Alex Salmond Inquiry: Key evidence from former first minister to be published by Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Parliament’s Corporate Body (SPCB) has overturned the decision by the harassment complaints committee to block publication of Alex Salmond’s submission to the inquiry on the ministerial code after it "collectively agreed” it could be published.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has voted on whether to publish Alex Salmond's evidence to the harassment complaints committee.

The decision paves the way for the former first minister to give evidence in front of the committee on Wednesday.

It comes after weeks of back-and-forth between the Salmond inquiry, Mr Salmond’s lawyers, and a court hearing brought by The Spectator around the legality of publishing the document.

The decision was referred to the Scottish Parliament’s Corporate Body by the harassment complaints committee yesterday following a second vote blocking its publication.

Mr Salmond’s evidence had been blocked from being published due to legal concerns linked to a court order from Mr Salmond’s criminal trial.

But Holyrood’s corporate body decided on Thursday that “on balance” it is possible to publish the submission.

In a letter from Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh to the harassment committee’s convener Linda Fabiani, the decision was confirmed.

Mr Macintosh said: “Thank you for your letter and for asking the Corporate Body whether or not it considers that the submission provided by Mr Salmond to your committee can be published in light of the legal obligations to which the Parliament is subject.

"As you might imagine, the Corporate Body takes these legal obligations very seriously and has given careful consideration to your request.

“Following two meetings of the SPCB today, at which a range of opinions were aired, the SPCB collectively agreed that on balance it is possible to publish the submission by Alex Salmond on the ministerial code.

“The Corporate Body has considered the key elements of the matter you placed before it, but is mindful that this decision in principle to publish must now be followed by the processing of the submission in line with the committee’s evidence handling statement.

“Finally, I wish to record that Andy Wightman MSP did not take part in the meeting of the SPCB at which our decision was reached, given he is a member of your committee.”

Responding, a spokesperson for the harassment complaints committee said the body would now “begin processing” Mr Salmond’s “revised submission”, which was sent to the committee on Wednesday.

The spokesperson said: “The committee notes the decision of the SPCB. Mr Salmond’s submission will now be processed in line with the committee’s statement on the handling of information, ahead of publication early next week.

“The committee will be writing to Mr Salmond to invite him to give evidence to the Committee on Wednesday, February 24.”

In the submission, Mr Salmond accuses Nicola Sturgeon of lying and misleading Holyrood, calling her evidence to the inquiry into sexual harassment claims made against him “simply untrue” and "untenable".

Ms Sturgeon has repeatedly denied that she misled Parliament and has claimed she did not breach the ministerial code.

Extracts of the document were first reported on by The Times and it was published in full by The Spectator magazine.

The non-publication of evidence was understood to be the main hurdle stopping Mr Salmond from committing to appear in front of the committee.

He is now expected to appear on Wednesday.

Responding to the news, the Scottish Conservative spokesperson from the inquiry, Murdo Fraser, said it was the “right decision”.

He said: “The public deserve to know how £500,000 of taxpayers’ money was lost and why women were so badly let down.

“We must hear Alex Salmond’s side of the story to uncover what really happened. This welcome decision makes that possible.”

Scottish Labour’s member on the committee, Jackie Baillie, welcomed the decision.

She said: “This decision is most welcome and should pave the way for Mr Salmond appearing before the committee next week.

“From the very outset of this process I have been clear that I believe the committee has the right to consider any evidence that may be relevant to its work, and I am glad that the Scottish Parliament’s Corporate Body has agreed.

“This committee is duty bound to get to the bottom of this sorry affair that frittered away over £500,000 of public money and which let down the women involved so badly.

“I look forward to questioning Mr Salmond next week and I hope that his evidence and that provided by the First Minister will go some way to helping the committee in drawing its conclusions.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton, the Scottish Liberal Democrat member of the committee, said: “This is a big decision for the corporate body, but the right one.

"It will allow our committee to consider Alex Salmond’s evidence in full and to cross examine the former first minister on that evidence in Parliament next week.

“We will finally have what we need to reach some kind of conclusion in this whole sorry business.

"We owe it to the women at the heart of this to ascertain why they were badly failed by the Scottish Government.”

Responding to the SPCB's decision, SNP MSP George Adam said: “People across Scotland will be utterly bewildered that the corporate body of the national parliament has ignored clear legal advice and decided to publish information which it knows could jeopardise the court-ordered anonymity of complainants in a sexual offences case.

“The message it is in danger of sending is that women should not dare seek to hold powerful men to account if they believe they have been mistreated."

Rape Crisis Scotland posted a statement, saying the body had written to the Presiding Officer as well as Ms Fabiani seeking urgent assurances that Parliament intended to uphold the contempt of court order.

The committee is examining the botched handling of harassment complaints against Mr Salmond by the Scottish Government, which led to a £500,000 legal bill after the government conceded a judicial review challenge on the grounds of the process being “tainted by apparent bias”.

Mr Salmond was also acquitted of sexual offence charges in a trial last year.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.