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.
Alex Salmond gives evidence at hearing into botched inquiry against him – live updates
Salmond accuses Sturgeon of using Covid briefing to 'effectively question jury result' – live updates
(32 minutes later)
Scotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against him
Scotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against him
Allan asks what solutions should there be to dispute resolution?
Salmond says there was widespread knowledge in the government by November 2018 that the judicial review was going to go against the government.
Salmond says mediation should have been available in the complaints procedures. The fact that it is available to current ministers but not former is unjustified, he said.
Pausing the judicial review at that stage would have been embarrassing for the government but it would have avoided huge costs to the government, he said.
Baillie asks whether Sturgeon breached the ministerial code by pursuing the judicial review, despite knowing that the permanent secretary had prior contacts with the complainants?
Yes, says Salmond.
Baillie asks whether documents disclosed to the committee had not been disclosed to Salmond before.
Salmond says there were about 40 documents he had not seen, which is a “spectacular” failure to comply with the government’s duty of candour.
He mentions specific meetings between the permanent secretary and the complainants.
Baillie: did the permanent secretary comply with the civil service code?
No, says Salmond.
McMillan: do you agree that the government only conceded the judicial review on one ground?
Salmond points out that the government collapsed the case. “The victory was as comprehensive as you can get in legal terms. The permanent secretary’s portrayal of it was at variance with reality,” Salmond says.
Wightman invites Salmond to say more about his claim that someone in the government wanted to ‘get him’ in the criminal case.
Salmond points out that he is prevented from disclosing government documents about ‘sisting’ or pausing the judicial review. He says the committee has only been allowed to see one document on this, despite multiple government meetings about it.
Wightman what grounds for judicial review were you advised had the most chance of success?
Procedural unfairness was one of the strongest arguments. How the investigating officer presented the complaint before approaching him, was not something the courts would take kindly to, Salmond says he was told.
He also mentions access to witness statements.
This procedure would have fallen on innumerable grounds, Salmond says.
But despite defeat in judicial review in January 2018, the permanent secretary put out a press release saying the other grounds were not tested.
Allan cites a former government legal adviser who said arbitration would not have been appropriate in this case.
Salmond suggests the government could have avoided paying out £630,000 if it taken his offer of going to arbitration.
Salmond said the record of this case showed the government got better legal advice from external lawyers than its own lawyers.
Allan asks: what solutions should there be to dispute resolution?
Salmond says mediation should have been available in the complaints procedures. The fact that it is available to current ministers but not former is unjustified, he says.
Mediation is not sweeping the matter under the carpet, he adds.
Mediation is not sweeping the matter under the carpet, he adds.
Allan: What’s the difference been legal privilege in Westminster and Holyrood?
Allan: What’s the difference been legal privilege in Westminster and Holyrood?
Legal privilege should be applied to the Scottish parliament, Salmond said. Parliament representing the people is the ultimate authority, he says.
Legal privilege should be applied to the Scottish parliament, Salmond says. Parliament representing the people is the ultimate authority, he says.
It is a surprise that the Crown Office adopted a different stance on the evidence to this committee from the stance on publication of evidence published in the Spectator, Salmond adds.
It is a surprise that the Crown Office adopted a different stance on the evidence to this committee from the stance on publication of evidence published in the Spectator, Salmond adds.
Salmond points out that that his legal team moved to protect the anonymity of complainants in October 2018. The government didn’t turn up to that hearing.
Salmond points out that that his legal team moved to protect the anonymity of complainants in October 2018. The government didn’t turn up to that hearing.
It is “passing strange” that the Crown Office has adopted the attitude it has, Salmond says.
It is “passing strange” that the Crown Office has adopted the attitude it has, Salmond says.
Mitchell: has there been any sanction against the government’s decision to carry on with the judicial review.
Mitchell: has there been any sanction against the government’s decision to carry on with the judicial review?
People make mistakes, Salmond says, but in terms of the Richter scale of mistakes this is a very big one.
People make mistakes, Salmond says, but in terms of the Richter scale of mistakes this is a very big one.
Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary, claimed ownership of the policy, Salmond. It was unlawful policy and tainted by bias, Salmond says citing the judicial review.
Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary, claimed ownership of the policy, Salmond says. It was unlawful policy and tainted by bias, Salmond says, citing the judicial review.
Fraser: If this had happened under your watch who would you hold responsible?
Fraser: if this had happened under your watch who would you hold responsible?
The decision not to accept arbitration when they knew how weak the case was, and the decision to carry on clocked up a huge bill.
The decision not to accept arbitration when they knew how weak the case was, and the decision to carry on clocked up a huge bill.
That can’t just be the lord advocate but also the permanent secretary and the first minister.
That can’t just be the lord advocate but also the permanent secretary and the first minister.
Fraser: Was the government assisting your legal team in October 2017?
Fraser: was the government assisting your legal team in October 2017?
It was clear to everyone that there were missing documents, Salmond said. The government’s pleadings to the court were misleading.
It was clear to everyone that there were missing documents, Salmond says. The government’s pleadings to the court were misleading.
It must unprecedented for the counsel to the government to threaten to resign over legal case.
It must be unprecedented for the counsel to the government to threaten to resign over a legal case.
Fraser asked when did you first become aware there had been prior contact between the investigators and complainants?
Fraser asked when did you first become aware there had been prior contact between the investigators and complainants?
Salmond suggested it was early 2018. How could complaints come in under a policy before it was introduced? he asks. It was just before Christmas 2018 that Salmond learned of prior involvement of the permanent secretary to the Scottish government, Leslie Evans.
Salmond suggested it was early 2018. How could complaints come in under a policy before it was introduced, he asks. It was just before Christmas 2018 that Salmond learned of prior involvement of the permanent secretary to the Scottish government, Leslie Evans.
Fraser asked Salmond to characterise the strength of legal advice he received over the judicial review.
“I was told that I had a very high probability of success,” Salmond said.
Salmond warned the first minister’s office that the grounds for judicial review were strong. In response the government said it was confident it acted lawfully. There was no substantive reply, Salmond.
I was advised to take it to judicial review, but Salmond said he wanted to pursue arbitration first. That was rejected a
Salmond’s total costs were £591,689.37 and he recouped £512,252 from the Scottish government.
The government tried to insist there were no documents to disclose. Even the government’s counsel objected to this, Salmond said.
Fabiani resumes the second session with a question to Salmond about how he thought the judicial review was handled?
I can’t think of any worse, in terms how it approached, Salmond said.
No prior involvement in an investigation is fundamental, so it was deficient from the start, he says.
The prior involvement of the investigator with the complainants was not disclosed, despite the duty of candour, Salmond said. The pattern of non-disclosure goes right through the judicial review to the current hearing, Salmond says.
There has been deliberate suppression of information inconvenient to the government, he added.
Salmond repeatedly called an anti-harassment policy drawn up by Sturgeon’s government, which covered former ministers for the first time, an “abject disaster”.
When asked if he thought former ministers should have been included in the new policy, Salmond told the inquiry:
While we wait for the session to resume at around 3pm, PA has this speedy take on part one:
Alex Salmond has said there is a failure of leadership in Scotland as he attacked Nicola Sturgeon and claimed there has been a “calculated and deliberate suppression of key evidence” to a Scottish parliamentary committee.
In his opening statement to a Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish government’s unlawful investigation of sexual harassment claims made against him, Scotland’s former first minister accused his successor Nicola Sturgeon of using a Covid press conference to “effectively question the result of a jury”.
He is testifying on the botched government investigation which was found to be “tainted by apparent bias” after it emerged the investigating officer had prior contact with two of the women who made complaints.
He will face questions about his claims current first minister Sturgeon misled parliament and breached the ministerial code.
Salmond told MSPs that the leadership of Scotland had failed, and the Scottish government’s actions are no longer true to the principles of openness, accountability and transparency.
He said:
The former first minister told the committee:
He went on to claim that the committee in its inquiry has been “systematically deprived of the evidence it has legitimately sought”.
