Engagements
The reason why Campbell Gunn did not write personally to Clare is that she asked that that not happen. The apology, which was comprehensive, was issued in the way it was because Clare specifically requested that it not be made directly.
I said that Campbell Gunn had, in my view, committed a mistake and a misjudgment. I do not think that, as Johann Lamont has indicated, he was engaged in a vile personal attack on Clare Lally. To point out to a journalist that Clare Lally is a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet—which is correct—and, mistakenly, that she is the daughter-in-law of former Labour lord provost Pat Lally is not a vile personal attack and cannot be construed as such. It was a mistake to do it, for obvious reasons. It was a misjudgment, for the reasons I have already stated. I take very seriously the ministerial code and the special advisers code. I know exactly what is in the code and I know exactly why it is there. It is not reasonable to suggest that Campbell Gunn, in any way, shape or form, was responsible for internet abuse directed at Clare Lally.
Everyone in the chamber and everyone in Scottish society should condemn the few mindless idiots who commit such abuse on whoever they perpetrate it on. As just about everyone in the chamber has had the privilege of knowing Campbell Gunn over many years, no one in the chamber seriously believes that Campbell Gunn was responsible for orchestrating any such abuse. None of us seriously believes that, so let us accept that Campbell Gunn made a mistake and a misjudgment for which he has comprehensively apologised. That is the right way to deal with these things, instead of accusing Campbell Gunn of something that he would never, ever have done.
This is not a simple mistake about getting somebody’s family connections wrong. This is about a woman with a proud record of campaigning—a mother of a disabled child—who was called a “liar”, a “Quisling” and a “collaborator”. It does not get much more serious than that. That information was taken from a website.
We know that Clare Lally has fought for better rights for carers throughout the country. She has spoken to every party that will listen in the hope that something will be done to improve the lives of children such as her daughter Katie. That is why she has been involved in politics. For Campbell Gunn, that passion, that care and that spirit is for nothing because Clare Lally wants Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom. For Alex Salmond’s most senior adviser, her life experience and her struggle did not matter. For him, Clare Lally could be undermined and abused because she supports the union. Personal attacks by special advisers should lead to automatic dismissal according to the special advisers code. The First Minister has admitted that this was a personal attack. Campbell Gunn has admitted that it was a personal attack. The only thing missing is a dismissal. Does the First Minister not realise that, if Campbell Gunn is not sacked, we can only conclude that the First Minister has the same level of contempt for people such as Clare Lally as his most senior adviser?
I recognise Campbell Gunn’s reputation as a fine journalist; one just wonders what has happened to him since he came into the employ of the First Minister.
The personal attack that was made on Clare Lally was that, somehow, the fact that she wanted to engage with politicians on the issue of how you care for children undermined her ability to describe herself as an “ordinary” mother. That is the thing that she has found more hurtful than everything else.
Of course, from Clare Lally to J K Rowling and from Barack Obama to David Bowie, there is no target who is too ordinary or too powerful not to be attacked. Clare Lally is the kind of person whom we should encourage to take part in public life, not someone who should be abused, threatened and chased out of our national conversation.
Today, Clare Lally is not just a carers champion; she is a champion of everyone who believes in free speech. She is a champion for every woman in Scotland who has had the courage to lean in and offer a view, despite the sexist abuse. She is a champion for everyone who believes that a bullying Government should be stood up to and everyone who refuses to be shouted down by thugs with an iPad.
Does the First Minister not realise that, if he does not sack Campbell Gunn, we can only conclude that all the bullying that goes on, wherever it comes from, is done by order, by design by him?
I hope that, at some point, Johann Lamont will reflect on those last remarks. If she has evidence for what she has said, she should bring it forward; if not, she should desist from making such remarks.
I remind Johann Lamont what the code for special advisers says and why it says what it says. It was drawn up three days after the resignation of Damian McBride, the special adviser to Gordon Brown, because he was caught disseminating material across the internet and making up stories about the private life of Opposition politicians, which was described by the Labour Party as conduct that was vile and evil. The code says that disseminating inappropriate material will lead to automatic dismissal.
