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/mar/03/alex-salmond-inquiry-nicola-sturgeon-evidence-live-news-updates

The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Nicola Sturgeon says harassment policy was not there 'to get Alex Salmond' - live updates Nicola Sturgeon says harassment policy was not there 'to get Alex Salmond' - live updates
(32 minutes later)
Follow live updates as Scotland’s first minister appears before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial codeFollow live updates as Scotland’s first minister appears before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial code
Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, says Sturgeon has referred to errors, a “litany of failures”, and she appreciates her apology “but you’re not directly responsible are you”.
Sturgeon says she wasn’t responsible for the collapse of the judicial review but as leader she does have to take responsibility for many things.
Tell me why nobody has resigned, nobody has taken responsibility? Two women have been badly let down.
Sturgeon says the complaints against Salmond were “horrendous” for everyone who had to deal with it. Maybe that’s made her too understanding of people, says the first minister, before adding that there are ongoing investigations - including by this committee - which are being awaited.
Baillie asks what happens to any woman alleging harassment in the intervening two years while you look at this?
The procedure is still there for any woman who wishes to come forward, says Sturgeon, but she says she has a “profound concern” about the impact on women who want to come forward. The first minister acknowledges the government’s contribution to this state of affairs.
Baillie asks if Sturgeon understands that it looks like the government doesn’t want to hand over critical information. What will you do to rectify it today?
Sturgeon replies that she takes issue with Baillie’s characterisation of “prevarication” etc. She says she has addressed the release of document earlier in the committee hearing. But the first minister adds that she will reflect on Baillie’s stated frustrations. Once again she claims “mystique” has been built up around documents, which when released have proved not to be as explosive as suggested.
Andy Wightman, independent MSP, asks if it would be fair to say the critical tipping point with respect to the government stance in defending the judicial review action by Salmond was the period from 6 December to 19 December?
Sturgeon says the case was stateable until 11 December so maybe it was the period from 11 to 19 December.
Andy Wightman asks if there was any suggestion in the winding up period, when the government had decided to concede the judicial review, that the petitioner (Salmond) wanted to include some legal grounds relating to the procedure itself rather than the concession being solely about the investigating officer’s contact with two of the complainants?
Sturgeon was not aware of any such suggestion, she says.
Maureen Watt, SNP, asks about whether the interests of the complainants were taken into account when the concession of the judicial review was made.
Sturgeon says as long as the case was stateable and the case appeared credible, the wider public interest came into play. That would have been in the interest of the complainants.
Mitchell claims Sturgeon absolved herself of any responsibility in relation to the public purse and the complainers in order to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up.
The first minister says they have to agree to disagree. She was excluded from the process of investigation.
If the committee’s view is she should have intervened, her view of propriety in these things will have been severely challenged, says Sturgeon.
It would have been “deeply inappropriate” to intervene, says Sturgeon.
Reading out a message from Salmond, Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, asks the first minister why arbitration between Salmond and the Scottish government was rejected.
Sturgeon says it was not her decision but there is a question whether arbitration would have been appropriate to resolve public law issues that should be decided in a court.
She adds that it would have been “highly inappropriate” for her to intervene on the behalf of a friend and colleague. She would have been giving him “privileged influence”. If Sturgeon had done that, there would have been criticism justifiably raining down on her head, the first minister says.
Mitchell tells Sturgeon she doesn’t have a blank cheque to defend the government and Salmond’s message to the first minister that it would save money would seem “prudent” and it would have protected the complainers. Mitchell says people need to see why this happened, who is to blame, whereas Sturgeon is just saying the buck stops with her. If Sturgeon had intervened, she would only be criticised for not making it public, claims Mitchell.
Sturgeon says the government was undoubtedly considering the arguments being made by Salmond’s lawyers for arbitration and they decided it was not an appropriate thing to do.
The first minister insists had she intervened it would be putting the investigation down a track where he avoided the complaints ever coming to a decision and on behalf of a friend, colleague, former boss. It would have been “an egregious breach of my power ... wrong, deeply inappropriate”.
