New Zealand committee recommends suspension of Indigenous MPs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Widower continues tribunal claim against FOI Commissioner
Just weeks later, she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She died in February 2025. One of her dying wishes was that her husband, Ian, push on with the case. The Commissioner's office is defending the claim. READ MORE The tribunal claim also raises wider concerns about who watches the watchdogs. The Commissioner is responsible for the "enforcement and promotion of Scotland's freedom of information laws", including "handling appeals about the way in which Scottish public authorities respond to information requests". Given the need to avoid political interference, the job comes with a certain degree of independence. But that means the postholder can only be removed by a supermajority in the Scottish Parliament. According to the claim, Helen enjoyed a good working relationship with the previous Commissioner, Daren Fitzhenry, but that changed after the appointment of David Hamilton, a former chair of the Scottish Police Federation, in October 2023. The tribunal papers submitted by Helen state that the relationship deteriorated rapidly. They go on to allege that at a January 2024 meeting, Mr Hamilton proposed an internal award called 'Margaret the Fox', named after a recently retired colleague, which Helen and two female colleagues found offensive due to 'the use of the word fox [having] negative connotations when referring to women". The Commissioner, in his legal defence, says the award was a tribute to a colleague's fondness for foxes and had been welcomed by the person in question. The claim also says she raised broader concerns about the 'introduction of a police culture', including staff feeling pressured to laugh at the Commissioner's jokes. The defence disputes that such concerns were raised in the way described. During a return-to-work call after a period of absence, the claim alleges Helen was told she was "being precious", "obsessing", and that "people do not like her". The Commissioner denies saying that people disliked her. In meetings, she was reportedly told she was "not agile", lacked a "can-do attitude", and had "failed in her job". One meeting allegedly ended with her being told to "be quiet" after raising financial concerns – an incident contested in the Commissioner's defence. On March 14, she emailed Mr Hamilton, stating: "All members of staff, including myself, should be treated with consideration, dignity and respect while at work. Your comments about me are incorrect and are having a detrimental effect on me. "You are not treating me fairly, with dignity or respect. I feel intimidated by you and discriminated against. The way you treat me, in person, in meetings and in writing, is unacceptable and also makes me feel belittled, anxious and not valued." She lodged a formal grievance five days later, citing "unreasonable treatment" and alleging discrimination, harassment and intimidation. She was then absent due to ill health. Helen submitted the claim in December. She died in February. (Image: agency) According to her claim, Mr Hamilton initially responded by saying a "bespoke arrangement" would be created to ensure an independent process was in place, but only upon her return to work. In March, he assigned another senior official, line-managed by him, to act as her main contact – despite Helen requesting someone else. The Commissioner disputes that the arrangements were inappropriate and later agreed to appoint an external independent investigator, contingent on confirmation of Helen's fitness to engage. In June, he reiterated that he would proceed with the grievance only once she confirmed she was medically fit. He added he had sought legal advice. Helen responded that her ill health had been caused by his conduct and she was willing and able to participate in the process. The claim alleges that on July 19, Mr Hamilton phoned Helen's trade union representative to suggest she was ignoring emails – something her tribunal documents say was untrue. The Commissioner says he simply asked for emails to be acknowledged. That same day, she was told her laptop and phone would be collected due to cyber-security protocols applying to staff absent for more than four months. Her legal team say she was also blocked from using pre-approved annual leave to extend her period of full pay, with leave cancelled three times in April, May and August. The Commissioner says she was paid in lieu and suffered no loss. In a letter dated August 13, Mr Hamilton wrote that "on conclusion of the internal grievance process, it is likely I will be investigating performance and disciplinary procedures". The letter provided no details of the alleged issues. Tribunal documents say Helen found this particularly upsetting and reiterated her request for the grievance to be investigated without delay. By October 21, Helen had still not been contacted by the promised investigator. She emailed Mr Hamilton again to say the delay was harming her health and that she felt she was being punished for lodging a grievance. He replied that same day, saying he had just returned to work and would respond after catching up. Helen resigned three days later. READ MORE In her resignation letter, she wrote: "It is now more than seven months since I submitted a formal grievance against you and you have refused to allow any of my grievances to be dealt with." She said his behaviour during her absence and while working had caused "enormous damage" to her health and left her with "no alternative