The email that Campbell Gunn sent to The Daily Telegraph could in no way be construed as being vile and evil. It pointed out that Clare Lally is in the Labour Party shadow cabinet and it stated, wrongly, that she is the daughter-in-law of former Labour lord provost of Glasgow Pat Lally. Is anyone seriously saying that that email is equivalent to the activities of Damian McBride? It is nonsense to suggest so.
Secondly, to conflate the mistake and the misjudgment that Campbell Gunn made with abuse on the internet does not serve Johann Lamont’s argument at all. Every one of us should condemn abuse on the internet. Every one of us should condemn that handful of mindless idiots who engage in such things in the early hours of the morning, but nothing in Campbell Gunn’s email could be construed as vitriolic, mindless abuse. He made a mistake and a misjudgment, but Johann Lamont does herself no credit and no service by trying to conflate the issues.
Instead, as a Parliament and as a society, we should stand up against that handful of people who are attempting to pollute the independence debate. The most invigorating and enlivening debate almost in political history is taking place in Scotland, and if all of us condemn such internet abuse and stand together, we have a good chance of driving it out of the debate. We will not do that by attempting to suggest that what Campbell Gunn did is the equivalent of the activities of Damian McBride. Nobody believes that and Johann Lamont should not say it. Instead, we should stand together and condemn true evil in society.
No. I have already made it clear that I hold Clare Lally in the highest regard. Her contribution, both in her life story and struggle, and the opinion that she has put forward on how we can make the lot of carers in Scotland better are valuable and important.
Campbell Gunn has not admitted that he made a vile personal attack. He has said that he made a misjudgment and a mistake and got his facts wrong. There is nothing in Campbell Gunn’s email that fits the description of a vile personal attack. Saying that someone is a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet and, wrongly, that they are the daughter-in-law of former Labour lord provost of Glasgow Pat Lally does not constitute a vile personal attack. No one seriously believes that Campbell Gunn is guilty of orchestrating vile abuse on the internet. It demeans Campbell Gunn to suggest that.
I remind Johann Lamont that, last year, Campbell Gunn got a lifetime achievement award for his contribution to journalism in Scotland over 46 years. This is what she said last year:
“Campbell has proven himself to be a tough but fair journalist, a thoughtful and wise observer of politics and thoroughly good company ... Few ... reporters can claim to”
be
“on good terms with all of those he writes about ... and this is a testament to his professionalism and his good nature.”
Does Johann Lamont really believe that the person she spoke about in such glowing terms only last year is guilty of orchestrating the sort of abuse that the Labour press release suggested he was orchestrating? It is just not true. Nothing in the email constituted that. Johann Lamont would serve her cause better if she said that it is accepted that Campbell Gunn committed a mistake and a misjudgment. He has apologised comprehensively. Surely that is the right way to deal with the matter, instead of suggesting that he was guilty of things that, palpably, he was not guilty of.
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02165)
Last week, I announced a judge-led inquiry into the Edinburgh trams project. Today, I confirm that the inquiry will be chaired by the former Lord Advocate and senior judge Lord Hardie. The terms of reference for the inquiry have been agreed with him. They will be to inquire into the delivery of the Edinburgh trams project to establish why it incurred delays, cost considerably more than originally budgeted for and delivered significantly less than was projected through reductions in scope. I assure the chamber that Lord Hardie will establish the inquiry immediately. We look forward to a swift and thorough inquiry.
Clare Lally is a woman whom I am proud to know. She is a loving mother of twins and a former mother of the year. Her seven-year-old daughter Katie has multiple disabilities. Clare’s experience of caring for Katie has inspired her to fight for better rights for all carers and, in this week of all weeks—carers week—we should reflect on how tough that fight is. The First Minister has acknowledged Clare Lally as a carers champion. He has even been to her house. Why did she deserve to have his most senior adviser undermine her credibility and unleash a torrent of vile abuse on the internet?
