SGHHC/S5/21/7/A COMMITTEE on the SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT HANDLING of HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS AGENDA 7Th Meeting, 2021 (Session 5) Mond

SGHHC/S5/21/7/A

COMMITTEE ON THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS

AGENDA

7th Meeting, 2021 (Session 5)

Monday 8 February 2021

The Committee will meet at 9.00 am in a virtual meeting.

1. Division between Scottish Government and party political matters: The Committee will take evidence from—

Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, Scottish National Party.

2. Review of Evidence (in private): The Committee will review the evidence heard under item 1.

Clerk to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints Email: [email protected] SGHHC/S5/21/7/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows—

Agenda Item 1

Paper from the Clerk SGHHC/S5/21/7/1

Private paper SGHHC/S5/21/7/2 (P)

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1

Committee on Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

7th Meeting, 2021 (Session 5), 8 February 2021

Phase 2: Complaints Handling

Evidence session 12: 8 February 2021

1. This paper has been produced prior to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints’ twelfth evidence session where the Committee will hear evidence from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive of the Scottish National Party.

2. Peter Murrell provided the Committee with written evidence on 4 August 2020 which can be found at Annexe A. Following this submission the Committee requested further information, resulting in Mr Murrell providing an additional written submission which can be found at Annexe B.

3. Mr Murrell gave oral evidence to the Committee on Tuesday 8 December 2020. The Official Report of this session can be found here. Following this evidence session, Mr Murrell sent the Committee some follow up information which can be found at Annexe C. Following this, the Committee requested further information, resulting in a further written submission from Mr Murrell which can be found at Annexe D.

4. In line with the Committee’s written statement on the handling of information and evidence all participants must comply with the court order made by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, on 10 March 2020 preventing publication of the names and identity, and any information likely to disclose the identity, of the complainers in the criminal trial.

5. The Committee’s remit and approach to its inquiry is available on the Committee’s webpage.

SGHHC Committee Clerks 4 February 2021

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Annexe A

Written Submission from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, SNP (4 August 2020)

Dear Linda

I am responding to your letter of 7 July 2020.

The fact that the committee intended to seek my evidence was made known to me by a journalist on 18 June 2020. A further enquiry on 1 August 2020 from another journalist suggests that the committee will seek to ask me about matters out-with the terms of the inquiry remit or approach to the inquiry as set out in Annex C.

Notwithstanding those concerns, I have prepared my response after careful consideration of your letter, the terms of the inquiry remit, and the annexes provided. There are aspects of your request that are not entirely clear but I have sought to interpret them as reasonably and as fully as I can.

1. Separation of SNP/Scottish Government roles

a) The principal onus of ensuring that politicians – whether members of parliament or government ministers – do not use public office for party political purposes rests with the individual concerned. SNP MSPs abide by the Scottish Parliament Code of Conduct and Ministers abide by the Ministerial Code of Conduct. Special Advisers are bound by the Special Advisers Code of Conduct and also the Civil Service Code. b) The SNP does not know how the Scottish Government holds information. c) The SNP expects any of its members who hold public office – including ministerial office – to abide by the relevant rules of their office in terms of the appropriate separation of roles. The SNP cannot be the arbiter of what is or is not government business as we are not privy to the detail of government business. My understanding is that government business is subject to Freedom of Information legislation regardless of the channels it is conducted on. I assume therefore that a Minister or SpAd could not use party channels for government business as a way of avoiding transparency. d) You ask me for instances where ‘this’ (by which I assume you mean instances where a minister has used SNP channels when they should have used Scottish Government channels) may have been the case. I am not aware of any such instances. However, it would be entirely appropriate for Ministers to use SNP rather than Scottish Government channels for party political business.

2. SNP disciplinary and grievance procedures

I attach copies of the following documents: -

- Code of Conduct for Members - Disciplinary Rules - Standing Orders for the SNP Group in the Scottish Parliament - Standing Orders for the SNP Group on the United Kingdom Parliament

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1

I also attach the Grievance Procedure for employees of the Scottish National Party based at our Edinburgh headquarters. The Committee will be aware that there are a number of additional employment relationships, procedures and policies within Holyrood and Westminster for all those undertaking parliamentary duties and activities in those locations or elsewhere.

Finally, I am attaching an email issued to all elected representatives and staff on 31 October 2017. It outlines an additional confidential, independent mechanism for reporting inappropriate behaviour following the emergence of the MeToo movement and media reports concerning the alleged behaviour of parliamentarians both at Holyrood and Westminster.

The SNP has no communications between it and any of the individuals listed in your letter, in relation to the complaints raised under the Scottish Government procedure on handling of harassment complaints invoicing current or former ministers.

