Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the commissioning of a new pre-hospital critical care service for Edinburgh and the east of Scotland. (S7O-00058)

It has been two years since the Medic One helicopter was grounded. The Scottish trauma audit group has stated that, since then, only 3 per cent of the population of Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland receive life-saving advance pre-hospital care. The comparable figure for Glasgow and the west of Scotland is 32 per cent. That is a ten-fold difference.

The business case was nine months late and has been on ministerial desks since March. When will we get a decision about this life-saving service for Edinburgh and the whole of the east of Scotland?

Will the minister give way?

There is broad consensus in the chamber about the need to develop Scotland’s supply chains and to use public procurement to do so. However, especially in the Labour Party, we have felt that, in practice, there has been an overly cautious view, particularly in interpreting the Subsidy Control Act 2022. Will the cabinet secretary, in his new role, re-examine the Scottish Government’s interpretation of that? Will he look at how procurement processes and grant schemes can be redevised so that they do not fall foul of the 2022 act?

These are serious matters and there are serious questions. Willie Rennie was absolutely right. I offer this advice to the previous speaker: ad hominem attacks and whataboutery expose the weakness of the SNP’s arguments, if that is all that they can speak to.

We have to ask ourselves two simple questions. Do we know all the facts with regard to these events, and is there public interest in having those facts? We do not have all the facts. What is more, there is a clear public interest because, despite Jamie Hepburn’s attempts to suggest otherwise, the conduct of political parties—especially the party of government—has a direct bearing on how public power is exercised in this country. That is why it is important.

This would be of public interest regardless of what organisation it was about. If there was embezzlement of any size or scale in any organisation, questions would be asked in Parliament.

We have a separation of duties through legal entities, because that is a suitable thing to do so that we can organise ourselves. As a consequence of that, we have requirements to disclose and provide information, whether we are running a company, a charity or, indeed, an arm’s-length body. There has been a clear failure of oversight in that regard. In addition, there are questions of conflicts of interest, because—let us be clear—the chief executive and the party leader were married.

Political parties are not just private entities or associations; they have wider public duties and roles. We are all here because we were selected by political parties. Political parties fundraise, develop policies and co-ordinate political activity, and therefore their conduct has a bearing on the public more widely. Clearly, there has been a breakdown in this particular party in this circumstance, which is why the resignations occurred of individuals who, until that point, had been elected representatives and loyal members of their party.

I turn to some of the specific points that have been made. On the points about the prior investigations, let us be clear that, yes, the police did sterling work—they are dedicated and professional—but they are investigating to a different threshold and scope from that of the wider public interest. The criminal threshold is much higher than the broader threshold that we need to look at, and the scope of the criminal law is very different from that of the wider public interest.

Let us also be clear that the issue is about the actions of people holding public office, and some of the most powerful offices in the land. Actions and conduct that occur in one space are not discrete from those in another. It is not good enough to say that it was with regard to people’s party responsibilities that information was withheld, statements were misrepresented or the truth was not forthcoming. We expect people who hold public office to act with integrity and transparency in all their affairs. The reality is that there are serious questions about whether things were misstated and misrepresented while people were in public office. Events occurred, but there were denials that there was anything to see just a matter of weeks before police investigations were launched.

Members do not have to take my word for it. Roger Mullin, one of the key people concerned, who subsequently resigned, said that Nicola Sturgeon’s statement to the SNP national executive committee was “ridiculous”. He went on:

“she was the accountable officer and ultimately responsible. But she turned her face against allowing any proper scrutiny. The way in which she behaved throughout the period was entirely inappropriate from a governance point of view.”

That was Roger Mullin, a former MP and member of the SNP NEC, making very serious allegations, which I think raise wider questions.

Ultimately, we have wider questions about the separation of power and the exercise of power. The timeline with regard to the court proceedings and the information provided by the Lord Advocate to the Government are serious issues that cannot be investigated or properly examined, in the way that we need to in order to satisfy ourselves and the public, through criminal investigations or investigations by the Electoral Commission or any of the other bodies that have been wheeled out.

Above all else, we need to consider the Nolan principles, which I invoked earlier, of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Are we all confident that, in the events that occurred, those principles were upheld by people who held Government office? If not, we need an inquiry.

16:27

Will the minister give way?

Does Jamie Hepburn not recognise that that is a fundamental misinterpretation of the Nolan principles? Openness and transparency relate to all aspects of the life of an individual in public office, not just the narrow aspects that relate to their ministerial responsibilities. His interpretation is a misinterpretation, is it not?

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

Will the member take an intervention?