She says had she done this she would not be sitting here today [presumably because she would have been forced to quit]. She once again refers to letting Salmon down “gently” because he was a friend.
Alasdair Allan, Scottish Conservatives, resumes the questioning, asking about what role external counsel play with government generally and whether it differed from the norm in this case.Alasdair Allan, Scottish Conservatives, resumes the questioning, asking about what role external counsel play with government generally and whether it differed from the norm in this case.
Sturgeon describes external counsel as having a “big role” in advising government generally. As to their role in this case, she says Allan would be better off asking litigators, government lawyers but to her it did not seem anything out of the ordinary. Sturgeon describes external counsel as having a “big role” in advising government generally. As to their role in this case, she says Allan would be better off asking litigators, government lawyers, but to her it did not seem anything out of the ordinary.
Allan says was a more crucial point a change in advice by law officers as opposed to a change in advice by external counsel.Allan says was a more crucial point a change in advice by law officers as opposed to a change in advice by external counsel.
Sturgeon says the law advocate and law officers have to take account of advice from external counsel.Sturgeon says the law advocate and law officers have to take account of advice from external counsel.
Allan asks Sturgeon about allegations that the Scottish government considered “sisting” the case (this is obtaining a court order stopping or suspending proceedings) to allow a police investigation to overtake it?Allan asks Sturgeon about allegations that the Scottish government considered “sisting” the case (this is obtaining a court order stopping or suspending proceedings) to allow a police investigation to overtake it?
The first minister says sisting was considered at an early stage but it would have been extraordinary if sisting wasn’t discussed given it was a criminal investigation. But she says its nonsense to suggest it would have been done to allow a police investigation to overtake the judicial review. The first minister says sisting was considered at an early stage but it would have been extraordinary if sisting wasn’t discussed given it was a criminal investigation. But she says it’s nonsense to suggest it would have been done to allow a police investigation to overtake the judicial review.
Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks if the views of the complainers were sought about the decision to proceed after the 31 October 2018 legal advice was issued?Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks if the views of the complainers were sought about the decision to proceed after the 31 October 2018 legal advice was issued?
Sturgeon says she doesn’t think so, she certainly didn’t contact them. But she will check if they were contacted and report back to the committee. The first minister says these were not black and white judgments.Sturgeon says she doesn’t think so, she certainly didn’t contact them. But she will check if they were contacted and report back to the committee. The first minister says these were not black and white judgments.
Did you consult them at any time of the judicial review?Did you consult them at any time of the judicial review?
Sturgeon personally did not. She would want to check if the Scottish government did.Sturgeon personally did not. She would want to check if the Scottish government did.
That ends this session, which will resume at 2pmThat ends this session, which will resume at 2pm
Fraser says the level of damages awarded - more than £512,000 - indicated displeasure at the government continuing the case and again questions why the government did not drop its case on 6 December?Fraser says the level of damages awarded - more than £512,000 - indicated displeasure at the government continuing the case and again questions why the government did not drop its case on 6 December?
Sturgeon repeats her sorrow at the loss to taxpayers but says this was not just about Salmond but about a challenge to the entire harassment policy, which could have important ramifications for others.Sturgeon repeats her sorrow at the loss to taxpayers but says this was not just about Salmond but about a challenge to the entire harassment policy, which could have important ramifications for others.
Fraser moves on to the “astonishing note” of 19 December referring to “extreme professional embarrassment” lawyers have experienced in court. This is catastrophic, isn’t it?Fraser moves on to the “astonishing note” of 19 December referring to “extreme professional embarrassment” lawyers have experienced in court. This is catastrophic, isn’t it?
It is catastrophic, Sturgeon agrees. it fundamentally changed the position in the court case. If she had steamed ahead then, the charges being levelled against her with respect to the legal advice would have been justified.It is catastrophic, Sturgeon agrees. it fundamentally changed the position in the court case. If she had steamed ahead then, the charges being levelled against her with respect to the legal advice would have been justified.
