This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/feb/26/alex-salmond-hearing-snp-nicola-sturgeon-inquiry-live-news-updates

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Alex Salmond gives evidence at hearing into botched inquiry against him – live updates Alex Salmond gives evidence at hearing into botched inquiry against him – live updates
(32 minutes later)
Scotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against himScotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against him
Labour’s Jackie Baillie raises the issue of confidentiality of complainers. Was the name of a complainer shared at a meeting with your former chief of staff.
There are three other people who know that to be true, Salmond.
How you notified of the Daily Record story about complaints against you in August 2018?
Salmond suggests he was informed on the day of publication. The next day the Daily Record published part of a leaked government document. The ICO investigated and said it was “sympathetic” to the view that the criminal leak came from the Scottish government. But they could not investigate fully.
Allan asks about the timeline on the introduction of the new complaints procedure.
Salmond points out that civil servants were working on a policy to cover former first ministers in November 2017. That was a significant departure from policy, Salmond says.
Why did it emerge then? Salmond asks.
Allan asks: Do you feel it right that former ministers should be held to account?
There is a huge difference between considered legislation, currently going through the Scottish parliament, and the spatchcock procedure over a matter of weeks introduced against former ministers.
It was “tainted by apparent bias”, Salmond says citing evidence to the Judicial Review.
There was also a procedural unfairness, Salmond says. However you look at it the policy was an “abject complete disaster”.
The SNP’s Alasdair Allan asks about work place culture in the Scottish government. What was you part in that culture?
Just because people say things, doesn’t make them true, Salmond says. There are now more complaints than when I was in office, Salmond points out. The culture and performance at the time was extremely good, Salmond says citing former permanent secretary, Peter Housden.
Wightman asks Salmond to clarify whether a complaint against him had been dealt with informally?
I’m entitled to rest on the verdict of the jury, Salmond says again.
Should there be procedure for dealing with complaints against former ministers?
It is difficult to make such a policy legal, Salmond says. The complaints could have been dealt with using the FAW policy in place at the time, not with a new policy for former ministers, he adds.
The origins for that policy came from “elsewhere”, Salmond says.
Wightman asks about Salmond’s claims about the retrospective nature of the new policy on complaints?Wightman asks about Salmond’s claims about the retrospective nature of the new policy on complaints?
Salmond says such a change required consent and approval for those it would apply to. Former minister and first ministers were not consulted. The retrospective policy fell at the first hurdle, Salmond says. My legal advice was there were many grounds on which the policy would have fallen.Salmond says such a change required consent and approval for those it would apply to. Former minister and first ministers were not consulted. The retrospective policy fell at the first hurdle, Salmond says. My legal advice was there were many grounds on which the policy would have fallen.
Former Green now independent MSP Andy Wightman asks: if you had been first minister in October 2017 how would you have responded to #MeToo?Former Green now independent MSP Andy Wightman asks: if you had been first minister in October 2017 how would you have responded to #MeToo?
Salmond says that after hearing views from colleagues he would have looked at existing policies. The FAW developed in 2009-10 took 18 months to draw up.Salmond says that after hearing views from colleagues he would have looked at existing policies. The FAW developed in 2009-10 took 18 months to draw up.
The atmosphere was more charged in 2017, which is all the more reason to look at the policy properly, Salmond says.The atmosphere was more charged in 2017, which is all the more reason to look at the policy properly, Salmond says.
Cole-Hamilton Did you threaten to resign from the SNP in November 2017 after a possible Sky News story about harassment at Edinburgh airport?Cole-Hamilton Did you threaten to resign from the SNP in November 2017 after a possible Sky News story about harassment at Edinburgh airport?
The Sky News story was never broadcast. There was nothing to threaten resignation about, Salmond says.The Sky News story was never broadcast. There was nothing to threaten resignation about, Salmond says.
Cole-Hamilton wants to ask about a complaint of harassment made at the time of the Scottish referendum. Did Nicola Sturgeon raise issues about your behaviour?Cole-Hamilton wants to ask about a complaint of harassment made at the time of the Scottish referendum. Did Nicola Sturgeon raise issues about your behaviour?
The answer is no, Salmond says. I was the most investigated politician in Scotland for 30 years. Nothing came of it because there was nothing there, he says.The answer is no, Salmond says. I was the most investigated politician in Scotland for 30 years. Nothing came of it because there was nothing there, he says.
The Lib Dem Alex Cole-Hamilton asks whether Salmond is sorry for his behaviour.The Lib Dem Alex Cole-Hamilton asks whether Salmond is sorry for his behaviour.
