Official Report 1097KB pdf
Neil Gray (Ministerial Code)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether Neil Gray corrected the Official Report of 14 November 2024 at the earliest opportunity, as required by the Scottish ministerial code—[Interruption.]
I would be grateful if colleagues could listen to Mr Kerr. Please resume, Mr Kerr.
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether Neil Gray corrected the Official Report of 14 November 2024 at the earliest opportunity, as required by the Scottish ministerial code, in light of its response to a freedom of information request, dated 13 December 2024, confirming that there were no recorded minutes or notes for some events attended by ministers, including one attended by Neil Gray.
The Scottish ministerial code requires any inaccuracy in what ministers say to Parliament to be corrected at the earliest opportunity. On the same day that that inadvertent error was the subject of Opposition members’ points of order, Mr Gray himself raised a point of order to acknowledge the error, wrote to the Presiding Officer, the members who raised the matter yesterday, business managers and any members who are not represented on the bureau, and lodged copies of his correspondence with the Scottish Parliament information centre.
The whole point of this urgent question is that the FOI response on 13 December shows that Neil Gray attended four events for which there are no recorded summaries. The ministerial code states that the official record should be corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.
Yesterday, Neil Gray was forced to apologise for misleading Parliament about his statement on 14 November. He claimed that the summaries of the so-called meetings that occurred at the football matches were available, but a freedom of information response from 13 December confirmed that no notes were held for various meetings that occurred at football matches, including the four that I mentioned were attended by Neil Gray. The story was even published in a newspaper two days later, with a Scottish Government comment having been provided for it, so there can be no doubt that Neil Gray knew months ago that he had misled Parliament. He had clearly violated the ministerial code. It is black and white. Does the minister accept that that is a violation of the ministerial code?
Let us make sure that the record is accurate in this instance. Mr Gray was not forced to come to apologise. He willingly came forward to acknowledge the inadvertent error that he had made. In releasing the information, he looked at the statement that he made to the Parliament. In that statement, he said that
“summary notes are available and set out the topics covered during discussions at the majority of the engagements”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 51.]
That is factual and accurate.
What we have now been able to recognise is that Mr Gray inadvertently set out something that was not entirely accurate in answering a question from Mr Kerr. That is acknowledged and has been recognised, and Mr Gray has apologised for it.
Neil Gray would never have come to the chamber to make a statement if we had not raised the issue as a point of order earlier in the day. The FOI response shows that he knew months ago that he had misled Parliament and took no steps whatsoever to correct the record. It is clear that Neil Gray has broken the ministerial code.
This morning, John Swinney said that Neil Gray misspoke. That is not true. Neil Gray knowingly misled Parliament for months and did nothing about it, despite the ministerial code being crystal clear that he was duty bound to correct the record. That shows nothing but contempt for the Parliament and for you, Presiding Officer.
At a time when the national health service needs proper leadership, how can the public be expected to have any confidence in a health secretary who is unable to be completely honest with the Parliament and the people of Scotland, whom we represent?
When did Neil Gray first inform the First Minister that he had misled the Parliament? Will John Swinney refer the matter to the newly appointed advisers on the ministerial code? If he will not, will they use their new powers to launch an immediate investigation?
Before I ask the minister to respond, I remind all members that language that suggests that a fellow member has been deliberately untruthful is unacceptable. Challenges, of course, can be made in very many ways.
In terms of leadership, let me say that, today, Neil Gray has been meeting representatives of the royal colleges of the various medical professionals to discuss how we can continue to improve our national health service. That is exerting leadership in his role as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.
In relation to the wider questions that Mr Kerr posed to me, I refer him back to my previous answer. In assessing what was released in the FOI against what Mr Gray had said to Parliament, and looking at the statement that he made, he was very clear:
“summary notes are available and set out the topics covered during discussions at the majority of the engagements”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 51.]
That is correct. Then, looking further at the answer that he gave to Mr Kerr, he realised that he had inadvertently said something that was inaccurate. He came to this chamber, fronted that out, accepted that he had done that and apologised to the chamber.
I have said repeatedly that the attendance of ministers at sports events, where appropriate, should be supported by the Government. The issue now is about the conduct of the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, and his two apologies.
As the cabinet secretary referenced yesterday, he told Parliament in an answer to me on 14 November 2024:
“I will need to double check, but I believe that officials attended all the events with me and there will be a note available on what was discussed”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 53.]
On what date was the veracity of Mr Gray’s answers to Parliament double checked, and how is that confirmed in civil service records?
In terms of that specific question, we would of course need to revert to Mr Bibby. However, the fundamental point has been made. Mr Gray made the point yesterday that, in answering the question that Mr Bibby posed to him, he was clear that he would need to clarify whether there was, in fact, a note of every meeting. What has been released is not inconsistent with that fact either. We are referring to Mr Gray’s answer to Mr Kerr. He has accepted that he inadvertently set out something that was not the case. He has come to this chamber and he has apologised for that, and I think that most people should accept that.
Stephen Kerr mentioned the freedom of information request that was responded to on 13 December. Can the minister tell us whether Neil Gray was made aware of the initial request when it came in, the response that was going out and the Scottish Government comment that went to a Sunday paper about that request? If that all happened around 13 December, he has sat on that information for well over a month before correcting the parliamentary record.
I go back to my initial answer. On being made aware of the inaccuracies yesterday, when the points of order were made, Mr Gray came back at the earliest opportunity to accept that fact and apologise to the chamber.
Air adhart
Business Motion