there are a number of additional employment relationships, procedures and policies within Holyrood and Westminster for all those undertaking parliamentary duties and activities in those locations or elsewhere. Finally, I am attaching an email issued to all elected representatives and staff on 31 October 2017. It outlines an additional confidential, independent mechanism for reporting inappropriate behaviour following the emergence of the MeToo movement and media reports concerning the alleged behaviour of parliamentarians both at Holyrood and Westminster. The SNP has no communications between it and any of the individuals listed in your letter, in relation to the complaints raised under the Scottish Government procedure on handling of harassment complaints invoicing current or former ministers. 3. Requests of me in a personal capacity a) I became aware that complaints had been made under the Scottish Government procedure when the matter became public in August 2018. I knew about the meetings between Nicola and Alex Salmond at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018 and I had the sense that something serious was being discussed. Nicola told me she couldn’t discuss the details. The nature of Nicola’s job means that when she tells me she can’t discuss something, I don’t press it. b) There was no action taken by the SNP in relation to these complaints before the matter became public in August 2018. c) The only such discussions would have been after the matter became public in August 2018 and in relation to the Party’s response. d) I was aware of meetings that took place at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018, involving certain of the individuals listed. I was not present at these meetings and made no contribution to them. I have no direct knowledge of and therefore no comment to make on the development of the Scottish Government complaints policy, the judicial review, the application of the ministerial code and the civil service code, the handling of the complaints by the Scottish Government, or the culture within the Scottish Government. Yours sincerely PETER MURRELL Chief Executive 4 August 2020 3 SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Annexe B Written Submission from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, SNP (2 October 2020) Dear Linda Thank you for your letter of 9 September 2020. In responding, I note the Committee’s statement of 29 September and the assertion that I and/or the SNP have not been forthcoming in providing the evidence that you asked for. It is therefore important to immediately put on record that the SNP takes its responsibilities seriously and has the utmost respect for the Scottish Parliament - as I do. I believe that my response of 4 August sought to answer fully the questions that had been asked of me, and I did so within the timeframe asked of me. For clarity, I do not accept that I or the SNP have acted in any way other than to cooperate with the Committee to the fullest extent possible. In particular, the Committee’s letter of 9 September, supplemented by emails received from the clerking team on 22 and 23 September, made additional requests to those previously asked. By definition, my written submission on 4 August did not cover these requests because they had not, at that point, been asked. I would also note that your letter of 9 September asked for a response “as soon as is practicable” but set no deadline. I had committed to the clerking team to reply within four weeks and by no later than 7 October. I am therefore not clear of the factual basis for the Committee’s claim that I or the SNP has either failed to provide material sought or missed any deadline set. In turning to the requests for additional material, in the letter of 9 September it is asserted in relation to my previous response that “the Committee’s intention was that you would canvass colleagues for relevant information and records as well as submitting any evidence you were aware of as an individual”. The letter then goes on to ask whether I did, or did not, do so. I would draw the Committee’s attention to Annexe A of the letter sent to me on 7 July. It explicitly asks that those asked to provide evidence do not discuss that evidence with others asked to give personal evidence. Despite this contradiction, I have sought to provide clarity in my response on this point below. More broadly, the SNP’s legal advisers have engaged with the clerking team to seek to clarify other aspects of the Committee’s requests.