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.
Nicola Sturgeon gives evidence to Alex Salmond inquiry amid calls to resign - live updates
Nicola Sturgeon gives evidence to Alex Salmond inquiry amid calls to resign - live updates
(32 minutes later)
Follow live updates as Scotland’s first minister appears before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial code
Follow live updates as Scotland’s first minister appears before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial code
Watt asks if, during the drawing up of the new procedure, Sturgeon was aware of allegations against current or former ministers?
Allan asks why the first minister and deputy first minister have different roles in the new procedure compared with the previous fairness at work policy?
Sturgeon says not initially but then a media organisation - Sky - made her aware of allegations against the former first minister but it did not influence her behaviour.
Sturgeon answers that the world had changed in the light of the MeToo movement and it was important to address perceptions. She says it was best for a first minister to be as far removed as possible so there was no question of a first minister from the same party as the person who was the subject of the complaint being seen to be interfering for political reasons.
Allan asks if the government should have been better prepared for a judicial review.
Sturgeon answers that the government did not anticipate what would unfold, perhaps they should have. The government was ready for a judicial review and until the mistake came to light was ready to defend the action by Salmond. The government was “confident as it could ever be” that it could succeed.
Was this policy to get Alex Salmond?
She says that for most of her life Salmond had been not just a very close political colleague but a friend and someone she looked up to.
Alasdair Allan, SNP, asks Sturgeon to explain her distinction between the application of the procedure for investigating harassment against ministers being declared unlawful, rather than the procedure itself?
The mistake was the investigating officer had had prior contact with the complainers, it was not the fundamentals of the policy that were unlawful, says Sturgeon. If Salmond’s action had gone to full judicial review, it could have established the legality or not of the procedure.
At that time, it would have been difficult to say historic complaints were not a priority issue in the light of the MeToo movement.
Allan puts to Sturgeon Salmond’s assertion in evidence that people were perhaps overreacting in the wake of the MeToo movement.
Sturgeon disagrees and says, three years later, there is an argument there was actually an under-reaction as not enough has changed.
Wightman asks whether Sturgeon aware during the drawing up of the policy of concerns about the legality of applying it retrospectively.
Sturgeon does not recall any such advice.
Wightman asks what efforts were made to inform former ministers that they might be the subject of complaints.
Sturgeon says they weren’t. At one time a draft letter to first minister was drawn up but Sturgeon felt it was not appropriate for what was an HR policy.
Andy Wightman, independent, says civil servants had concerns and continue to have concerns about harassment. Will the first minister take these concerns seriously?
Sturgeon says she did not know there was an incident Salmond apologised for back in 2013 or that were alleged concerns about his sexual behaviour. She said she wants everyone to have confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously.
Wightman asks Sturgeon to explain what she means by “historic allegations” in her written evidence?
Sturgeon says it can be difficult to air allegations against – particularly – men of power at the time they are in that position of power.
Should there be a procedure for investigating allegations against former ministers?
Yes, unequivocally. Salmond seemed to be saying the complaints should not have been capable of being investigated because the policy should not have applied retrospectively, the first minister says.
Watt asks if, during the drawing up of the new procedure, Sturgeon was aware of allegations against current or former ministers.
Sturgeon says not initially but then a media organisation – Sky – made her aware of allegations against the former first minister but it did not influence her behaviour.
Should the procedures have been debated in parliament?
Should the procedures have been debated in parliament?
Watt says incidents were handled informally in the past, for example staff being moved on so they didn’t have to work with the person they were accusing or an apology was made. Was that appropriate, she asks?
Watt says incidents were handled informally in the past, for example staff being moved on so they didn’t have to work with the person they were accusing or an apology was made. Was that appropriate, she asks.
Sometimes it could be appropriate, Sturgeon says but she expresses concern that there may have been an over-reliance on informal procedures given that some complaints appear not to have come to her.
Sometimes it could be appropriate, Sturgeon says, but she expresses concern that there may have been an over-reliance on informal procedures given that some complaints appear not to have come to her.