Over the the last three years there have been two cases on this issue.Over the the last three years there have been two cases on this issue.
Cole-Hamilton asks about ‘hairdryer’ talks to colleagues. (The convenor reminds him that Salmond is not on trial here.) Was your temper addressed by colleagues?Cole-Hamilton asks about ‘hairdryer’ talks to colleagues. (The convenor reminds him that Salmond is not on trial here.) Was your temper addressed by colleagues?
The First Division Association has complained that this committee has bullied civil servants. Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true, Salmond says.The First Division Association has complained that this committee has bullied civil servants. Just because someone says something doesn’t make it true, Salmond says.
Watt: Was FAW discussed by parliament?Watt: Was FAW discussed by parliament?
It was discussed for years by unions.It was discussed for years by unions.
Watt: I’ll take that as a no.Watt: I’ll take that as a no.
Was it typical for complaints to be dealt with with an apology?Was it typical for complaints to be dealt with with an apology?
I’ll leave these matters to the courts, Salmond says after being told he does not have to answer the question by the convenor.I’ll leave these matters to the courts, Salmond says after being told he does not have to answer the question by the convenor.
Watt: wasn’t there need for a more robust policy?Watt: wasn’t there need for a more robust policy?
Salmond says the unions thought the existing policy was adequate. If you are going to change the policy you need to understand the existing measures and consult with the unions which drew it up. FAW was regarded as a “considerable achievement” by the unions, Salmond says.Salmond says the unions thought the existing policy was adequate. If you are going to change the policy you need to understand the existing measures and consult with the unions which drew it up. FAW was regarded as a “considerable achievement” by the unions, Salmond says.
Instead last-minute changes were drawn up for the new policy on the day it was introduced, Salmond says.Instead last-minute changes were drawn up for the new policy on the day it was introduced, Salmond says.
Was there a problem of under-reporting?Was there a problem of under-reporting?
Complaints have risen in the last few years. The new policy has ended in abject disaster as a result of not being properly drawn up, Salmond says.Complaints have risen in the last few years. The new policy has ended in abject disaster as a result of not being properly drawn up, Salmond says.
If you had been first minister after MeToo, would you have introduced a new policy?If you had been first minister after MeToo, would you have introduced a new policy?
I don’t know, but I would not have thrown out a policy that was well regarded. FAW could have been strengthened and amended. The last thing you do is rush them through in “spatchcock fashion” without consultation with the unions.I don’t know, but I would not have thrown out a policy that was well regarded. FAW could have been strengthened and amended. The last thing you do is rush them through in “spatchcock fashion” without consultation with the unions.
The new policy was introduced with no discussion in cabinet or parliament, he says. I find that inexplicable.The new policy was introduced with no discussion in cabinet or parliament, he says. I find that inexplicable.
The SNP’s Maureen Watt asks about the Scottish government’s response to the #MeToo movement. Was a policy on sexual harassment necessary in this context?The SNP’s Maureen Watt asks about the Scottish government’s response to the #MeToo movement. Was a policy on sexual harassment necessary in this context?
Salmond says the FAW already included provisions on harassment. Instead of reforming this a new policy was drawn up “at pace”, he says.Salmond says the FAW already included provisions on harassment. Instead of reforming this a new policy was drawn up “at pace”, he says.
Wasn’t it better to start afresh?Wasn’t it better to start afresh?
Salmond reads from item one of FAW to point out it already dealt with harassment and bullying. Before you replace something you should understand what you are replacing, Salmond says.Salmond reads from item one of FAW to point out it already dealt with harassment and bullying. Before you replace something you should understand what you are replacing, Salmond says.
The unions have not called for a new policy because it works well for the civil service, Salmond says.The unions have not called for a new policy because it works well for the civil service, Salmond says.
Policy has to respond to circumstance, and be strengthened as necessary.Policy has to respond to circumstance, and be strengthened as necessary.
Mitchell asks about the informal resolution procedure for complaints? Was mediation used?
Informal resolution and mediation are not the same thing, Salmond says. It is important that first minister does not get involved in mediation. It should be dealt with by the deputy first minister, and then a panel of three, and then final adjudication by the first minister.
Salmond was advised that if two ministers were involved in mediation it could be deemed unlawful.
Mitchell: was there a high bar for formal complaints to be investigated? Did the procedure work well?
Before FAW there was no process to hold ministers to account. It was difficult to subject ministers to the same complaints policy as civil servants because of the ministerial code, Salmond says.