Who is to blame asks Fraser?Who is to blame asks Fraser?
Sturgeon replies that as head of the Scottish government she is ultimately responsible and that is why she has apologised today. This committee is part of an attempt to learn the lessons.Sturgeon replies that as head of the Scottish government she is ultimately responsible and that is why she has apologised today. This committee is part of an attempt to learn the lessons.
Is it true the Scottish government only conceded the judicial review when senior and junior counsel threatened to resign?Is it true the Scottish government only conceded the judicial review when senior and junior counsel threatened to resign?
That’s not my understanding, replies Sturgeon. She says she’s not aware of them threatening to resign. Sturgeon, a qualified lawyer herself, says lawyers would not continue an unstateable case so if the government had gone ahead they probably would have stood down.That’s not my understanding, replies Sturgeon. She says she’s not aware of them threatening to resign. Sturgeon, a qualified lawyer herself, says lawyers would not continue an unstateable case so if the government had gone ahead they probably would have stood down.
Fraser moves on to more advice on 31 October 2018 and then 6 December. There must be more information, will it be made available?Fraser moves on to more advice on 31 October 2018 and then 6 December. There must be more information, will it be made available?
Sturgeon responds by saying she is happy to look into it. With respect to the 31 October advice, she rejects Fraser’s categorisation of it as showing the case was unwinnable.Sturgeon responds by saying she is happy to look into it. With respect to the 31 October advice, she rejects Fraser’s categorisation of it as showing the case was unwinnable.
Fraser quotes the 31 October advice saying a swift decision is going to have to be taken.Fraser quotes the 31 October advice saying a swift decision is going to have to be taken.
Sturgeon says the solicitor general was at a meeting where it was decided the case was still stateable.Sturgeon says the solicitor general was at a meeting where it was decided the case was still stateable.
Fraser quotes from the 6 December advice, saying “the least worst advice would be to concede the petition”.Fraser quotes from the 6 December advice, saying “the least worst advice would be to concede the petition”.
Sturgeon responds saying there was a meeting of law officers of 11 December and the opinion they were expressing was there was no need to drop the case and it was important for the issue to be aired. She says the charge against her is that she wilfully allowed a hopeless judicial review to proceed and therefore broke the ministerial code but she was taking the advice of law officers rather than going against them.Sturgeon responds saying there was a meeting of law officers of 11 December and the opinion they were expressing was there was no need to drop the case and it was important for the issue to be aired. She says the charge against her is that she wilfully allowed a hopeless judicial review to proceed and therefore broke the ministerial code but she was taking the advice of law officers rather than going against them.
Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, asks about the extent of ministerial overview of the judicial review brought by Salmond over the investigation into harassment allegations against him?Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, asks about the extent of ministerial overview of the judicial review brought by Salmond over the investigation into harassment allegations against him?
The first minister replies that she was a named party. It was not something that she discussed every day. She says it was “not an unusual degree of involvement or oversight”, pointing out that there have been several judicial reviews against her government.The first minister replies that she was a named party. It was not something that she discussed every day. She says it was “not an unusual degree of involvement or oversight”, pointing out that there have been several judicial reviews against her government.
Fraser asks about the involvement of her chief of staff.Fraser asks about the involvement of her chief of staff.
She (the chief of staff) attended three meetings with counsel, Sturgeon says. The chief of staff’s involvement was in no way unusual.She (the chief of staff) attended three meetings with counsel, Sturgeon says. The chief of staff’s involvement was in no way unusual.
Reading from the external lawyers’ advice on the judicial review, Fraser says he would not characterise it as “confident” - as Sturgeon earlier described it - of victory.Reading from the external lawyers’ advice on the judicial review, Fraser says he would not characterise it as “confident” - as Sturgeon earlier described it - of victory.