3. Requests of me in a personal capacity

a) I became aware that complaints had been made under the Scottish Government procedure when the matter became public in August 2018. I knew about the meetings between Nicola and Alex Salmond at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018 and I had the sense that something serious was being discussed. Nicola told me she couldn’t discuss the details. The nature of Nicola’s job means that when she tells me she can’t discuss something, I don’t press it. b) There was no action taken by the SNP in relation to these complaints before the matter became public in August 2018. c) The only such discussions would have been after the matter became public in August 2018 and in relation to the Party’s response. d) I was aware of meetings that took place at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018, involving certain of the individuals listed. I was not present at these meetings and made no contribution to them.

I have no direct knowledge of and therefore no comment to make on the development of the Scottish Government complaints policy, the judicial review, the application of the ministerial code and the civil service code, the handling of the complaints by the Scottish Government, or the culture within the Scottish Government.

Yours sincerely

PETER MURRELL Chief Executive 4 August 2020

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Annexe B

Written Submission from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, SNP (2 October 2020)

Dear Linda

Thank you for your letter of 9 September 2020.

In responding, I note the Committee’s statement of 29 September and the assertion that I and/or the SNP have not been forthcoming in providing the evidence that you asked for.

It is therefore important to immediately put on record that the SNP takes its responsibilities seriously and has the utmost respect for the Scottish Parliament - as I do.

I believe that my response of 4 August sought to answer fully the questions that had been asked of me, and I did so within the timeframe asked of me.

For clarity, I do not accept that I or the SNP have acted in any way other than to cooperate with the Committee to the fullest extent possible.

In particular, the Committee’s letter of 9 September, supplemented by emails received from the clerking team on 22 and 23 September, made additional requests to those previously asked. By definition, my written submission on 4 August did not cover these requests because they had not, at that point, been asked.

I would also note that your letter of 9 September asked for a response “as soon as is practicable” but set no deadline. I had committed to the clerking team to reply within four weeks and by no later than 7 October.

I am therefore not clear of the factual basis for the Committee’s claim that I or the SNP has either failed to provide material sought or missed any deadline set.

In turning to the requests for additional material, in the letter of 9 September it is asserted in relation to my previous response that “the Committee’s intention was that you would canvass colleagues for relevant information and records as well as submitting any evidence you were aware of as an individual”. The letter then goes on to ask whether I did, or did not, do so.

I would draw the Committee’s attention to Annexe A of the letter sent to me on 7 July. It explicitly asks that those asked to provide evidence do not discuss that evidence with others asked to give personal evidence.

Despite this contradiction, I have sought to provide clarity in my response on this point below.

More broadly, the SNP’s legal advisers have engaged with the clerking team to seek to clarify other aspects of the Committee’s requests. While we have not received that clarification, given the Committee has now indicated that a response is required by

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 today, I will endeavour to answer as fully as I can, interpreting these requests in as reasonable a way as possible.

Before doing so, there are three points, which may help the Committee in its deliberations.

Firstly, as the SNP’s legal advisors have already advised the clerking team, there are legal and practical challenges in providing a ‘corporate response’ for the SNP in relation to your requests for information, given that the SNP is an unincorporated association. That means I cannot give a response on behalf of, or reasonably vouch for, every member of the SNP including Ministers and Special Advisers.

However, I can convey assurances provided to me by staff members who report to me and confirm to the Committee that all reasonable searches on the SNP.org platform and electronic servers across the period defined have been completed - and no relevant information has been found.

I obviously do not have access to the personal communications of staff members or any other members of the SNP.

Secondly, the Committee remit is:

“To consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s “Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers” procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code.”

And Annexe A of your letter to me of 7 July states that “all evidence submitted should fall within the terms of the remit of the Committee’s Inquiry”.

Neither I nor my staff were involved in development of the Scottish Government Procedure or the handling of the complaints made under it. If the Committee has evidence that suggests otherwise, I would be grateful if it could be put to me in order that I can respond - however, I cannot provide material which, because we had no involvement, does not exist.

Further any unrelated and separate concerns that may have been raised, about any individual, under SNP procedures are not within the scope of the Committee remit and are subject to our own duties of confidentiality and data privacy.

Lastly, while I can – and am willing to – answer for myself, you will appreciate that it is not possible for me either to be aware of or comment on opinions or conversations anyone else may have expressed or had about the criminal charges against Alex Salmond or indeed about him generally. It is also my understanding that the Committee is not considering issues covered by the Police investigation and criminal trial.

Let me now turn to the specific questions posed in your letter of 9 September:

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1

Query 1 “If you did not confer with colleagues during the drafting of your submission I would ask that you now do so and submit further written evidence to the Committee, providing details of any and all communications requested in my original letter that may be relevant.”

