CIVIL servants involved in the botched probe into allegations of harassment made against Alex Salmond have been accused of “selective amnesia".
The criticism came after the official, whose involvement in the investigation led to it being set aside by a judicial review, was forced to apologise for misleading MSPs.
Judith Mackinnon said she had “inadvertently” provided an incorrect answer about her history with one of the women who complained about Salmond when she gave evidence to the Holyrood inquiry into the affair on Tuesday.
She had been the Scottish Government's investigating officer, leading the probe after two civil servants made allegations against the former First Minister.
However, he had the results of her harassment investigation set aside in January last year, with a judge saying it was unlawful and had been “tainted by apparent bias” because Mackinnon had been in prior contact with the two complainers.
On Tuesday, Labour MSP Jackie Baillie asked Mackinnon: “Did you tell either of the complainants that you were going to be appointed the investigating officer before the appointment actually happened?”
The civil service chief replied: “I did not. I did not tell them that. At that point in time, I did not know that that would be the case.”
In a follow-up email, Mackinnon said that was wrong, and that she did tell Ms B she was “likely” to be the person who interviewed her if she proceeded to make a formal complaint.
She said: “I have inadvertently provided an incorrect response to a question asked by Ms Baillie about whether I had advised any of the complainants that I was going to be appointed as the Investigating Officer prior to that appointment being confirmed.
“I am writing to you now at the first opportunity to correct the record.
“Having reviewed the answer I provided against my records, I can confirm to the Committee that in an email I sent to Ms B, I gave an indication that I would likely be the Investigating Officer.
“In that email, I provided Ms B with advice about the process that would apply if a formal complaint was received.
“As part of that advice, I indicated that she would be interviewed and that the interview was ‘likely to be led by myself’.
“Although I did not explicitly say that I was to be appointed as the Investigating Officer, I gave a clear indication that it was likely that I would be.
“Please accept my apologies for inadvertently providing an incorrect answer and I would be grateful if the record could be updated to reflect the correct information provided in this letter.”
In her email, Mackinnon had thanked Ms B for talking to her and "set out a couple of options" for her to consider about submitting a formal complaint.
She wrote: "We would then interview you (likely to be led by myself... could be by phone) to take a formal statement, and other individuals you may name in your statement. You would have an opportunity to review the statement."
Baillie said: "It is shocking that senior civil servants come before the committee and, despite being on oath, fail to give candid answers.
"Some suffer from selective amnesia and others have to subsequently correct their evidence to the committee because they got it wrong the first time.
"The Scottish Government needs to start treating this inquiry seriously."
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