First, Johann Lamont is quite right: I know Clare Lally. I have met her twice. I hold her in the highest regard. Not only in terms of her own family—let me say that I do not regard her as an “ordinary” mother; I regard her as extraordinary for the challenges that she has met, faced and overcome—but, more importantly in terms of her contribution to society, her views on carers and the challenges that they face in general have substantially informed the Government’s approach in what has been done and in what was outlined in the consultation earlier this year and will be carried forward into legislation. I and the carers organisations believe that that will improve the lot of carers throughout Scotland, who do valuable and important work.
As for Johann Lamont’s description of Campbell Gunn, I do not accept that he was responsible for a torrent of abuse across the internet. I do not think that anybody who knows him would give that a moment’s credence.
Campbell Gunn made a mistake and a misjudgment. The mistake was obvious: saying that Clare is Pat Lally’s daughter-in-law when she clearly is not is a mistake. The misjudgment is believing that drawing attention in an email to someone’s Labour Party connections, whether it is that they are a member of the shadow cabinet or any other connection, was appropriate to do. That was a misjudgment because Clare’s views on caring and other matters stand regardless of her Labour Party connections.
Because he made a mistake and a misjudgment, I asked Campbell to apologise, which he did immediately and comprehensively.
Those who saw Clare Lally’s tears on the television last night will not think much of that as an answer. If we are talking about a response being ill judged, it could not be more ill judged than what the First Minister has said.
Clare Lally’s crime, as far as the First Minister’s most senior adviser was concerned, was to describe herself as an “ordinary” mother. In that, as the First Minister has reflected, she was being modest: she is an extraordinary mother. Her crime, as far as Campbell Gunn was concerned, was to say as a mother that she thought that her daughters’ future will be better if Scotland stays in the United Kingdom. She did not deserve to be undermined by Alex Salmond’s most senior adviser and then to be so abused on the internet that she had to shut down her Facebook and Twitter accounts.
The First Minister’s office contacted Clare while she was in Yorkhill hospital for her daughter’s appointment. It then sent her Campbell Gunn’s press release. Instead of sending a copy of a press release, should the First Minister not enforce the special advisers code and sack his adviser for a personal attack on a member of the public?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
Christine Grahame has a constituency question.
The code of conduct for special advisers is unequivocal both on what breaches the rules and on what the sanction for a breach should be. It says:
“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 ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing Minister.”
In this case, that is the First Minister, who has stood here and repeatedly stated that the special adviser disseminated material that was both
“a mistake and a misjudgment.”
The code does not just prescribe what is right and wrong; it states what the sanction should be. It says that, when a special adviser breaks the rules in that way, he should be automatically dismissed. What part of that does the First Minister not understand?
I have already said that Campbell Gunn’s mistake was obvious. He wrongly suggested in an email that Clare Lally was the daughter-in-law of former Labour lord provost Pat Lally. The misjudgment was in believing that drawing attention to Clare’s Labour Party connections in an email was somehow to be construed as undermining her views on society. That was the mistake and the misjudgment.
Ruth Davidson is right to point out what leads to sacking under the special advisers code: it is disseminating “inappropriate material”. I remind her that the code was drawn up as a result of Damian McBride’s activities in engaging in a systematic and deliberate smearing of political opponents and their families in the most disgusting terms. His activities were described by Tessa Jowell, from his own party, as “malign”, “vile” and “evil”.
No one who looks at Campbell Gunn’s email, and no one who knows him, could possibly put it in the same category as Damian McBride’s activities. Campbell Gunn was not disseminating “inappropriate material” in terms of the special advisers code of conduct. It was a misjudgment and a mistake, for which he has comprehensively apologised.
The First Minister will be aware that, because of CO2 emissions in Newbyres Crescent in Gorebridge in my constituency, 64 households will almost certainly have to be evacuated and their homes demolished, causing great distress. Although dealing with those issues is primarily for the local council, will the First Minister’s Government engage with the council should it request support?