Response 1 I have now conferred with all 23 members of staff who report to me. All have confirmed that they do not hold any information or communication in any format relevant to the Committee’s remit.

Query 2 “whether there have been instances where SNP channels of communication are used by SNP members when acting in a ministerial capacity.”

Response 2 The only Minister or Special Adviser who has an SNP.org email account is Nicola Sturgeon.

As stated in my response of 4 August, I am not aware of any instances of this account being used for Scottish Government business. I note that you have since drawn my attention to an FOI on this subject and to media reporting. However, with respect, questions about use of this email account can only be addressed by Nicola Sturgeon, and indeed I note that you have asked for evidence from her on this point. In addition, as I indicated in my earlier response, I am not a member of the Scottish Government and cannot be expected to know what is government business and what is not.

Query 3 In relation to “copies of any communications in relation to the complaints made under the Scottish Government Procedure on handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers between the SNP and a. the former First Minister, Alex Salmond; b. the First Minister, in her capacity as First Minister; c. the First Minister’s Chief of Staff; and d. any other relevant individuals” you ask that I confer with colleagues and “submit further written evidence to the Committee, providing details of any and all communications requested in my original letter that may be relevant.”

Response 3 In light of your requirement not to confer with others who have been asked to provide evidence to the Committee, in making my previous response, I did not confer with anyone listed in your letter of 9 September.

Given your requirement is specific to those from whom you have sought evidence, this remains the case in relation to both Nicola Sturgeon and Elizabeth Lloyd. I note, however, that you have sought evidence from both Nicola Sturgeon and Elizabeth Lloyd separately.

I can confirm that I have now conferred with the SNP Compliance Manager and the SNP Chief Operating Officer, and that all appropriate record and data searches, including email searches, have been carried out. I can further confirm that no

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 information relevant to the complaints made under the Scottish Government Procedure on handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers was found. I would draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this is unsurprising given the SNP had no involvement in the process, it being entirely a matter for the Scottish Government.

Query 4 You will be aware of the additional request from the clerking team on 22 and 23 September that my response “could usefully cover when the Chief Executive or others within the SNP first became aware of concerns that could then have become the basis for the complaints under the Government procedure.”

Response 4 To the best of my knowledge - prior to the Scottish Government complaints becoming public in August 2018 - neither I nor any SNP staff were aware of concerns that could then have become the basis for the complaints under the Scottish Government Procedure. However, it is important to point out that the identity of the complainants and the detail of the complaints have been kept confidential by the Scottish Government.

I am, of course, aware of the information about the complaints reported in the media but I have no knowledge of the accuracy of the media reports.

I know the Committee has already heard evidence about a media inquiry from Sky News in November 2017 - this was an inquiry made to the SNP on 4 November 2017 and so I was aware of it at the time. But I do not know whether any of the specifics of that issue relate in any way to the complaints raised with the Scottish Government under its procedure - though I have no reason to believe that they do - and include it here solely for completeness.

Finally, I am aware that the committee has received copies of messages described as ‘What’s App’ messages in the media. I can confirm that these are not WhatsApp messages but are text messages between myself and another individual.

The Committee should be aware, however, of the following points:

• There is an ongoing police investigation into the circumstances in which this information was obtained. • The content of the messages do not relate to the remit of the Committee inquiry, namely the handling by the Scottish Government of the complaints under its Procedure. • The messages have been presented in a way that suggests a meaning that they do not in reality have.

Acknowledging this context and the legal constraints that apply, and notwithstanding the fact that the messages do not relate to the Committee’s remit, I hope it will be helpful to the Committee to provide an explanation of them.

The messages were sent the day after Mr Salmond had been charged with a number of serious offences.

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1

In the aftermath of this, the SNP was contacted by individuals who had specific, personal questions in relation to that criminal case. My intention was to advise that their questions should be addressed to the Police and not the SNP. I acknowledge that I did not express myself well but I suggest that in the context of such a criminal case, directing people to the Police was the only responsible thing to advise.

In relation to the second message, this has been presented as following on immediately from the first. That is inaccurate. However, my intended meaning was that any and all complaints should be appropriately investigated. The tone of it is a reflection of the shock, hurt and upset that I, and so many others in the SNP, felt that day given the events that had unfolded in court the previous day. As most people will appreciate, the immediacy of text messages lend themselves to informal, shorthand forms of expression but, even so, I would wish on reflection to have expressed myself more appropriately.

I hope the above is helpful to the Committee.

Yours sincerely

PETER MURRELL Chief Executive 2 October 2020

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Annexe C

Written submission from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, SNP, following the evidence session on 8 December 2020

I undertook yesterday to forward Committee members the text of the email sent by Nicola Sturgeon on 27 August 2018. The email was sent to all members of the Scottish National Party, and the text is appended herewith.

