SNP MP Fergus Ewing calls for redacted sections of Nicola Sturgeon report linked to Alex Salmond inquiry to be published

Rebel SNP backbencher Fergus Ewing suggests redactions in the investigation’s report were ‘designed to cover up the gravest of misdeeds at the heart of the [Nicola] Sturgeon administration’

A rebel SNP backbencher has called for redacted sections of a report into former first minister Nicola Sturgeon to finally be published

Fergus Ewing, the SNP MSP for Inverness and Nairn, said the Scottish Government needed to release details which were redacted in the James Hamilton report into the Alex Salmond inquiry.

The former Cabinet secretary suggested the “extraordinary level of redaction was designed to cover up the gravest of misdeeds at the heart of the Sturgeon administration”.

Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon. Picture: Jane Barlow/Press Association.

Mr Ewing said the key details, which were redacted in the report, must be made public. But the Scottish Government has maintained the legal order to do this was made to protect the identities of those who had complained about Mr Salmond, and that redactions were “kept to a minimum”.

In Mr Hamilton’s report, which was published in March 2021, it said Ms Sturgeon did not break the ministerial code. However, Mr Hamilton – an independent adviser to the First Minister on the ministerial code – previously expressed his “deep frustration” about the redactions, which he said made the report’s impact limited.

Judges at the Court of Session later criticised the Government’s case and argued ministers were trying to construct a “technical barrier” that “would defeat the objective of open and transparent government”.

Mr Ewing has submitted a series of written parliamentary questions in a bid to get a ministerial statement from the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ruling on the Hamilton report’s redactions.

“It is clear that James Hamilton himself believed it to be in the public interest to publish in full, and in a furious and unprecedented letter accompanying his report said exactly that in no uncertain terms,” Mr Ewing told The Herald.

“My belief is that the extraordinary level of redaction was designed to cover up the gravest of misdeeds at the heart of the Sturgeon administration. One way forward would be for the Government to immediately drop its opposition to the publication of the Hamilton evidence, which has already seen them humiliated in the Court of Session at the public cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

“Then the unredacted Hamilton report should be handed over to the Scottish Information Commissioner and the redactions justified line by line. If the unredacted full report points to any criminality on the part of any individual, then that can be reported to the police and justice can take its course.

“In addition, if it transpires there was any political interference in the redaction process, then proper procedures must now apply.”

Mr Hamilton’s investigation began after Ms Sturgeon referred herself over the ministerial code, after the former first minister was accused of breaching it by failing to record meetings and phone calls with Mr Salmond.

These meetings took place between March and July 2018 and related to allegations of sexual misconduct made by civil servants against Mr Salmond.

The Government then launched an inquiry into the complaints, but Mr Salmond took the government to court over the matter.

Lord Pentland ruled the inquiry was “tainted with apparent bias” because the official who carried out the investigation had contact with the complainers before carrying this out.

The Scottish Government paid out more than £500,000 in legal expenses to Mr Salmond over its flawed inquiry into sexual harassment claims.

In a separate criminal case, the former first minister was cleared of all charges against him in March 2020 at the High Court in Edinburgh.

A Government spokesperson said: “The full text of the Hamilton report has already been provided to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who accepted the Scottish Government’s reasoning that we could not publish the unredacted report because of the court orders in place.

“In a letter that accompanied his report, Mr Hamilton himself acknowledged the need to make redactions in order to comply with court orders in place to protect the identity of complainers. Redactions were kept to the minimum possible to meet these legal obligations and, as Mr Hamilton requested, we undertook those redactions in a way that indicates the length of text that has been redacted.”