Scotland’s first minister is appearing before MSPs, amid multiple allegations that she broke the ministerial code
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 judgements.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am satisfied they [the messages] are not as he [Salmond] has suggested.
Outside of the committee hearing:
NEW: Just in from @AlexSalmond spokesperson pic.twitter.com/ZkXdwir2Lk
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To the best of my knowledge, what is being alleged didn’t happen.
Stuart McMillan, SNP, asks the first minister if she had any involvement in the formal complaints handling process?
No, replies Sturgeon.
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 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.
Absolutely, emphatically not … I would never have wanted to get Alex Salmond.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The policy was not put in place because of Alex Salmond.
No, these are HR (human resources) policies.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
There is no intention on the part of the government to withhold relevant material from this committee.
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.
The government tried to do the right thing.
I know just from what he told me that his behaviour was not always appropriate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Scottish Conservatives have seen enough to know that the government ignored legal advice for months and lost more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money. We also know that evidence from three credible witnesses confirms that Nicola Sturgeon misled the Scottish parliament with numerous false statements.
The evidence published so far is devastating to the first minister and the government. We will table our motion for a vote of no confidence today as a result.
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.
Related: Timeline: what we know so far about Sturgeon and the Salmond inquiry
Related: What questions will Nicola Sturgeon be asked on Wednesday?
Continue reading...