Members of the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment claims against Alex Salmond say the inquiry is descending into farce and they are considering resigning, we can reveal.
Their rising concern has emerged after the committee was told a statement from Mr Salmond detailing his complaints was ruled inadmissible, despite it being available to read on the internet. The former first minister has signalled he is unwilling to give evidence to the committee until that decision is reconsidered.
Some MSPs on the nine-strong committee are considering their position after becoming increasingly concerned about their ability to uncover the facts around the affair in the time remaining. The Scottish Government has still to provide documents demanded by MSPs – despite two parliamentary votes – while a series of witnesses, including the country’s most senior civil servants and the chief executive of the SNP, have been compelled to “clarify” disputed evidence.
At least one member of the committee is considering their position, saying that without questioning Mr Salmond in person any conclusions would be dismissed as worthless. They said: “There is some very serious thinking going on at the moment.
“We are here, in good faith, to do a job and if it is felt we cannot do that job, for whatever reason, then that poses a hard question for all of us.”
Mr Salmond will not appear before the committee on Tuesday if it refuses to publish his detailed statement laying out his version of the government’s process related to the complaints against him. If it is not published, committee rules mean it cannot be considered by the committee or included in its report. His legal team declined to comment yesterday but is expected to write to the committee today in a bid to find a way forward and allow him to give evidence before Nicola Sturgeon is expected to appear the following week.
Committee members were told on Friday, January 29, that Mr Salmond’s evidence, which accuses Ms Sturgeon of misleading parliament and brands the Scottish Government’s conduct a disgrace, could not be heard.
A redacted version of the document, submitted by Mr Salmond to a separate inquiry into Ms Sturgeon’s alleged breach of the ministerial code, was published by the Spectator website and remained online yesterday. Government lawyers have highlighted a potential legal risk if the committee publishes its version but some members say the issue could be resolved.
The Scottish Government says the Salmond inquiry MSPs have all the information they need. So we asked them.
Despite a series of formal requests and two parliamentary votes, the Scottish Government refused to hand over legal advice it received while preparing to defend its complaints procedure against Alex Salmond’s legal challenge.
Despite being warned the case was doomed, the government only conceded defeat days before a hearing in January 2019 with the case costing taxpayers at least £750,000.
In a letter last week, Deputy First Minister John Swinney said the committee had been given a summary of the advice and had “access to the necessary information”. We asked the MSPs what they thought.
A source familiar with the workings of the committee said the latest developments have further undermined prospects of MSPs establishing the facts. “In any normal democracy a committee like this would be uncovering evidence and facts that were not in the public domain,” he said.
“This committee wants to pretend important evidence that is already in the public domain doesn’t exist. Anyone can read this statement apart, apparently, from the committee of inquiry. It is beyond farce. It is Alice Through the Looking Glass.”
The committee is investigating how the Scottish Government handled complaints of harassment against Mr Salmond when he was first minister. After his offers of mediation and arbitration were rejected by Scotland’s senior civil servant Leslie Evans, he asked for a judicial review, claiming the process had been biased and unfair.
The case, which the Scottish Government fought until a few days before the first hearing when their QCs threatened to stand down if they did not concede, cost taxpayers at least £750,000. Mr Salmond was later cleared of sexual assault charges at a High Court trial.
SNP members of the committee, chaired by Linda Fabiani, were blamed for not showing more urgency to resolve the issues around Mr Salmond’s evidence with only a few weeks of inquiry scheduled.
Lib Dem MSP and committee member Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “On the whole, the convener has performed her role well, allowing us to go where we want to go in terms of questions to witnesses. The SNP members have also asked reasonable questions. However, I have been concerned in this endgame phase that repeated requests for meetings and formal proposals have been met with silence by the SNP members on the committee.
“It is starting to feel as if it is perhaps in their interests to slow-walk ideas and solutions to problems so that Alex Salmond never appears before the committee.
“I issued a formal proposal on Thursday that we give Mr Salmond the opportunity to recast his submission in line with our data-handling requirements. After silence by the SNP members, the clerks issued an email on Friday morning that pressures of time might make that request impossible. I should say for the record the clerks have been excellent and worked really hard.”
He added: “The idea that we should not hear from a principal witness would make a farce of everything else we are trying to do.”
Committee member and Scottish Labour interim leader Jackie Baillie said: “It is important we hear from Alex Salmond. The absence of his evidence will undermine the work of the committee.
“The committee’s work has been hampered by the lack of co-operation from the Scottish Government from the start.”
© Shutterstock / EKATERINA ZVYAGINA Scottish Conservative spokesman said: “There are two key figures whose accounts contradict each other, and they must both appear before the committee. The SNP still haven’t published the legal advice in full, despite the Scottish Conservatives winning two parliamentary votes for this to happen. Scotland’s public deserve to know the whole truth of what happened and why £500,000 of their money had to be paid to Salmond.”
Ms Sturgeon is due to give evidence next week and her spokesman yesterday said she was “relishing” the opportunity to take on “absurd, contradictory and baseless” theories of a political conspiracy against Mr Salmond.
He said: “The First Minister is relieved she will at long last get to appear before the committee. She knows and accepts that the scrutiny of her and the Scottish Government’s handling of the complaints made about Mr Salmond’s behaviour is entirely legitimate. However, she is relishing the opportunity to answer the questions asked of her and to set the record straight.
“She also looks forward to taking head-on the absurd, contradictory and – as we started to see this week, utterly baseless – conspiracy theories that have been allowed to spread, unchecked and unchallenged.
“The First Minister has been subjected to a litany of smear, innuendo and outright falsehoods throughout this affair.”
SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, who is married to Ms Sturgeon, will appear before the committee tomorrow after being called back to clarify his evidence.
He last appeared in December but opposition MSPs have questioned aspects of his evidence. He had told the committee his message to another SNP executive encouraging people to pressure police in London to escalate inquiries into Salmond was a lapse in judgement but denied any other messages similar in tone.
We revealed last month that Salmond had written to the committee raising “serious concerns” about his evidence.
Ms Baillie wrote to Crown Office officials urging them to investigate whether he had perjured himself during his first appearance.
The Crown Office said yesterday: “The correspondence is under consideration.”
Enjoy the convenience of having The Sunday Post delivered as a digital ePaper straight to your smartphone, tablet or computer.
Subscribe for only £5.49 a month and enjoy all the benefits of the printed paper as a digital replica.
Subscribe