Why is there a difference in that mediation is open to current minister under fairness at work but was not available to former ministers under the new procedures, Watt asks?
Why is there a difference in that mediation is open to current minister under fairness at work but was not available to former ministers under the new procedures, Watt asks?
Sturgeon says former ministers could not be investigated under the old fairness at work policy. She says with a current minister they will still be in the workplace, possibly working together so mediation may be appropriate.
Sturgeon says former ministers could not be investigated under the old fairness at work policy. She says with a current minister they will still be in the workplace, possibly working together so mediation may be appropriate.
Watt says the pre-existing fairness at work policy took about 18 months to be developed but the new procedures, under which Salmond was investigated, were drawn up in a much shorter timeframe.
Watt says the pre-existing fairness at work policy took about 18 months to be developed but the new procedures, under which Salmond was investigated, were drawn up in a much shorter timeframe.
Sturgeon said they wanted to do it quickly, no cutting corners or inappropriately. It was done with trade union involvement and 18 months would have been too long.
Sturgeon said they wanted to do it quickly, no cutting corners or inappropriately. It was done with trade union involvement and 18 months would have been too long.
Maureen Watt, SNP, asks why a new procedure was deemed necessary to investigation allegations such as those made against Salmond.
Maureen Watt, SNP, asks why a new procedure was deemed necessary to investigation allegations such as those made against Salmond.
Sturgeon says Salmond’s evidence struck her as saying there should not have been procedures that allowed him to be investigated. Sturgeon says given the MeToo movement, organisations the world over were reviewing their procedures. Allowing historic allegations to be investigated - the policy applied retrospectively - was “appropriate”.
Sturgeon says Salmond’s evidence struck her as saying there should not have been procedures that allowed him to be investigated. Sturgeon says given the MeToo movement, organisations the world over were reviewing their procedures. Allowing historic allegations to be investigated - the policy applied retrospectively - was “appropriate”.
Mitchell asks Sturgeon if she was aware there were complaints made by females. You set yourself up as a champion for women yet didn’t pay much attention to complaints.
Sturgeon says she was not aware of allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Alex Salmond.
Mitchell refers to five SNP ministers.
Sturgeon says she is not aware of what Mitchell is referring to.
Mitchell says we are aware of approaches by around 30 women in reference to five SNP ministerial offices.
Sturgeon says they were not brought to her at the time under the fairness at work policy.
Asked by Mitchell what went wrong, Sturgeon repeats that the government made “a mistake, a very serious mistake” in how it handled the investigation into Alex Salmond.
She says the legal advice shows the Scottish government was confident of defending the judicial review brought by Salmond and that if it were not for the mistake, we do not know who would have won the review.
Margaret Mitchell continues. Openness, transparency and accountability are essential but the deputy first minister has refused to release details of the government’s legal costs for the judicial review. He also refused to reveal the legal advice until last night. Mitchell says some information crucial to the inquiry has still not been received. Is that acceptable?
Sturgeon does not accept that characterisation. She repeats that the government has handed over “substantial” amounts of information. She says not all material is within the control of the government.
Sturgeon says she has suffered her own frustrations, having been waiting a long time to give evidence while allegations were swirling about. She also says documents said to be damning have not proved as such when released.
Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, says that when the inquiry was announced in January 2019 Sturgeon said the government would provide any material requested. Why didn’t that happen?
Sturgeon says she considers that did happen. “Copious amounts of information”, have been made available. The main issue of difference between the committee and the government is legal advice and there is a longstanding convention that governments do not release legal advice, the first minister says.
Sturgeon says that her judgment on informing the permanent secretary of her meetings with Salmond changed when it became clear Salmond was seriously considering legal action against the government.
Regarding to the legal advice published last night, Sturgeon says that as late as 11 December 2018 lawyers were saying there was credible evidence to challenge the judicial review. This only changed at a later date (presumably when the government conceded the case), she says.
Sturgeon says the claim that anyone acted with malice against Salmond “is not based on any fact”.
She says she is relieved to be finally facing the committee but it also makes her sad because the human elements of this situation have been lost.