This is not the first time that such questions have been raised in the chamber. In 1999, Donald Dewar dismissed a special adviser for giving misleading briefings to the media. Leading the prosecution was Alex Salmond. In the chamber, he challenged the then First Minister, stating that the culture started at the top. I will quote his question directly.
Mr Salmond asked the late Mr Dewar:
“Will the First Minister accept that what is required is not just a change of personnel, but a change of political culture? Will he accept responsibility for allowing a culture to develop...?”—[Official Report, 9 December 1999; c 1424.]
We have an unacceptable culture of intimidation and delegitimisation that reaches all the way to the First Minister’s office. Will he now answer his own question?
Yes. I will ask the relevant minister to see whether, in governmental terms, something can be done to help. Christine Grahame quite rightly identifies that that is primarily a council responsibility, but I will ask Derek Mackay to seek a specific meeting, with the member attending, to see whether anything additional can be done to help her constituents.
I have put the context. The email to The Daily Telegraph that drew attention to Clare Lally’s Labour Party connections was a misjudgment and a mistake, but it cannot be construed as a vile personal smear, as the Opposition parties have tried to make out. It was a mistake and misjudgment for which Campbell Gunn has apologised.
I point out that, last year, when Campbell got his long-service award, Ruth Davidson said that he was
“a scrupulously fair journalist who gives everyone—irrespective of party—a fair crack of the whip ... He’s also one of the most interesting and engaging people at Holyrood.”
Is it really conceivable that someone on whom Ruth Davidson heaped such high praise last year has turned into the sort of assumed dreadful person that she now describes?
If Campbell Gunn gave Ruth Davidson and every other politician in the chamber
“a fair crack of the whip”,
are we not due to look at what was in the email and not conflate it with the vile abusive behaviour either on the internet or in the activities of Damian McBride?
Campbell Gunn made a mistake and a misjudgment for which he has comprehensively apologised. A lot of fair-minded people will see that as a reasonable thing for people to do when they make mistakes and misjudgments, and they will not try to conflate it with what we should all unite against: the vile abuse on the internet that can pollute our political debate. Why can we not just say that such abuse is not the prerogative of any one Government, party or side of the argument, but something that we should unite against as a Parliament and as a society?
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02163)
No plans in the near future.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02164)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister just does not seem to get it. He was satisfied with an apology but continues to defend the criticism of Clare Lally; what is depressing is that, no matter his softer tone today, he continues to do so. What the First Minister just said to Ruth Davidson just does not wash. The special adviser’s intention was not to help with the Lally family tree; the intention was a personal attack on Clare Lally, and that is a clear breach of the code. Why does the First Minister not understand that?
The member says that I have defended it, but I have said that it was a mistake and a misjudgment. I have said why it was a mistake and why it was a misjudgment. If it is said to be defending someone to point out the difference between what Campbell Gunn did and what Damian McBride did and why the former does not constitute “dissemination of inappropriate material” as governed by the code, I think that that is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Most people will not regard drawing attention to somebody’s Labour Party connections as anything other than a mistake and a misjudgment; it is certainly not vile personal abuse.
One of Willie Rennie’s colleagues, Danny Alexander, said on radio this morning that vile outpourings, whether they are on the internet or from the First Minister’s office, should be condemned. How on earth can what was done be construed as a vile outpouring? How on earth can it be equated with the abuse that takes place on the internet? At some point, when mistakes are made—Willie Rennie makes one or two of them himself—is not an apology the appropriate way to go forward? I have made it clear what I expect from my special advisers; that is what I will do. However, is not the apology a reasonable response to something that was not vile personal abuse but a mistake and a misjudgment?
Clare Lally does not think that it is reasonable. She did not think that it was a reasonable apology. The First Minister must realise that to stand by Campbell Gunn is to defend this kind of behaviour. It is a matter of how we carry ourselves and how others see us. Clare Lally has something to say about carers and something to say about our country, but in Alex Salmond’s Scotland people have to be careful about what they say, unless they work for him. Is it not the case that Scotland is a little bit less of a free society today than it was last week?