Sturgeon said she cannot recall any advice ever saying there is a 100% chance of victory. This advice is at the more optimistic end of the spectrum, she claims. The first minister refers to legislation on minimum pricing of alcohol and says they would not have gone ahead with the court case on this basis as there was a real risk they would lose but it was an important matter of public policy.Sturgeon said she cannot recall any advice ever saying there is a 100% chance of victory. This advice is at the more optimistic end of the spectrum, she claims. The first minister refers to legislation on minimum pricing of alcohol and says they would not have gone ahead with the court case on this basis as there was a real risk they would lose but it was an important matter of public policy.
Mitchell says no one would want to come forward because of the way these complainers were treated.Mitchell says no one would want to come forward because of the way these complainers were treated.
Sturgeon says they are the most important people in this story. They were let down by government mistakes.Sturgeon says they are the most important people in this story. They were let down by government mistakes.
Maureen Watt, SNP, refers to Acas guidance which says even if complainers do not want to go to the police, you should still consider this. The government appears to be acting within clear guidance. Are there enough qualified HR officials in the government?Maureen Watt, SNP, refers to Acas guidance which says even if complainers do not want to go to the police, you should still consider this. The government appears to be acting within clear guidance. Are there enough qualified HR officials in the government?
The first minister says the Acas guidance was what she was searching for earlier. She doesn’t know the number of government officials who are and are not HR qualified but says it is a good question.The first minister says the Acas guidance was what she was searching for earlier. She doesn’t know the number of government officials who are and are not HR qualified but says it is a good question.
Andy Wightman, independent, refers to Salmond’s claim that Sturgeon said she was eager “to assist”. Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton, wrote yesterday that Sturgeon said she would intervene. Wightman asks about the contradiction between this evidence and Sturgeon’s written evidence saying she did not offer to intervene.Andy Wightman, independent, refers to Salmond’s claim that Sturgeon said she was eager “to assist”. Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton, wrote yesterday that Sturgeon said she would intervene. Wightman asks about the contradiction between this evidence and Sturgeon’s written evidence saying she did not offer to intervene.
Maybe I let a colleague down too gently, replies Sturgeon. She says she was intending to be clear. The first minister had no intention of intervening and did not do so, she says. She says she believes her non-intervention to be at the root of Salmond’s anger towards her. Sturgeon makes clear that it was an emotional meeting, dealing with shocking revelations.Maybe I let a colleague down too gently, replies Sturgeon. She says she was intending to be clear. The first minister had no intention of intervening and did not do so, she says. She says she believes her non-intervention to be at the root of Salmond’s anger towards her. Sturgeon makes clear that it was an emotional meeting, dealing with shocking revelations.
Wightman asks if Sturgeon knew of concerns voiced by the police about the Scottish government making a public statement about the allegations?Wightman asks if Sturgeon knew of concerns voiced by the police about the Scottish government making a public statement about the allegations?
Sturgeon replies that she did not know at the time “to the best of my recollection”. She does not know what the concerns were but she assumes they didn’t want a public release to get in the way of an investigation.Sturgeon replies that she did not know at the time “to the best of my recollection”. She does not know what the concerns were but she assumes they didn’t want a public release to get in the way of an investigation.
Mitchell says Police Scotland advised that Scottish government officers were not trained to investigate such allegations or deal with victims. Is it your position that you knew nothing about this, she asks the first minister?
Sturgeon says she cannot answer that question as she does not know the decision-making of the government officials.
Was it appropriate for the Scottish government officials to go ahead and investigate?
Sturgeon replies that it would have been inappropriate not to investigate but says the committee will have to reach its own judgement.
Mitchell says the Police Scotland advice was “crystal clear” but the officials ignored that. Also, the complainants’ right to decide whether to go forward with their complaints was “taken out of their hands”. The Scottish government officials should have been nowhere near that investigation, Mitchell posits.
