• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints Friday 26 February 2021 Session 5 © Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Information on the Scottish Parliament’s copyright policy can be found on the website - www.parliament.scot or by contacting Public Information on 0131 348 5000 Friday 26 February 2021 CONTENTS Col. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS .................................................................... 1 COMMITTEE ON THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS 13th Meeting 2021, Session 5 CONVENER *Linda Fabiani (East Kilbride) (SNP) DEPUTY CONVENER *Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con) COMMITTEE MEMBERS *Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) *Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab) *Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD) *Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green) *Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) *Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO PARTICIPATED: The Rt Hon Alex Salmond Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Ind) LOCATION The Robert Burns Room (CR1) 1 26 FEBRUARY 2021 2 and questions should be phrased in general terms, Scottish Parliament where possible, to avoid the risk of jigsaw identification of complainants. Committee on the Scottish In addition, do not refer to civil servants by Government Handling of name unless absolutely necessary, and do not Harassment Complaints refer to civil servants by name below senior civil service level. I emphasise that the committee Friday 26 February 2021 would be content to receive written supplementary points, should Mr Salmond have concerns that a response to a question may stray into this territory. [The Convener opened the meeting at 12:30] With that, I welcome Alex Salmond, former First Scottish Government Handling of Minister of Scotland. I invite Mr Salmond to take Harassment Complaints the oath. Alex Salmond took the oath. The Convener (Linda Fabiani): Good The Convener: Thank you very much. I now afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 13th invite you, Mr Salmond, to make an opening meeting of the committee in 2021. Our public statement. business today is an evidence session with the Rt Hon Alex Salmond, former First Minister of Alex Salmond: Thank you very much, Scotland. convener. Three important points require to be made at the outset. First, this inquiry is not about At the outset, I note for members, for Mr me. I have already established the illegality of the Salmond and for all those watching the evidence actions of the Scottish Government in the Court of session at home that, due to the necessary Session, and I have been acquitted of all criminal mitigations that need to be in place to allow us all charges by jury in the highest court in the land— to meet safely under Covid restrictions in person those are both of the highest courts in the land: today, the evidence session will be suspended for the highest civil court and the highest criminal a short while at around 2.15 pm, so that we can court. allow the room to be ventilated and cleaned. I also note for those watching that every effort has been The remit for this inquiry is about the actions of made to make this evidence session as safe as others. It is an investigation into the conduct of possible for all involved, including with social ministers, the permanent secretary, civil servants distancing around the table and within the and special advisers. It also requires to shine a committee room. light on the activities of the Crown Office and to examine the unacceptable conduct of those who I remind all those present and watching that we appear to have no understanding of the are bound by the terms of our remit and the importance of separation of party, Government relevant court orders, including the need to avoid and prosecution authorities—or, indeed, of the rule being in contempt of court by identifying certain of law itself. It was the Government that was found individuals, including through jigsaw identification. to have acted unlawfully, unfairly and “tainted by The committee as a whole has agreed that it is apparent bias”. not our role to revisit events that were a focus of I note that the First Minister asserts that I have the trial in a way that could be seen to constitute a to prove a case. I do not. That has already been rerun of the criminal trial. Our remit is clear, and it done. There have been two court cases, two is: judges and one jury. In this inquiry, it is the “To consider and report on the actions of the First Scottish Government—a Government that has Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers already admitted to behaving unlawfully—that is in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First under examination. Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s ‘Handling of harassment complaints involving current or Secondly, my interest in assisting this inquiry is former ministers’ and procedure and actions in relation to out of respect for our Parliament. I have made no the Scottish Ministerial Code.” personal public comment of any kind on these The more we get into specifics of evidence— matters for 11 months—not a single television that is, time, people and cases—the more we run interview or press interview or statement. I have the risk of identifying those who made complaints. turned down hundreds of such offers, which, as The more we ask about specific matters that were committee members will know, has not hitherto covered in the trial, including events that were been my normal policy. I have watched with explored in the trial, the more we run the risk of growing frustration, over the past six months, as rerunning the trial. In questions, reference to this committee has been systematically deprived specific dates and individuals should be avoided, of the evidence that it has legitimately sought. 3 26 FEBRUARY 2021 4 Indeed, I am just about your only witness who has that was delivered under oath. Were it not for the been actively trying to present you with evidence independence of the judiciary, the robust scrutiny as opposed to withholding it. As we saw this week, of the Court of Session and the common sense of even after it was published, it was then a jury made up of members of the public, the unpublished by the intervention of a Crown Office matters before the committee would never have that should not be questioning the will of come to light and, indeed, no one would have Parliament. I watched in astonishment, on cared about this inquiry. The Scottish courts Wednesday, as the First Minister of Scotland used emerge from these events with their reputation a Covid press conference to effectively question enhanced. Can those leading the Government and the result of a jury. Still, I said nothing. Well, today, the Crown Office say the same? that changes. Some people say that the failures of these I have no incentive or advantage for me in institutions—the blurring of the boundaries revisiting the hurt and shock of the past three between party, Government and prosecution years, from a personal perspective—nor, indeed, service—mean that Scotland is in danger of from the perspective of two complainants who becoming a failed state. I disagree. The Scottish were failed by the Government and then forced, civil service has not failed; its leadership has directly against their express wishes, into a failed. The Crown Office has not failed; its criminal process. That now-admitted action served leadership has failed. Scotland has not failed; its neither the wishes of the complainants nor the leadership has failed. So, the importance of this interests of justice. For two years and six months, inquiry is for each and every one of us to help put this has been a nightmare. In fact, I have every that right. desire to move on, to turn the page and to resist My final point is simply this: I am a private talking yet again about a series of events that citizen. Unlike just about every other person have been among the most wounding that any represented at this inquiry, I have had no-one person can face. However, the reason that I am paying my legal fees and I have had to contend here is because we cannot turn that page, nor with the resources of the Scottish Government move on, until the decision making that is being used to further tarnish my reputation, just as undermining the system of Government in it spent £600,000 defending its illegal policy before Scotland is addressed. collapsing in the judicial review, and just as The competence and professionalism of the civil enormous time, effort and public money have service matters. The independence of the Crown been devoted to the task of refusing to give this Office, as acting in the public interest, matters. committee the documentation that it requires. The Acting in accordance with legal advice matters. pattern is undeniable. The Government refused to Concealing evidence from the courts matters. The hand over documentation in the civil case; it duty of candour of public authorities matters. required a commission to extract that from it. The Democratic accountability through Parliament permanent secretary was brought in to give matters. Suppressing evidence from Parliamentary evidence under oath just to extract documents that committees matters—and, yes, ministers telling she had a duty to provide to the court. the truth to Parliament matters. The day that such The Government ignored the provisions of a things came to not matter would be a dark and search warrant in the criminal case, and, despite dangerous one for Scotland. the impact on the administration of justice, still Collectively, these events shine a light on a withheld key documents that should have been put Government whose actions are no longer true to before the jury.

Load more

  60

Copy Link