Even in Willie Rennie’s terms, that is something of an exaggeration. My objection to the way in which the Opposition is dealing with this is two-fold. Given what all of us know about Campbell Gunn and his conduct over so many years, I do not think that it is reasonable to suggest that he has been in any way, shape or form orchestrating vile personal abuse, which understandably, whether it is in Clare Lally’s case or any other case, upsets the person who is the recipient of it. To conflate what Campbell Gunn did with vile personal abuse is unreasonable; what he did was a mistake and a misjudgment, for which he has apologised, which is the appropriate thing to do.
Clare’s contribution, which I take enormously seriously, along with that of other carers, has led to changes already in Government policy. It has led to the consultation that achieved a huge number of substantive contributions across Scottish society. It has led to the proposals that will be effected in legislation later this year. Amazingly enough, this is the first time at First Minister’s question time, answering questions on this basis, that I have had this put forward to me by any of the Opposition leaders.
Let us salute Clare Lally’s contribution, whatever her politics, to bringing the contribution of carers to the notice of Scottish society. Let us go forward with the legislation and make Scotland a better place for the carers of this country.
Ernst & Young 2014 UK Attractiveness Survey
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the Ernst & Young 2014 UK attractiveness survey. (S4F-02176)
The Ernst & Young survey is one of many substantial and encouraging reports that were released this week in terms of the Scottish economy. It shows that Scotland was once again the top-performing area of the United Kingdom outside London for foreign direct investment in 2013, with the number of projects reaching a 16-year high. That is intensely encouraging news. It contrasts, of course, with the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer some three years ago, when he warned Scotland that the debate on the constitution would put off foreign direct investment. Now we know that foreign direct investment is surging in Scotland, and now we know that this exceptional achievement has been achieved by Scottish Development International. Perhaps that is one part of the scaremongering armoury of Better Together that will finally be put to bed.
I thank the First Minister for that response. Of course, we welcome the 16-year high. Does the First Minister agree that the continued dominance of London, as was perhaps suggested in the Ernst & Young statement, risks overshadowing the rest of the UK and that the only way forward for an economic, prosperous Scotland in the future, and to put Scotland first, is to vote yes?
It is certainly true that the independent research from Ernst & Young shows that Scotland has a greater share of projects, not just in terms of our average and not just second only to London across the UK, but in terms of key areas—research and development and manufacturing. A very substantial percentage of our inward investments last year were in those key areas, which helps to shape the Scottish economy for the future.
I really do think that the Opposition parties should bear this in mind. It is not that long since they were repeating the claims of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that inward investment and investment in the Scottish economy would be deterred by the constitutional debate. Now that we have the figures not for one year but over the past three years, will they finally move away from scaremongering and instead embrace the success in the Scottish economy and salute the progress of Scottish Development International and our other agencies?
Prioritisation of Road Repairs (Fix it First Campaign Survey)
As Mark Griffin knows, maintenance priorities are split between local and central Government. I will address the area under our direct control. In 2014-15, the budget for motorways and trunk roads is over £677 million, and 30 per cent of the budget has been allocated for maintenance spending on the roads. That is £214 million, which is 28 per cent higher than the £166.4 million that we inherited in 2007-08.
I am sure that Mark Griffin will accept that, as far as central Government spending is concerned, that priority, leading to a 28 per cent increase in maintenance spending on the trunk roads, in the face of the extraordinary austerity programme from Labour and Tory central Government, is no mean achievement, and that the figures demonstrate that our priority is not just to build new roads through the great non-profit distributing programme but to maintain the existing trunk roads and bring about some of the improvements that we both want to see.
