FORMER Justice Secretary Kenneth MacAskill has defended his successor’s failure to minute a key meeting about the future of Scotland’s top police officer.
Writing in today’s Herald, Mr MacAskill says government “can’t be conducted in full view... like Celebrity Big Brother” and ministers need space to discuss sensitive issues in private.
Michael Matheson was widely criticised last week after it emerged no minute was taken of a disputed meeting with former Scottish Police Authority chair Andrew Flanagan.
READ MORE: Why ministers must not be tied down by constant minuting
The two men discussed the SPA board’s decision to allow Chief Constable Phil Gormley to return to duty despite an ongoing investigation into bullying allegations against him.
After Mr Matheson asked the autonomous SPA to “reconsider”, the decision was hastily reversed, leading to claims Mr Matheson acted unlawfully by overstepping his powers.
Despite the meeting being in two parts, and Mr Matheson assembling a team of civil servants for the second half, no minute exists to clarify the matter.
Implying the lack of a minute was a deliberate choice, Mr MacAskill said: “The chat was necessary and rightly took place unminuted.”
Paul Johnson, the government’s director-general of education, communities and justice, has now told Holyrood’s public audit committee that although no formal minute was kept, the meeting’s conclusions were circulated among civil servants.
READ MORE: Why ministers must not be tied down by constant minuting
He told MSPs in a letter released yesterday: “Although no formal minute was taken, the officials present communicated the conclusions of the meeting to relevant colleagues at the time and the actions from the meeting were for the former Chair to take forward.”
It also emerged yesterday that Mr Gormley helped draft an SPA press release about his proposed return last November while on special leave, despite being accountable to the SPA.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats said it showed relations between the Chief Constable and his nominal oversight body were “too close for comfort”.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel