ALEX Salmond has been given until later this month to supply potentially explosive evidence to the Holyrood inquiry examining the Scottish Government’s handling of complaints against him.
The former First Minister has been asked to provide a written submission by September 23 ahead of giving evidence under oath to the panel of MSPs.
The inquiry also said it would “assess all appropriate options” after Salmond offered to take Nicola Sturgeon’s administration to court over a refusal to disclose key documents, provided the Parliament agreed to cover his costs.
The developments are contained in a letter from inquiry convener Linda Fabiani to Salmond’s lawyer, David McKie of Glasgow firm Levy & McRae.
The cross-party inquiry is looking at how the Government mishandled an investigation into misconduct claims made against Salmond in 2018.
He had the exercise set aside in a judicial review at the Court of Session, forcing ministers to admit it had been unfair, unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias”.
The collapse of the Scottish Government’s case in January 2019 left taxpayers with a £500,000 bill for Salmond’s costs, and the Holyrood inquiry is investigating what happened.
Sturgeon told Parliament at the time that the inquiry could have whatever material it wanted, but her Government has since withheld a number of papers.
Deputy FM John Swinney has said advice to ministers is protected by legal privilege, while court documents belong to the court itself, not the Government.
However, in a letter to the inquiry which was disclosed earlier this week, McKie, on behalf of Salmond, said the Government was able to release more than it had.
He said Salmond, as the “quickest and cheapest route”, was willing to supply a list of documents about the judicial review so that MSPs could ask the Government for them.
He went on: “The second option, which we are willing to undertake on behalf of the committee, would be for Mr Salmond to return to court to seek the express consent of the court to have those documents passed to the committee.
“Whilst we are more than content to make that application on behalf of the committee, we would require clarification that all legal costs would be met by the committee.”
In a reply issued yesterday, Fabiani said: “The committee will continue to assess all appropriate options in seeking the documents and information necessary for its scrutiny and will come back to you at a later stage to update you on its progress in this regard..
“The Committee appreciates the complexities involved in all of this and your client’s desire to see the full statements and evidence from the Scottish Government. However, the Committee is also mindful of the need to progress its inquiry.
“To that end, we would ask your client to make a written submission, to the extent to which he is able, by September 23.”
The former First Minister was cleared in March of sexually assaulting nine women following a three week trial and after his acquittal he made a statement outside the High Court in Edinburgh saying there was “certain evidence” he would have liked to have led but for a variety of reasons was unable to do so.
He added that it would see the light of day later, suggesting once the coronavirus pandemic had subsided.
The allegation of a political conspiracy against Salmond formed a key plank of his defence at the former First Minister’s trial.
Over the summer Sturgeon dismissed claims of a conspiracy against her predecessor as a “heap of nonsense”, saying she would “elaborate” in the future.
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