The FAW has not been improved, it has just been ignored, Salmond says. It is in limbo after the judicial review found in his favour.
FAW does cover bullying and harassment, but not to ministers. This problem should have been sorted out, rather than casting it aside.
Conservative MSP Margaret Mitchell asks: how can the current government be held to account while it refused to release legal advice to the committee?
Salmond says parliament has the ability to assert itself. Censure motions are available. There is understandable reluctance to release legal advice to governments, but exceptions can be made, Salmond says.
Mitchell asks if parliament’s powers are robust enough to hold the government to account. Should there be a separate director of prosecutions as in England?
Any institution needs to learn lessons, Salmond says. He could not conceive a government ignoring two parliamentary votes on publishing the legal advice.
The lord advocate, the chief prosecutor, should not attend cabinet. I don’t know if that has been followed, Salmond says. Consequences should follow from unlawful conduct, he says.
Fabiani asks: talk us through how the Fairness at Work (FAW) was developed and implemented.
Salmond says he is hampered in giving evidence by a section 11 order to prevent complainants being identified.
He complains that the Crown Office has prevented his evidence being published. The threat of prosecution against him is extraordinary and unwarranted, he says.
Salmond says unions wanted ministers to be added to be subjected to FAW as well as civil servants.
For two years and six months, this has been a nightmare, Salmond says.
The failures of leadership are many and obvious but there have been no resignations, he says.
Scotland hasn’t failed, its leadership has failed, Salmond says.
This committee has been blocked and tackled at every turn, he adds. My evidence has been published and then censured, he says. He says he is appearing before the committee at the risk of prosecution.
Salmond begins his opening statement.
This inquiry is not about me, he says, it’s about the government’s conduct.
He says the committee has been deprived of evidence by the Crown Office, which should not be opposing the will of parliament.
I’ve said nothing to date, but today that changes, Salmond warns.
The committee’s convener Linda Fabiani begins the hearing with a reminder to avoid identifying those who complained against Salmond.
Salmond is invited to take the oath. He does so.
Salmond has arrived for the hearing.
The hearing is likely to last for a daunting four hours. And it could be longer. We have been promised one break midway through.
You’ll be able to watch it on the Scottish parliament channel, but we’ll have a feed at the top of this blog.
Labour MSP Jackie Baillie, who is a member of the committee, has this:
Welcome to live coverage of Alex Salmond’s eagerly awaited appearance before a committee of MSPs investigating the Scottish government’s botched inquiry into complaints against him.
The hearing is due to start at 12.30pm.
Our Scotland editor, Severin Carrell, has a useful guide to the key questions Salmond is likely to be asked.
There is also an invaluable explainer to the controversy here.
Salmond’s final submission to the committee, in which he makes a series of explosive allegations against the Scottish government, is available here.
There is a long cast list of characters that are likely to come up in the committee hearing. These are some of the key names:
Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief executive of the SNP.
Leslie Evans, permanent secretary to the Scottish government.
Geoff Aberdein, former chief of staff to Salmond.
Liz Lloyd, chief of staff to Sturgeon.
James Wolffe, QC, lord advocate.
Judith MacKinnon, HR specialist and investigating officer.
Barbara Allison, former director of people for the Scottish government.
The committee, which is convened by the SNP’s Linda Fabiani, has set out the agenda for Friday’s meeting here.
It will divided into four phases:
Phase 1 - Development of the policy
This will explore Salmond’s complaint that the government’s rulebook on handling complaints changed in 2017 to include former ministers. He claims this was done deliberately to allow complaints against him to be prosecuted
Phase 2 - Complaints handling
Salmond alleges that the investigation officer, Judith MacKinnon, had regular contacts with the women making complaints of sexual harassment against Salmond prior to an internal investigation. He also claims that the permanent secretary to the Scottish government, Leslie Evans, who established how the complaints should be handled also had regular undisclosed contact with the complainants. He says this breaches natural justice.
Phase 3 - Judicial review
Salmond denied the allegations and successfully took the Scottish government to court over its handling of the complaints, winning a judicial review. The government admitted in court that its handling of the complaints had been “tainted by apparent bias”. Salmond was also cleared of 13 charges of sexual assault against nine women in a trial last March.
Phase 4 - Scottish ministerial code
A separate inquiry led by QC James Hamilton is looking at whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code. But the MSPs will also examine whether Sturgeon misled the Scottish parliament on when she knew of allegations against Salmond.