Salmond was someone “I cared about for a long time”, says the first minister.
She said watching her predecessor on Friday she looked for evidence of him acknowledging the human impact on others.
Sturgeon says there was no recognition of that during Salmond’s evidence to the committee.
She ends by defending her own actions.
The first minister says at the 2 April 2018 meeting with Alex Salmond, he shared a letter with her setting out the allegations against him. He shared details of one incident which she viewed as highly inappropriate.
Regarding her meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s chief of staff, on 29 March 2018, Sturgeon says her recollection is different from Aberdein’s and he talked about harassment allegations against Salmond in general terms.
She says the specifics of the allegations were only detailed to her on 2 April and that is when they became real and shocking to her.
Sturgeon said she did not record details of the meeting on 2 April because she did not want to undermine the confidentiality of the process that was under way.
Sturgeon takes the oath and begins her opening statement.
She says the spotlight shone on workplace harassment in late 2017 was long coming and it was right for the Scottish government to review its processes.
She says it was correct to investigate Alex Salmond, regardless of his status.
She says as a result of a “very serious mistake” in the investigation into Salmond, two women were failed.
Sturgeon acknowledges that it is right for her role to come under scrutiny and says she will do her best to answer all questions in detail.
The committee hearing has commenced. It is convened by the SNP’s Linda Fabiani who is just setting out the background and rules.I have already mentioned Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton. Other key characters whose names are likely to come up in the committee hearing, include
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 legal advice to the Scottish government on the judicial review into the government’s investigation into allegations of harassment against Salmond can be read in full here.
The letter from Salmond’s lawyer is here (pdf).
The Scottish Conservatives have just set out plans to hold votes of no confidence in the deputy first minister, John Swinney, and the first minister Nicola Sturgeon.
The party will propose a vote of no confidence in Swinney is held today to try to force the government into publishing the remaining legal advice. The Scottish Conservatives say the advice published last night contained only excerpts and key evidence had clearly been omitted.
They will also lodge a motion of no confidence in Sturgeon today and seek to hold the vote itself very soon after the legal advice has been published, they say.
The Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ros,s said:
Good morning. Welcome to live coverage of Nicola Sturgeon’s critical appearance before a committee of MSPs to give evidence on oath on the Scottish government’s unlawful inquiry into complaints against her predecessor, Alex Salmond.
The pressure on the first minister intensified last night when confidential legal advice was released showing Scottish government lawyers had warned Sturgeon and other senior members of her administration that they were likely to lose the judicial review that Salmond launched in August 2018 to investigate its handling of harassment claims against him. The government continued its defence nevertheless.
In a letter to a Holyrood committee, also put out last night, one of Salmond’s lawyers, Duncan Hamilton, backed up several claims made by his client during more than six hours of testimony to the committee on Friday. The letter contains evidence from two witnesses calling into question Sturgeon’s version of events of what she knew and when.
Salmond has accused his one time protege and close friend, of breaking the ministerial code - a charge she has already denied - on multiple occasions.
It’s a complex story but you can read a comprehensive account of the background here.
In brief, it relates to the way the Scottish government investigated allegations of harassment against Alex Salmond. The high court later cleared him of allegations of sexual misconduct.
In 2019, the Scottish government admitted defeat in the aforementioned judicial review into how it handled the investigations, conceding that it had acted unlawfully and paying more than £512,000 to cover his legal costs.
This timeline is very useful for understanding what happened when:
Sturgeon will begin her evidence at approximately 9am. Here is her written submission to the committee (pdf).
Here is a useful guide to some of the key questions she is likely to face:
In brief, they are:
When did she first learn of concerns about Alex Salmond’s alleged behaviour?
Why did she agree to meet Salmond and to continue talking to him?
Did she offer to intervene on Salmond’s behalf at the first meeting?
Why did Sturgeon take so long to inform the civil service she had met Salmond?
Did she go against legal advice to abandon the case against Salmond? If so, why?
What she knew, if anything, about the alleged leak of the name of a complainer against Salmond to the former first minister?
