NICOLA Sturgeon’s husband has told a committee of MSPs that he was not present at meetings between the First Minister and Alex Salmond at their home in April and July.
In a letter to the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, Peter Murrell, who is the chief executive of the SNP, said that he “had the sense that something serious was being discussed” by the pair but that his wife “couldn’t discuss the details.”
The Holyrood inquiry - formed after Salmond won a judicial review into the government’s complaints procedures - wrote to Murrell in July asking for information.
Part of their investigation is looking into whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code by meeting Salmond while he was being investigated over alleged sexual misconduct.
The committee has requested material relating to all SNP disciplinary and grievance procedures, and details of complaints between the SNP, Salmond, Sturgeon, and her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd.
It also asked when he became aware of complaints and who told him, and for details of meetings he had attended or knew of involving Sturgeon, Lloyd, Salmond and Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s ex-chief of staff.
In his response, Murrell said :”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.”
He said: “There was no action taken by the SNP in relation to these complaints before the matter became public in August 2018.
“The only such discussions would have been after the matter became public in August 2018 and in relation to the Party’s response.”
Sturgeon told MSPs in January 2019 that Salmond had informed her himself that he was under investigation when he came to her Glasgow home on 2 April.
Sturgeon met him again in Aberdeen before the SNP conference on 7 June, and again in her home on 14 July.
She also spoke to him by phone on 23 April and 18 July 2018.
She said: “On 2 April, he informed me about the complaints against him, which - of course - in line with the procedure, the permanent secretary had not done. He set out his various concerns about the process.
“In the other contacts, he reiterated his concerns about the process and told me about proposals that he was making to the Scottish Government for mediation and arbitration.
“However, I was always clear that I had no role in the process. I did not seek to intervene in it at any stage—nor, indeed, did I feel under any pressure to do so.”
In his letter, Murrell said the SNP expects members who hold public office "to abide by the relevant rules of their office in terms of the appropriate separation of roles."
He added: "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."
Replying to a specific question from the Committee, Murrell said he was not aware of an SNP minister or Special Adviser using "party channels for government business."
He said: "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 [special adviser] could not use party channels for government business as a way of avoiding transparency.
"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."
In a follow-up letter to Murrell, whose evidence was submitted last month, Inquiry convener Linda Fabiani questioned his assertion that he was “unaware” of ministers using SNP communication channels for official business.
She pointed out the Scottish Government admitted last year that the First Minister, four of her cabinet secretaries and one minister had sent material to the government from their personal accounts.
Fabiani wrote: “Given the recent information released by the Scottish Government detailing the number of emails from personal accounts (including snp.org accounts) received by the Scottish Government from Cabinet members (including the First Minister), and previous media coverage suggesting certain matters are directed at the First Minister using an email account other than her ministerial account, the Committee invites confirmation from you whether there have been instances where SNP channels of communication are used by SNP members when acting in a ministerial capacity.”
Fabiani also asked if Murrell had checked with colleagues, including Sturgeon, her chief of staff, the SNP chief operating officer Sue Ruddick, and SNP compliance manager Ian McCann, to see if the SNP held communications related to the misconduct complaints against Salmond.
She wrote: “If you did not confer with colleagues in this regard 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.
“Again, the information we are seeking includes, but is not limited to, emails, minutes, notes, texts, papers and WhatsApp messages from all levels of the SNP.
“The Committee look forward to receiving your response as soon as is practicable.”
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