'Truthgate' inquiry gets off to slow start

When Alex Fergusson, the Presiding Officer, announced on Thursday that he would order the standards committee to hold an investigation into untruthfulness in Holyrood, there was a collective jaw-dropping from the MSPs packed into the main chamber.

And yesterday the repercussions were still rumbling through parliament, with the parties positioning themselves on how they think the inquiry should proceed.

The issue looks set to drag on, with the standards committee unable to decide what to do with the Presiding Officer's request until its next meeting on 27 January – almost a fortnight after receiving his letter.

Even then, the committee will probably not set a timetable immediately and is likely to spend a lot of time debating what the inquiry's remit should be.

Perhaps the most stunned MSP on Thursday was Alex Salmond, because it was questions about his own conduct and allegations that he "made stuff up" in First Minister's Questions that had apparently been the final straw for Mr Fergusson.

Even though Mr Fergusson said the inquiry was not directly related to one individual or incident, the conclusion many will have come to was that it was the veracity of the First Minister's words coming under scrutiny.

Since the SNP came to power in 2007, Mr Fergusson has been inundated with points of order from opposition MSPs complaining about the truthfulness of what SNP ministers say. So far only one, Stewart Maxwell, the sports minister, has apologised.

Each time, Mr Fergusson has had to politely point out that he has no power over what ministers say and their truthfulness is a matter for the ministerial code, which is adjudicated on by the First Minister.

The standards committee may come up with new rules that will give the Presiding Officer more power to force ministers and other MSPs to apologise and to stop long, tedious and vexatious points of order.

Michael McMahon MSP, Labour's business manager, said the inquiry was long overdue.

"It has been clear from the outset of this administration that misinformation, downright disregard for the truth and disrespect for their responsibility to Parliament is their stock in trade," he said.

"The current First Minister leads by example, and while his lapdog parliamentary colleagues may be willing to accept everything Alex Salmond says as fact, the Labour Party is not prepared to see Parliament treated with such contempt."

However, a spokesman for the First Minister said the real problem that Mr Fergusson wants to address is the large number of "vexatious" points of order from Labour MSPs.

He added: "The contrast with the previous administration is like night and day. We have introduced independent scrutiny into the ministerial code for the first time.

"The Labour/Lib Dem coalition had a litany of scandals and resignations of ministers and of a First Minister before they were drummed out of office. Even in opposition, Labour had a leadership scandal and resignation."

The point that appeared to sway the Presiding Officer was a row over whether Mr Salmond lied to Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott last week over funding of the Scottish Inter-Faith Council (SIFC).

Mr Salmond said the issue had been resolved, but the final decision only came on Tuesday this week; although the SNP has insisted that Fergus Ewing, the justice minister, had guaranteed the money on 20 December.

Mr Salmond has now referred himself to a panel of former presiding officers he set up to give advice to him on potential breaches of the ministerial code, after questions were asked about his involvement in Donald Trump's golf resort planning application in 2007.

The self-referral came as Mr Scott was writing to Mr Salmond, asking for the issue to be referred.

The move was yesterday welcomed by the Liberal Democrat leader, who added that he was sending "correspondence and material" to the parliament's two former presiding officers, George Reid and Lord David Steel.

Mr Scott said: "I am pleased the First Minister is taking my concerns so seriously and has invited two such highly respected Scottish figures to investigate."

He added: "It is vital that spin, which is the hallmark of this and so many governments, is kept outside the parliamentary chamber."

As this is the first time they have been called on, Lord Steel and Mr Reid will have to decide their own timetable and procedures.

They will recommend a verdict at the end which the First Minister can accept or reject.

However, Lord Steel is out of the country at the moment so few people are expecting a quick inquiry.

A spokesman for the First Minister said that Mr Salmond was confident he would be vindicated. He plans to present e-mail evidence himself to show that he told MSPs the truth.

"The SIFC issue is the first complaint made under the new ministerial code, and the First Minister has taken swift and decisive action," said a spokesman.

"We have nothing whatever to fear from independent scrutiny," she added.

Pay attention at the back! Your 'Faithgate' guide

IT ALL started in an obscure corner of civic Scotland with an organisation few people had heard of, called the Scottish Inter Faith Council (SIFC).

The intrigue began on 20 December, when media reports predicted its demise due to the loss of 120,000 funding. All four staff had received redundancy notices.

At that point, the justice minister Fergus Ewing (pictured right) called to assure them that no jobs would go and that the funding was guaranteed. But come the new year, all hell broke loose.

Tuesday, 5 January: Major Alan Dixon, SIFC convener, e-mails Mr Ewing thanking him for his assurances. Clear so far.

Wednesday, 6 January, 10:30am: Hold on. In a twist, the major e-mails staff to say a second bid will have to be put in. No withdrawal of redundancy notices. Still with us?

12:13pm: Armed with this latter e-mail, Lib Dem leader Tavish Scott asks Alex Salmond why the SIFC has not received its funding. With a smirk and not even a glance at his notes, Mr Salmond says it "has been resolved", making Mr Scott look foolish. So it's OK then?

12:35pm: Perhaps not. A civil servant, according to an SIFC insider, calls the SIFC to discuss the funding, which is supposed to have been resolved. Later Major Dixon e-mails Tavish Scott (pictured right) to say the issue has not been resolved.

Friday, 8 January: Redundancy notices withdrawn sometime in the afternoon. Keep up, now!

Tuesday, 12 January: SIFC meets with civil servants to, erm, resolve the funding. So was it resolved?

Thursday, 14 January, 12:13pm: A furious Mr Scott demands an apology. A laughing Mr Salmond says No. A fed-up Presiding Officer calls an inquiry.