THE Holyrood committee examining the Scottish Government’s botched investigation into complaints made against Alex Salmond has published its findings.
It has ruled the probe was “seriously flawed” and made a series of recommendations to help ensure the mistakes are not repeated and to bolster confidence in future complaints processes.
As per leaks over the weekend, a majority of MSPs on the committee agreed they “find it hard to believe" the First Minister had "no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Mr Salmond prior to November 2017”.
The report adds: “If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, then she has misled the Committee.”
However, SNP committee members Alasdair Allan, Linda Fabiani, Stuart McMillan and Maureen Watt all disagreed with this finding on the grounds that it does not distinguish between bullying behaviour and sexual harassment.
They claimed that "some evidence to the inquiry indicated that the former first minister could display bullying behaviour" but "there has been no suggestion the First Minister was aware of sexual harassment".
The inquiry agreed that James Hamilton’s report is the most appropriate place to address the question of whether or not the First Minister broke the ministerial code. His report, published on Monday, cleared Nicola Sturgeon of any rule breaches.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon did not breach ministerial code, James Hamilton finds
The report also highlights a "fundamental contradiction" in the evidence the committee heard about a meeting between Sturgeon and her predecessor in her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018.
Sturgeon has previously stated it was at this meeting she first learned of the allegations against the former first minister.
The committee said there was a difference in accounts from the current first minister and her predecessor on whether she would intervene in matters.
The report reads: "Taking account of the competing versions of events, the committee believes that she did in fact leave Salmond with the impression that she would, if necessary, intervene."
MSPs said this was confirmed by Duncan Hamilton, who had accompanied Salmond to the meeting.
Speaking about Sturgeon, the report said: "Her written evidence is therefore an inaccurate account of what happened and she has misled the committee on this matter.
"This is a potential breach of the Ministerial Code under the terms of section 1."
Again, the four SNP MSPs on the committee dissented from this section of the report.
On the Scottish Government’s handling of complaints, the inquiry makes clear that the multiple roles being fulfilled by the Permanent Secretary during the complaints process should have been seen as a risk.
To ensure confidentiality of the process, the committee expects the Government to review and implement measures to minimise the risk of leaks ever happening again.
On the handling of the judicial review, the report states that the Scottish Government was responsible from an early stage for a "serious, substantial and entirely avoidable situation that resulted in a prolonged, expensive and unsuccessful defence of the legal challenge".
It adds that "had the Scottish Government identified all relevant documents and complied fully and promptly with its duty of candour at an early stage, the prior contact with the complainers, which was subsequently to prove fatal due to the failure to disclose key evidence, would have been brought fully to the fore".
MSPs concluded the Scottish Government’s handling of document disclosure during the judicial review proceedings was “seriously flawed” and it was this “catastrophic failure” to disclose documents and to allow statements to be made to the court that all documents had been disclosed when they had not been that led to the awarding of a high level of costs.
Convenor Linda Fabiani said: “Throughout this inquiry there has been speculation and rumour around the work of our Committee.
“I have always been clear that at the heart of this inquiry are two women who made complaints of sexual harassment.
“These women were badly let down by the Scottish Government, but they have also been let down by some members of our Committee. I am truly dismayed by the hurt some of the Committee leaks will have caused them. I apologise to them unreservedly. This is not who we should be as a Committee of this Parliament.
“Our inquiry was a chance to reflect on what went wrong with the Scottish Government processes and ensure that the failings these women experienced never happen again.
“There are undoubtedly some extremely serious findings in our report and it was clear to the Committee that there were serious flaws made in the Government’s application of its own process. The Government must address these to ensure anyone who experiences sexual harassment has the confidence to come forward.”
Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said the Scottish Government will look at the recommendations of the reports to consider what they want to take forward.
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