but to resign". There is no suggestion of a link between the treatment Helen received and her cancer diagnosis. Before her resignation, she is understood to have been offered a financial settlement by the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Helen's lawyer, Tony McGrade, argues that the Commissioner's handling of the grievance process was "significantly below accepted standards". He told The Herald: "This case highlights the real dangers in there being no procedure in place to allow grievances against officials such as the Scottish Information Commissioner to be independently investigated. "This means that the person against whom an allegation of discrimination or unfair treatment is made decides whether that is investigated. This is simply wrong." Under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the Scottish Information Commissioner is a statutory officeholder appointed by the Scottish Parliament and operates independently of government. Unlike most public sector roles, the Commissioner is not accountable to ministers or civil service structures, and complaints about their conduct are not subject to routine oversight. Removal from office requires a formal resolution passed by two-thirds of MSPs – a deliberately high threshold designed to protect the role from political interference. That resolution can be triggered if the Parliament is satisfied the Commissioner has breached the terms and conditions of office, or if it determines that it has lost confidence in the Commissioner's willingness, suitability or ability to do the job. Helen's husband believes this has created an accountability gap, making it extremely difficult for staff to challenge the Commissioner's actions through normal employment procedures or for Parliament to intervene when serious concerns arise. It is understood the matter has been raised informally with Alison Johnstone, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, who confirmed the limited powers available to intervene in what is treated as an internal employment matter. Those close to the case say the aim of the legal action is not financial compensation, but accountability – though Mr Hamilton strongly contests the allegations. The Commissioner said it "fully intends to defend its position in the Employment Tribunal" but that it "would be entirely wrong to make any comment on the substance of the claim until the Tribunal has considered the full evidence and issued a judgment." "The Commissioner will accordingly respect that process, being of the view that this is covered by the law relating to contempt of court, and will be making no comment until the appropriate time."
The Independent
13 hours ago
- The Independent
Peru's president affirms sovereignty of Amazon River island as tensions with Colombia escalate
Peruvian President Dina Boluarte on Friday traveled to an Amazon River island at the center of a territorial dispute with Colombia, where she affirmed Peru's unquestionable sovereignty over the territory. The first visit from Boluarte to the island comes against a backdrop of diplomatic tensions with Colombia, whose president, Gustavo Petro, recently disavowed Peruvian jurisdiction over Santa Rosa Island. Security force chiefs and members of Parliament welcomed Boluarte and Cabinet ministers to the territory, where she sang the Peruvian national anthem as people waved red-and-white flags. 'Unfortunately, for several days now, unacceptable actions have been taking place that affect the brotherhood that unites our two nations and the border communities,' Boluarte said. 'Peru's sovereignty is not in dispute; the district of Santa Rosa de Loreto is Peruvian and will remain so.' Tensions between the neighboring countries escalated Tuesday, when Peruvian police arrested three Colombian men who were on the island doing land surveying work. Colombia's government on Thursday demanded the immediate release of the men after a Peruvian judge freed one of them but ordered the other two remain in jail for seven days while authorities investigate them for the alleged crime of attacking national sovereignty. Petro described the arrests as a 'kidnapping.' His government has said the detainees — a land surveyor and a boat driver — were conducting studies to measure the depth of bodies of water for a pier expansion in the Colombian border city of Leticia. Peruvian authorities said the workers were not authorized to carry out the measurements. The arrest of the two Colombians marks the third binational incident in the area since Petro denied Peru's jurisdiction over Santa Rosa Island on Aug. 5. Two days later, a Colombian military aircraft flew over the island, and on Monday, the former mayor of the Colombian city of Medellín, Daniel Quintero, planted a Colombian flag there. Police later removed the flag. About 3,000 people live in tiny Santa Rosa Island, which emerged in the middle of the Amazon River last century. Peru maintains it owns Santa Rosa Island based on treaties about a century old, but Colombia disputes that ownership because the island had not yet emerged from the river at the time. ____
The National
16 hours ago
- The National
Ian Blackford's decision signals the rise of a new generation
FORMER SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford, who announced in June 2023 that he did not intend to stand for reelection to his Ross, Skye, and Lochaber seat at the 2024 Westminster General Election following his replacement as Westminster leader by Aberdeen South MP Stephen Flynn in December 2022, recently raised some eyebrows by announcing that he was giving "careful consideration" to making a return to frontline politics and standing as a candidate in next year's Holyrood election. He said that he had had calls from supporters urging him to stand in the constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch after its current MSP – Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes – announced she will be standing down. But in a post on social media on Thursday evening, Blackford said that while he was "grateful" for these calls, he had "reflected carefully" and decided after all that he is not going to stand. However, he clarified that he was not ruling out a return to frontline politics in the future. He wrote: "With Kate Forbes having announced she would not be contesting the seat of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch at the Scottish Parliament in 2026, I have received many promptings to potentially represent the SNP in the election next year. "I am very grateful to all those who have encouraged me to step forward for the 2026 election. I was particularly minded that many of those prompting me were those I have campaigned with for many years – people I have the highest respect for and who I hold very dearly. "It was out of a deep respect to all of these people that, although I had previously stated that I would not stand for the Scottish Parliament, I decided to give due consideration to those requests." Blackford went on to say that he was "honoured" to have been asked to stand and that "I do not take lightly the responsibility that they all encouraged me to take on". He added: "Having reflected carefully I have concluded that I will not present my name as a potential candidate for the 2026 election." "I do believe that I am still of an age that I can serve my party and my country. "I joined the SNP as a teenager in the 1970's and I see the journey to independence as being very much unfinished business. I will support the SNP and its leader, my old friend and colleague John Swinney, to the full. "My firm judgement is that the UK is not far off another financial crisis that would be cataclysmic. In short – Britain is broken.' Blackford went on to call on his SNP colleagues to explore "how we can make Scotland a safe haven" through independence. "Working with others I do want to participate in that debate on our future and perhaps, in the time ahead, there may be future opportunities to return to front line politics. "On this occasion though – after careful consideration – I will not be putting my name forward for next year's Scottish parliament elections. "The opportunity and the privilege of seeking to represent this Highland's seat at the Scottish Parliament will fall to another and we are fortunate to have a range of capable candidates in the SNP. "Whomever my party chooses, they will have my full support in what I am confident will be a successful election for the SNP under the leadership of John Swinney." Blackford's decision not to stand again signals an important milestone in the history of the SNP, and the rise of a new generation of younger politicians who grew up in the era of devolution and who have always known the existence of a Scottish Parliament. This generation of people in their 30s take it for granted that Scotland should become an independent country. It is already the settled will of this generation of Scots, and as they gradually replace older generations in the electorate, people who are far more doubtful and fearful of independence, a desire for independence will gradually become the settled will of the people of Scotland as a whole. This is a generation which needs a different approach to Scottish independence. Unlike previous generations, millennials and Gen Z do not need to be persuaded of the viability of an independent Scotland, they need to be persuaded of a plausible route to get there. That's going to take a younger generation of politicians who are prepared to be more confrontational in the face of Westminster's constitutional roadblocks. Talking of constitutional roadblocks... Talking of constitutional roadblocks, or possibly constitutional road bollocks, Scottish Tory MSP Craig Hoy, a man who has never allowed the inconvenient fact that the Conservatives have not won an election in Scotland in his lifetime get in the way of his petulant entitlement, has written to the Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government, Joe Griffin. He has demanded that former first minister Nicola Sturgeon be investigated for what Hoy insists was a breach of the ministerial code by asking the UK Supreme Court whether her government could hold the independence referendum which it had received a mandate to hold from the people of Scotland in the May 2021 Holyrood election, which Hoy's party fought on opposition to another independence referendum and which it lost badly. In his letter, Hoy, who clearly has a problem accepting the verdict of the Scottish electorate, highlighted two parts of the code in a bid to back up his dubious argument, which the parts which state that ministers 'must not use public resources for party political purposes' and should 'ensure their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity.' But the Scottish Government has said the reference to the Supreme Court was 'entirely appropriate'. A spokesperson said: 'The reference of this question to the Supreme Court was entirely appropriate and intended to achieve legal clarity over whether the Scottish Parliament had the legislative powers to hold an independence referendum, in light of majority support within the Parliament for a referendum. It did that.'