Sturgeon replies that none of this was reported to her. She cannot say whether the investigating officials always followed the advice. She would “push back” against a suggestion that the Scottish government should not have investigated. On reporting the allegations to the police despite the opposition of the complainers, Sturgeon says it can be appropriate at times. Given there was a police investigation subsequently, the first minister suggests there may have been some cooperation by the complainers.
Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, asks Sturgeon about WhatsApp messages sent between senior party officials that Salmond has claimed point to a conspiracy. She asks if the first minister has asked to see them?
Sturgeon says she has made some efforts and taken in context they are not untoward. She refers to four messages quoted by Salmond in his evidence on Friday. She says she looked at them. She begins trying to explain them taken in context but is cut short by the convenor who says the committee will see messages later and it would be inappropriate to form a view on them before that.
When was the harassment policy signed off, asks Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives?
Sturgeon says it was signed off on 20 December 2017.
Mitchell says Salmond claims the policy was signed off later and the complaints were made before the policy was signed.
Sturgeon says the complainants came forward initially in November 2017 but made their formal complaints in January 2018. She reiterates that the policy was signed off on 20 December 2017.
Outside of the committee hearing:
Allan asks the first minister if she has a view as to why documents Salmond claims support his position have not been released.
Sturgeon answers that if you are going to put forward the idea there is a concerted, malicious campaign, “you need to evidence that”. If these documents support is view, someone in the police or court would have seen them, the first minister argues. She also claims material has been taken out of context and she has seen nothing that comes close to proving Salmond’s allegation of a conspiracy against him.
Alasdair Allan, SNP, asks if anyone gave her an explanation about the possible press release about the allegations
Sturgeon again explains that it was because of a freedom of information request that would have disclosed some of the information in the said release.
Allan asks Sturgeon whether the Scottish government should have looked into mediation on the allegations and then arbitration of the dispute into the procedure. He has claimed Sturgeon agreed to intervene.
The first minister says “these things were considered”. She said the issue is not whether these should have happened but whether she should have intervened to bring them about and it would have been wrong for her to do so. She adds she got the impression that mediation and arbitrations were “devices” to thwart the natural course of the investigation.
Allan quotes Salmond claiming there was a fishing exercise against him in terms of contacting people about raising complaints. He asks the first minister about her knowledge of this.
Sturgeon responds by saying it was “a duty of care move”. It was not a fishing exercise but it was “perfectly appropriate”. It dismays her to hear claims that people were concocting allegations. Complainers may have supported each other but the idea of a plot is not based in fact or on any credible evidence, says Sturgeon.
Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks Sturgeon when she first became aware that a civil servant had come forward with a complaint about Salmond?
The first minister said she had an awareness that there might be concerns but it wasn’t until 2 April when she saw the permanent secretary’s letter that they became concrete. She says ahead of 2 April she had awareness that there might be a complaint, “a general awareness”, but it was reading the letter that gave her the “knowledge” as opposed to the general awareness. After the 29 March meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, she had “a sense of unease”. She did not have knowledge of specific complaints but “a lingering suspicion” that there might be something.
Can you see why people might feel misled by her version of events? Cole-Hamilton says this has changed as more information became public, referring to interviews with Andrew Marr on the BBC and Sophy Ridge on Sky.
Sturgeon says early on she was worried that there was an ongoing investigation and she did not want to generate headlines. She says she does understand why “people might see that”
Cole-Hamilton says breaching confidentiality is a sackable offence so are you surprised the senior government official denies telling Geoff Aberdein the name of one of the complainants?
Sturgeon says there is not much more she can say about the issue but claims Alex Salmond told her the name of one complainant and indicated he knew the identity of the other.
You haven’t tried to contact Geoff Aberdein?
Sturgeon says she is respecting the procedures of the committee, which include not contacting fellow witnesses.
Cole-Hamilton says he finds it curious that the day before the Daily Record story appeared the government had prepared a press release with details of the investigation.
Sturgeon answers that it was not her press release. She said she believes the press release was planned because there was a freedom of information request that would have led to the disclosure of some of that information.