In addition, I've noticed some commentary this morning about what I said yesterday in response to questions about WhatsApp groups.

I do not use WhatsApp.

There are several messaging apps on my phone that I don’t use. This includes profiles on Facebook Messenger, LinkedIn, Instagram, Slack, Skype, and WhatsApp, none of which I use.

I use my phone to make calls and to send emails and texts. Twitter is the only social media platform I’m active on.

I trust the appended text and the above clarification is helpful to members.

Best

Peter

PETER MURRELL Chief Executive Scottish National Party

A statement from Nicola Sturgeon

In recent days, calls have been made for the SNP to suspend Alex Salmond’s membership of the Party.

As SNP leader, it is important that I set out the reasons for the Party’s current position as clearly as I can.

The SNP, like all organisations, must act in accordance with due process.

In this case, unlike in some previous cases, the investigation into complaints about Alex Salmond has not been conducted by the SNP and no complaints have been received by the Party.

Also, for legal reasons, the limited information I have about the Scottish Government investigation cannot at this stage be shared with the Party.

In summary, the Party has no legal basis currently to suspend Alex Salmond’s membership.

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Of course, should that situation change, the matter will be reconsidered, as it would be for any member. The Party’s rules apply to all members and no one is above them.

The SNP is firm in its belief that allegations of harassment must be taken seriously and that anyone who considers that they have been subject to such behaviour must feel able to come forward.

Our procedures are aimed at ensuring anyone can raise concerns directly and in confidence, including the option of choosing to do so to someone completely outside the immediate Party structure.

The external route is [Solicitor], a solicitor with Kennedys Scotland, a firm of lawyers used by the Party. Her contact details are: [Redacted].

Alternatively, individuals can report any matter on a confidential basis, either formally or informally, using the internal route. The point of contact at SNP Headquarters is [Compliance Manager], who may be contacted at [Redacted] or direct dial [Redacted].

I give my personal assurance that any such complaints, about any member of the SNP, will be considered confidentially and with the utmost care and seriousness.

Nicola

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 Annexe D

Written submission from Peter Murrell, Chief Executive, SNP (13 January 2021)

Dear Linda

Thank you for your letter of 23 December 2020.

I trust the following points of clarification will prove helpful to the Committee.

Awareness of the meeting

The Committee would be grateful if you could confirm when you knew that the former First Minister was coming to the house and any details of how you knew this to be the case, to the best of your recollection.

My recollection is that Nicola mentioned to me on the Sunday evening that Mr Salmond would be visiting the next day, 2 April 2018.

The Committee would appreciate any further clarification you wish to add to your evidence on this matter.

I have nothing further to add to my written and oral evidence on this matter.

Status of the meeting

Given the time that had elapsed between the Sky News enquiry and the meeting in April, and that you had not been in contact with Mr Salmond in that time, the Committee seeks insight as to why you considered it possible that the meeting related to the Sky News story.

As I stated in my oral evidence, I considered it possible due to the other individuals who were present in our home.

The Committee seeks confirmation that its understanding of your evidence is correct.

The Committee also seeks insight as to why the Sky News story would be the basis for a meeting that you may have considered most likely to be a Government matter.

To inform the session with the First Minister, it would be useful to establish whether you assumed the meeting was a Government matter before it happened and whether you continued to assume so after the meeting took place.

My oral evidence was simply reflecting my own reading of Nicola’s written evidence to the Committee. It is not for me to speculate on, or determine, the basis or nature of the meetings as I was not party to them.

SGHHC COMMITTEE SGHHC/S5/21/7/1 The Committee would be grateful if you could confirm when the former First Minister last came to your home in advance of 2 April 2018. My recollection is that this was during the 2017 general election campaign.

For completeness, the Committee would be grateful if you could confirm whether you have ever used WhatsApp in the past including any communications with SNP officials or party members on anything related to concerns about the former first minister and the timescales for such exchanges.

I confirm that I have not used WhatsApp on any matters related to concerns raised about the behaviour of Mr Salmond.

Similarly, the Committee would appreciate confirmation as to whether there were any other electronic discussion groups you were involved in, for example text messages to multiple recipients or other platforms where such concerns were discussed with SNP officials and/or SNP party members (and again the relevant timescales).

I can confirm that I was not involved in any discussion groups where such concerns were discussed.

Complaints from London

The Committee would appreciate clarification as to when you first became aware of any potential complaint from London and from whom.

Acknowledging the privacy constraints that apply, and notwithstanding the fact that those concerns do not relate to the Committee’s remit, namely the handling by the Scottish Government of complaints about Alex Salmond under its Procedure, I can confirm that I first became aware of such matters in September 2018.

I hope the Committee finds this reply helpful.

Yours sincerely

PETER MURRELL Chief Executive 13 January 2021