Salmond rejected calls from his successor Sturgeon that he should provide evidence to back up his claims of a conspiracy.
He stressed it was the Scottish government which had been “found to have acted unlawfully, unfairly and tainted by apparent bias” by the Court of Session.
He said:
He said the previous two years and six months – during his investigation and criminal trial – had been a “nightmare”, but “we can’t turn that page, nor move on, until the decision-making which is undermining the system of government in Scotland is addressed”.
Questioned by Liberal Democrat MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton, Salmond said he did not believe Ms Sturgeon has been involved in a “cover-up” of complaints against him. He said:
Cole-Hamilton added: “I want to ask, laying aside the charges of which you have been acquitted, and the allegations that you deny, of the behaviours that you have admitted to, some of which are appalling, are you sorry?”
Salmond replied:
Labour’s Jackie Baillie asked the former first minister if the name of one of the complainers had been shared at a meeting his then chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, had been present at.
Salmond said it had, adding: “My former chief of staff told me that.”
The former first minister also claimed a leak to the Daily Record newspaper which broke news of the allegations against him was “politically inspired”, as he called for police to act. He added:
Salmond, who was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault in the criminal trial, was awarded a 512,250 payout after he successfully challenged the lawfulness of the government investigation into harassment claims made against him.
Sturgeon has previously insisted there is “not a shred of evidence” that there was a conspiracy against Mr Salmond and she has denied lying to parliament.
The current first minister is scheduled to appear before the committee to give evidence next Wednesday.
Fabiani asks Salmond how he would have dealt with a complaint against a former minister.
I would not have introduced a new policy to deal with it. Any response should have been done with proper consideration. “You would not invent a policy to meet a complaint,” Salmond says.
If there was a complaint against the first minister, the deputy first minister would have dealt with it. But no such complaint was made in his time in office, Salmond says.
Fabiani suspends the hearing for 20 minutes.
Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser asks about the role of the Crown Office, the prosecution service in Scotland. Would the Crown Prosecution Service in England request a redaction of documents to a parliamentary inquiry?
Parliament is there to serve the people, the prosecution service should not be interfering in the activities of the parliament, Salmond says.
Some of my evidence is published in reputable journals, Salmond says in reference to the Spectator. It is intolerable that I can’t discuss that evidence to parliament.
The policy wasn’t “botched” it was unlawful, Salmond adds.
The SNP’s Stuart McMillan asks why Salmond thought the FAW policy was robust. Housden told the committee that it was right for former ministers to be included in the procedure, do you agree?
That change should have been applied to existing policy, Salmond repeats. If Housden had been permanent secretary at the time, it would have been done properly, Salmond says.
FAW was carefully considered and above all it was lawful. The new policy was the opposite, it was rushed through and a disaster, Salmond says.
Former ministers should not have been included in the way it was done. Why was there an extraordinary rush? Salmond asks.
Was the #MeToo movement the genesis of the new procedure?
There were a range of issues raised at the time, but not the behaviour of former ministers.
The first minister had a role in the policy until December 2017, Salmond says. Thereafter the permanent secretary (Leslie Evans) took on the policy, Salmond says.
Why is the first minister informed about complaints against current ministers but not former ministers, Salmond says?
Did you ever intervene on behalf of a former minister?
The first minister is duty-bound to intervene if her government is likely to behave in an unlawful fashion. I had no idea where this policy had come from. I assumed there was some error in it.
Baillie asks how was it confirmed that the government leaked the document to the Daily Record?
The Daily Record confirmed to a documentary that it had been leaked a copy of the document, Salmond says. I didn’t have an interest in leaking the document. The police had refused a copy of the report, so they could not have leaked it.
The first minister’s office had access to the document. Civil servants seldom leak, and if they do leak they don’t leak to the political editor of the Daily Record, Salmond says.
The Crown Office has pursued police inquiries on other leaks. But there has been nothing from the Crown Office on this. Why the disparity? Salmond asks.
Baillie asks: why are you confident of the identity of the leaker?
There absolutely should be a police investigation. They broke the law, Salmond says.
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, says Salmond.
How were 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”.