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the survey published by Transform Scotland to mark the launch of its fix it first campaign. (S4F-02170)
The Government is committed to delivering a well-maintained transport network. The targeted programme of major road improvements is addressing Patrick McLoughlin’s much-quoted claim that there have been “decades of underinvestment” in our motorways and trunk roads. It is exactly those decades of underinvestment that we are now addressing, and with the M74, the M8, the M80, the A96 dualling, the Queensferry crossing and the A9 dualling we see substantial projects under way.
We are the first Government that is committed to linking all our cities by motorway or dual carriageway, and Mark Griffin will have seen yesterday the preferred bidder for the Aberdeen western peripheral route Balmedie to Tipperty non-profit-distributing contract, which brings us another step closer to completing a project that will create an estimated 14,000 jobs and contribute over a period more than £6 billion of added production to the economy of the north-east of Scotland.
I know that Mark Griffin is an MSP for Central Scotland, but I am sure that, just as he applauded the great projects in Central Scotland, he will applaud the western peripheral route starting with the route from Balmedie to Tipperty.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. Some 84 per cent of people want potholes to be fixed as a matter of urgency and, in the north, where that project is going ahead, the figure is 79 per cent. That is no surprise, as the report from the AA told us that 44 per cent of people have had their vehicles damaged in the past two years as a result of potholes. When will the Scottish Government step up and commit the resources to address the £2.25 billion road maintenance backlog that local government is struggling to cope with?
Commonwealth Games (Special Reserve Fund)
To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government last met members of the Commonwealth games organising committee and whether access to the special reserve was discussed. (S4F-02167)
The Scottish Government meets the Glasgow 2014 organising committee frequently to discuss a wide range of issues relevant to the delivery of a successful games.
I find this difficult to believe, but I am told—and Liz Smith will correct me if my information is wrong—that just yesterday Liz Smith attended a meeting at which the director of finance was present, but apparently did not take advantage of the opportunity and asked no budget questions of the director of finance or, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Commonwealth Games, Sport, Equalities and Pensioners’ Rights. Everything that I know about Liz Smith tells me that she would have taken such an opportunity, so I will give her full and fair opportunity to correct that information if it proves to be incorrect.
However, it does seem that both the cabinet secretary and the director of finance were available yesterday. I am sure that if Liz Smith did not ask the question, there must have been a very good reason for it.
I would be delighted to take the opportunity with the First Minister now.
A Scottish Government official stated that the special reserve fund was only to be used for “really unexpected, left-field” events, but in a parliamentary answer to John Lamont, Shona Robison confirmed that the recent request for £0.8 million from the special reserve fund was allocated for
“potential pressures that are associated with venue fit-out”.—[Official Report, 5 June 2014; c 31884.]
Could the First Minister—as the person who sanctions the use of special reserve funds—define the criteria that meet the “special circumstances” test, as described by Audit Scotland, and say why, given that this is taxpayers’ money, it was only through investigative journalism that the public were first alerted to these changes to Commonwealth games budgeting?
I see it confirmed that Liz Smith did not ask the question yesterday, which I have to say shocks and surprises me. I confirm to her that the situation has not changed from when the cabinet secretary answered the identical question from one of her colleagues just last week. The situation is that the delivery of the games continues on time and on budget.
I point out to Liz Smith that the total games budget is £575.6 million, including the £90 million security and the two contingency budgets: the operational contingency budget and the special reserve budget.
I do not want to get into Donald Rumsfeld mode and start predicting known unknowns and unknown knowns, but the special reserve fund is there because it is recognised that there can be events in the proximity of the games that will require this budgeted-for amount to be accessed. The protection for the public and this Parliament is that the fund has to be exercised by ministerial approval.
The special reserve fund is part of the games budget, which has been broadcast to this Parliament and elsewhere innumerable times. The games budget is £575.6 million. The games in Glasgow are being delivered on time and on budget. It is one of the few international events in history that can make that claim. I think that we, our partners in Glasgow City Council and the organising committee have done an amazing job to achieve what virtually no other games or world event has achieved. Is it possible that at some stage, perhaps in the enthusiasm when she attends the games, Liz Smith will give credit where credit is due to the organising committee?
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Breastfeeding