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 8 Version 9
Salmond accuses Sturgeon of using Covid briefing to 'effectively question jury result' – 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 himScotland’s former first minister appears before MSPs investigating inquiry by Nicola Sturgeon’s government into complaints made against him
Fraser: Why do you believe there was a conspiracy against you?
The loss of the judicial review was regarded as cataclysmic for the government and Sturgeon, Salmond says. This would have swept aside in publicity if I had lost the criminal case, Salmond said.
Salmond cites evidence from Anne Harvey, principal assistance to the SNP’s chief whip in Westminster, who said she did not want to take part in a “witch hunt”.
He also cites messages from Sue Ruddick, chief operating officer of the SNP, in which she talks about “getting another complainant back in the game,” Salmond says.
Salmond says: “There’s much more evidence that I would dearly love to provide to this committee.” But he says he is being prevented from doing so by legal injunctions.
Fraser: Sturgeon has one version of events and you have another, where is the evidence to support your version?
The people who turned up to the knew, Salmond says.
Salmond said either deliberately misled parliament about the meeting on 29 March, or it was forgotten about. Both involve a breach of the code, he says.
Fraser asks more about the meeting 2 April. Sturgeon has said the claims you are making are untrue. Are you a liar and a fantasist?
The key thing is the evidence, Salmond says. The meeting on 29 March in the Scottish parliament was arranged to inform Nicola about complaints against me, Salmond says.
If the meeting and subject matter admitted, it makes it difficult to argue that the meeting 2 April was a party matter, Salmond says.
There was nothing improper in the intervention I was hoping Sturgeon to make, Salmond says. Mediation should have been part of the policy, he said.
Did the name of the complainant come up in the discussion on 2 April?
I think it did, Salmond says. It was already known, he says.
Sturgeon told parliament on Thursday that she didn’t believe the name of the complainer had been passed to Salmond.
Salmond later says Sturgeon changed her stance on assisting him in WhatsApp messages.
He says he did not recall Peter Murrell returning to his home during the meeting with Sturgeon on 2 April.
Would you have expect to Murrell know about it?
Peter’s non-appearance was not a surprise, Salmond says.
Cole-Hamilton asks about the 2 April meeting and whether this was the first time Sturgeon had heard about the investigation against Salmond.
Salmond says he discussed the situation, the meeting was for that purpose. Sturgeon expressed no surprise, he says. Sturgeon gave every indication that she would assist him.
“I felt the mediation proposal was the proper thing to ask for,” he says.
Cole-Hamilton asks: why would Sturgeon think you were going to resign from the party?
On the 7 March I had been told by the permanent secretary that an investigation had been launched against me. What purpose could resignation from the party have achieved, he says. Resignation from the party never entered his mind.
“I had not indicated to anyone that I was about to resign from the SNP,” he says.
Cole-Hamilton asks about about a crucial meeting involving Sturgeon and Salmond’s chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, on 29 March and another meeting on 2 April 2018 at Sturgeon’s home involving Salmond.
Salmond says he had been to Sturgeon’s house only six times. Salmond says Aberdein had told him in advance about the 29 March meeting.
He told me the next day that the meeting on 2 April was on, Salmond says.
Salmond says he did not know if Sturgeon knew of complaints against him before 29 March, but she did know on 29 March. (Sturgeon failed to disclose this meeting to parliament, and later said she had forgotten about it.)
The session is resuming. Salmond was asked about Peter Murrell’s texts (see earlier).The session is resuming. Salmond was asked about Peter Murrell’s texts (see earlier).
Salmond said those texts showed there was an effort to pressurise the police. Salmond says those texts showed there was an effort to pressurise the police.
“What they speak to is behaviour, which I would never have never have countenance with people I’ve known in some cases for 30 years,” Salmond said. “What they speak to is behaviour, which I would never have countenanced with people I’ve known in some cases for 30 years,” Salmond says.
Salmond pointed out that the government had previously denied there was any evidence that Murrell had tried to apply pressure on the police. Salmond points out that the government had previously denied there was any evidence that Murrell had tried to apply pressure on the police.
He compared it to another message in which the the permanent secretary said “we’ve lost the battle but not the war” after the government lost the judicial review.He compared it to another message in which the the permanent secretary said “we’ve lost the battle but not the war” after the government lost the judicial review.
PA also has a fuller version of Salmond answer to Wightman’s questions about the grounds for judicial review he was advised would have the highest chance of success. PA also has a fuller version of Salmond’s answer to Wightman’s questions about the grounds for judicial review he was advised would have the highest chance of success.
Salmond said “procedural unfairness” was among them, adding:Salmond said “procedural unfairness” was among them, adding:
While we wait for Salmond to clear his throat, PA has this update:While we wait for Salmond to clear his throat, PA has this update:
Salmond was invited to give more details on his claim that a witness was allegedly told by a special adviser that they would “get him” in a criminal case.Salmond was invited to give more details on his claim that a witness was allegedly told by a special adviser that they would “get him” in a criminal case.
He said:He said:
Mitchell asks Salmond about a text by Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief executive of the SNP in which he talks about it being “good time” to pressure the Metropolitan police to investigate Salmond. In another text, Murrell said: “The more fronts he is having to firefight the better for the complainers.” Murrell later said the message was out of character and reflected the stress he was under. Would that be your reading?Mitchell asks Salmond about a text by Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief executive of the SNP in which he talks about it being “good time” to pressure the Metropolitan police to investigate Salmond. In another text, Murrell said: “The more fronts he is having to firefight the better for the complainers.” Murrell later said the message was out of character and reflected the stress he was under. Would that be your reading?
Salmond is allowed a break to clear his throat from a cough, before answering.Salmond is allowed a break to clear his throat from a cough, before answering.
Watt asks more about the timing of the government’s decision to concede the judicial review. Wasn’t it right for the government to take its time to concede?Watt asks more about the timing of the government’s decision to concede the judicial review. Wasn’t it right for the government to take its time to concede?
Salmond says the government should allow parliament to see the external legal advice on the judicial review.Salmond says the government should allow parliament to see the external legal advice on the judicial review.
Salmond points out that investigator Judith MacKinnon had been open about having prior contact with the complainants. So why is this only coming out now, he asks. Salmond points out that investigator Judith Mackinnon had been open about having prior contact with the complainants. So why is this only coming out now, he asks.
The only reason I was looking to go to arbitration was to avoid a “cataclysmic” outcome for the government, he says.The only reason I was looking to go to arbitration was to avoid a “cataclysmic” outcome for the government, he says.
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 there was widespread knowledge in the government by November 2018 that the judicial review was going to go against the government.
Pausing the judicial review at that stage would have been embarrassing for the government but it would have allowed it to avoid huge costs, he says.Pausing the judicial review at that stage would have been embarrassing for the government but it would have allowed it to avoid huge costs, he says.
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.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.Yes, says Salmond.
Baillie asks whether documents disclosed to the committee had not been disclosed to Salmond before.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.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.He mentions specific meetings between the permanent secretary and the complainants.
Baillie: did the permanent secretary comply with the civil service code?Baillie: did the permanent secretary comply with the civil service code?
No, says Salmond.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.
Allan: What’s the difference been legal privilege in Westminster and Holyrood?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Fraser: was the government assisting your legal team in October 2017?
It was clear to everyone that there were missing documents, Salmond says. The government’s pleadings to the court were misleading.
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?
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.