Scotland’s most senior civil servant rejected three requests by Alex Salmond for arbitration to settle his complaint about how the Scottish Government investigated harassment claims against him, we can reveal.
According to sources, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans was given three chances to accept talks but insisted her civil servants had done nothing wrong. Salmond won his case in court after claiming the inquiry was biased, leaving taxpayers with a bill of at least £630,000.
The revelation means Evans is now set to face questions from MSPs for a third time over the handling of the investigation into the former First Minister.
Mr Salmond was awarded more than £500,000 of public money to cover his legal costs for a judicial review against the Scottish Government. Its own spending on external legal fees took the total bill for the taxpayer to £630,773. The cost of the time spent by civil servants on the case cannot be calculated, according to the Scottish Government.
The publication on Wednesday of a series of WhatsApp messages show Mr Salmond urging his successor Nicola Sturgeon to consider arbitration with his accusers rather than going through a new complaints procedure. He explained how confidential and legally binding arbitration would have stopped the claims becoming public – and also avoid the Scottish Government’s actions being tested in court.
In a letter to the special committee looking into the botched investigation of Mr Salmond, Ms Sturgeon said she had no role in the inquiry and had left the matter to Ms Evans. Sources have now told The Sunday Post that Ms Evans rejected three offers of arbitration in April, June and July 2018.
© Robert Perry/EPA/ShutterstockCommittee member and Lib Dem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “Now that we know about the offer of legal arbitration from Mr Salmond as an alternative to judicial review, recalling Leslie Evans is an absolute necessity. Leslie Evans needs to explain the reason behind rejecting the offer of arbitration and why it was rejected so many times.
“It is astonishing that we first heard about the road not taken – legally-binding arbitration – from a WhatsApp message 12 weeks into the committee’s deliberations. Leslie Evans must answer truthfully on whether the decision to plough on with the defence of the judicial review was a result of the advice of legal counsel or in spite of it.”
Committee member and Labour MSP Jackie Baillie said: “Arbitration could have saved the taxpayer a considerable amount of money. It would have resulted in swifter decision about whether the process was sound, thereby sparing the female complainants prolonged stress while the judicial review was going on.”
Mr Salmond was acquitted of 13 charges of sexual assault, attempted rape and indecent assault at the High Court in Edinburgh last March.
The committee on the Scottish Government handling of harassment complaints has already questioned Ms Evans twice. Members claim they were hobbled by a lack of straight answers from witnesses, memory lapses, and redacted documents.
Mr Cole-Hamilton said: “The optics of this are terrible for the government. When the possibility of conspiracy is there already, you could interpret their decision not to go for arbitration and fight the judicial review in public as being motivated by a desire to publicly destroy Alex Salmond’s career.
“The WhatsApp messages between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon show he believed Ms Sturgeon wanted to assist him but then changed her mind, that his counsel believed his case was a slam dunk and that arbitration was on the table but rejected. But irrespective of the First Minister’s involvement, there has potentially been a colossal abuse of power here. I don’t have a great deal of time for Mr Salmond politically, but he has the right to due process like everyone else.
“The suggestion a government has tried to destroy the career of a private citizen using a complaints process is as serious as it gets. At the end of the day, the government encouraged women to come forward and left them utterly exposed, and that for me is unforgivable.”
The Scottish Government said: “The Permanent Secretary is of course happy to give further evidence to the committee if asked, having already done so on two occasions. The Scottish Government had a duty to investigate the serious complaints raised and was correct to do so. Any suggestion that the Scottish Government’s actions were motivated by a desire to damage Alex Salmond’s reputation is patently untrue. We are committed to providing the relevant information requested by committee so far as is possible given the confidentiality, data protection and legal restrictions that apply.
“However, we are not yet in a position to submit our final written statement – which will address arbitration – pending resolution of an objection which we have received. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt that submission.”
How Alex Salmond messaged FM to help arrange arbitration
One of Alex Salmond’s WhatsApp messages to Nicola Sturgeon revealed how he had asked for arbitration and explained why he believed the Scottish Government had nothing to lose – and a lot to gain – by accepting.
It appears from the documents, submitted to the Holyrood committee and released last week, Ms Sturgeon did not respond to his message.
July 5, 2018
Nicola. I have slept on the content of the latest letter from the PS [Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans] rejecting arbitration. Two points I want to make to you privately. Firstly, the explanation given in the letter is that arbitration is rejected because the SG [Scottish Government] is confident in the legality of the process. With respect, that entirely misses the point. The SG may well believe it is lawful. My Senior Counsel believes it is unlawful. That’s the whole point of the arbitration. The legality will have to be resolved either in private (in a confidential and binding arbitration) or in public at the Court of Session. The SG, and you, have everything to gain from arbitration. If my legal advice is wrong, I will accept that and the current process proceeds. If the SG legal advice is wrong, you discover that without losing in a public court. Adopting an arbitration process also guarantees confidentiality for the complainers, regardless of what happens.
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