ONE of the complainers in the Alex Salmond case has dismissed allegations raised by Conservative MP David Davis in Westminster.
Davis used parliamentary privilege to claim messages disclosed by a whistleblower show there was a “concerted effort by senior members of the SNP to encourage complaints” against the former first minister.
He alleged messages exist that suggest the First Minister’s chief of staff Liz Lloyd had been “interfering” in the complaints process in February 2018.
In a statement issued through Rape Crisis Scotland, the complainer, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said the claims were “fundamentally untrue”.
She said: “I am aware of comments from David Davis MP, in which he suggests the chief of staff to the First Minister, Liz Lloyd, was aware of and ‘interfered’ with complaints against Alex Salmond in February 2018.
“These allegations are fundamentally untrue and are being deliberately misrepresented. In January 2018 I was approached by Scottish Government HR regarding an investigation they were undertaking into a complaint about Alex Salmond’s behaviour during his time as First Minister.
“I had been named as someone who experienced such behaviour in statements obtained during the course of HR’s investigation. After discussion with HR, I decided I did not in any way wish to share with them my own personal experiences, however I also did not want to obstruct an investigation. I did not know if I was obliged to cooperate after being asked to.
“I decided to raise the matter with a trusted senior person in government, Liz Lloyd, to gain advice and an understanding of my obligations.
“I was extremely conscious of the sensitivity of the investigation and I, therefore, did not tell Liz who the complaint was from, who it was about or the nature of the complaint. I informed her I had been approached by HR in relation to a current investigation.
“I said I had been asked if I wanted to make a complaint and made it clear to her I did not want to, but I was concerned that if I didn’t I may be impeding an investigation.
“She offered to convey my concerns and what I wanted to happen to an appropriate senior civil servant, who was the most appropriate person to discuss the issue with. I agreed to this course of action. This was not ‘interfering’ but acting in line with my wishes.
“I then met with the senior civil servant and relayed my extreme apprehension about being involved in the investigation.
“They offered me reassurance that should I decline to cooperate that I would not be impeding the investigation. I conveyed my decision to HR and had no further part in the process.”
The First Minister also “strongly refuted” the allegations after being quizzed over the issue at her regular coronavirus briefing yesterday.
A Holyrood inquiry is looking at how the Scottish Government mishandled an investigation into sexual misconduct claims made against Salmond in 2018.
The former first minister had the exercise quashed in a judicial review in January 2019, after the Scottish Government conceded it had been “tainted by apparent bias”.
After the ruling, Sturgeon said she first learned about the investigation when Salmond told her himself at her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018. It later emerged Salmond’s former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein told Sturgeon of the claims on March 29, a meeting she later said she forgot.
If she knowingly misled parliament it would be a breach of the ministerial code – a possible resignation offence. She denies doing so.
Speaking in the Commons, Davis said the Crown Office was barring publication of evidence which was “critical in determining whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code”. Davis was approached for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel