TV grilling turns up heat on sweating SNP chief
THe Patrick Grady affair has raised questions about Ian Blackford’s leadership of the SNP group at Westminster. In an interview with STV News on Thursday, the Ross, Skye and Lochaber MP attempted to defend his role in the scandal amid a searing interrogation by broadcaster Bernard Ponsonby.
The grilling has attracted attention for Blackford’s repeated failure to say whether it was acceptable for Grady to continue being an MP. However, his evasive responses also stretched credulity, highlighting inconsistencies between Blackford’s version of events and the factual record.
Here, Stephen Daisley analyses what the SNP’s Westminster leader said, compared to what we already know.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE PROCESS
Blackford said: ‘I don’t take any part in the disciplinary process, in the independent process that takes place.’
This is at odds with the report of the Independent expert Panel, the body which considered Grady’s sanction. The IeP narrates that, ‘without discussing with the complainant his preferred course of action’, Ian Blackford summoned the researcher to ‘an impromptu informal resolution meeting’ with Grady in February 2018. The researcher said he felt ‘ambushed’ by Blackford and Grady and under pressure to accept an apology from the latter, not least because both had considerable influence over his career.
THE IMPORTANCE OF DUE PROCESS
Blackford said: ‘What’s important, Bernard, is that there is due process that takes place.’
Blackford’s February 2018 intervention casts serious doubt on the level of due process involved in the SNP’s internal handling of the complaint. Blackford failed to consult the complainant before deciding on informal resolution, failed to inform him beforehand about the nature of the meeting, failed to make him aware Grady would be present and failed to tell him an apology would be made.
The circumstances of this meeting with two senior figures in the SNP meant the staffer ‘felt intimidated into accepting the apology’, the report noted.
SUPPORT FOR THE VICTIM Blackford said: Victims must ‘be supported at all times’.
On the recording of an SNP meeting acquired by the Daily Mail, Blackford can be heard urging colleagues to ‘give as much support as possible’ to Grady. In an interview with Good Morning Scotland, the victim said: ‘I haven’t received much in the way of support from any of the MPs, minus a couple maybe.
‘Out of the 45, the vast majority still haven’t contacted me, they haven’t been in touch, they haven’t wished me well or asked if I was okay. That’s down in part to the fact that Ian Blackford, the leader, has directed them to support Patrick Grady instead of myself.’
SUSPENSION FROM PARLIAMENT
Blackford said: ‘The
decision that was taken, on a proportionate basis, given a two-day suspension by Parliament, that Patrick Grady would be suspended for a week… The SNP rightly took the decision, on the basis of the suspension from Parliament, that the SNP would suspend Patrick Grady.’
Blackford’s use of the phrase ‘on the basis of the suspension from Parliament’ and, earlier, his statement, ‘I uphold the decisions of that parliamentary process’, might give the impression that parliamentary sanctions are binding on party decisions about discipline. They are not. Neither the Commissioner nor the Standards Committee has any involvement in the disciplinary procedures of political parties.
The case of Labour MP Kate Osamor is illustrative. She was investigated for using official Commons stationery to provide a character reference for her son and for abusing a journalist who tried to ask her questions about it. Osamor resigned from the Shadow Cabinet, even though the Standards Committee ultimately recommended only a written apology.
Parliament sanctioned Patrick Grady with a short suspension but the SNP was under no obligation to do the same. The party could have withdrawn the whip for a longer period, or indefinitely, or permanently.
PATRICK GRADY’S FUTURE
Blackford said: ‘It’s up to Patrick Grady to reflect on his behaviour and where he goes from that.’
Once again, this gives the impression that Patrick Grady’s future as an SNP politician is primarily a matter for Patrick Grady. In fact, it’s a matter for the SNP.
If the party decides it no longer wants Grady carrying forward the Nationalist banner, it could suspend the whip for the remainder of this Parliament and announce, in conjunction with his local association, that he will not be a SNP candidate at the next general election. Moreover, it could terminate his party membership altogether, excluding him from its rolls and rendering him ineligible to sit in the Westminster parliamentary group.
Equally, the SNP could say it wishes to give Grady a second chance. Or that it considers him too valuable an asset to let go. Or, if it wanted to be unduly candid, that political parties tend not to expel chief whips because of how much insider knowledge they have. But the party is not prepared to make these arguments, or any arguments, about Patrick Grady. It simply wants the issue to go away.