Cole-Hamilton says the report was passed to the crown agent against the wishes of the police, was this the right thing to do?
Sturgeon says there were allegations of criminality involved. The Scottish government has a duty to, if it thinks criminal acts have been committed, to do something about that. She says she does not know how strong the objections were from the complainers. She adds that had she done the opposite, she would also have been criticised.
Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, says the allegation by Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, that he was given the name of a complainant against Salmond by a senior government official has been corroborated by Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton, and former party strategist, Kevin Pringle. Where is the corroboration of the senior government official’s denial of this?
Sturgeon says she can only go on what she has been told about this conversation. She reiterates that Salmond did not mention this at her meeting on 2 April 2018 and that Salmond knew the identity of the two complainants, because he apologised to one of them and identified the other by going through the Scottish government’s Flickr account. She reiterates that she was not a party to this conversation.
Sturgeon adds that she can think of why the name of that complainant might have been known at that time but that does not mean it was revealed in the way that has been said.
Are the police investigating the disclosure of the name of the complainant?
Sturgeon says they are not. She is trying to respect the processes under way, namely this inquiry and the investigation into possible breaches of the ministerial code. Sturgeon adds that the police do not need her authority to investigate.
There will now be a 20-minute break.
Baillie asks when Sturgeon became aware of a leak to the Daily Record, which published two stories containing details of complainants. Where do you consider the leaks came from?
“I don’t know,” Sturgeon says they did not come from her or anyone acting on her behalf. She says Salmond alleged some details must have come from the decision report but she was not sent the decision report.
Baillie says she has been told the Daily Record was given the allegations against Salmond to spike another story it was going to publish about Sturgeon.
The first minister rejects this, saying she has never heard this. She asks Baillie what the story about her was but Baillie says she doesn’t know. The timing would be an incredible coincidence, says Sturgeon.
Why was the leak not reported to the police?
The first minister agrees it was very serious. The government did not benefit in any way from this. She reiterates it did not come from her or anyone under her authority. Sturgeon says there was a review by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which concluded it didn’t come from the government. Baillie disputes this characterisation of the ICO’s conclusions. Sturgeon doesn’t know why it wasn’t investigated by the police.
Who had details and would have leaked them?
Sturgeon says she does not know where the leak came from. Salmond and his lawyers had access to it, she does not know who in the Scottish government had access to it. Pressed by Baillie as to whether she will ask police to investigate, Sturgeon says she will consider it but the ICO looked into potential criminality.
Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, says at an early meeting, details of complaints and the identity of a complainant were revealed to Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, by a senior government official. Was this authorised by Sturgeon?
Sturgeon says she is restrained by legal constraints but she understands the meeting did not happen as described. Sturgeon adds that she does not recall Salmond showing any knowledge of the identity of the complainants when she met him on 2 April 2018.
She says Salmond would know the identity of the complainants because he had apologised to one of them and there had also been some investigation on his part into Scottish government social media accounts.
She disputes that the name of a complainant was given. Pressed by Baillie whether she is accusing Aberdein and others who said they were present at that meeting of lying, Sturgeon says their version is not accepted by the senior government official involved.
Stuart McMillan, SNP, asks the first minister if she had any involvement in the formal complaints handling process?
No, replies Sturgeon.
McMillan asks if Sturgeon accepts things went wrong and what is being done to prevent things going wrong in future?
Sturgeon answers that she has already apologised this morning for things having gone wrong and steps are being taken to ensure similar mistakes don’t happen again.
Would the government consider an investigation officer being independent of government?
Sturgeon says she would consider any changes.
Did you feel you had a broad base of support for putting in a new policy to tackle sexual harassment?
The first minister says she had a discussion with Theresa May at the time, who had concerns about addressing the issue but she wouldn’t use this to claim the UK government endorsed what the Scottish government was doing. Sturgeon thinks there was general agreement among trade unions that putting in place a policy and applying it to former minister was not unreasonable.