MEMBERS of the Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Government’s botched probe into Alex Salmond say they have “significant and detailed evidence that now casts doubt over Nicola Sturgeon’s version of events”.
LibDem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton has called for an existing investigation into the First Minister to be expanded to judge if the SNP leader knowingly misled the Parliament.
Sturgeon triggered the investigation last year by referring herself after it was claimed she had broken the guidelines by failing to swiftly declare the three meetings and two phone calls with Salmond about the harassment complaints.
The Scottish Government’s ministerial code says that when discussing official business “any significant content” should be reported back to private offices.
The inquiry is being led by James Hamilton, a former director of public prosecutions in Ireland. He has the power to interview any minister or official in the Scottish Government and examine documents related to the meetings and discussions between Sturgeon and Salmond.
However, there’s some debate over the scope of what he’s allowed to look into.
Earlier this month, Salmond himself, said Hamilton’s remit laid “a surprising stress” on whether Sturgeon had “interfered in the Scottish Government investigation”.
“It might even be suspected that this remit has been set up as a straw man to knock down,” he adds.
During a debate calling for the Scottish Government to publish their legal advice on the Salmond judicial review, Cole Hamilton told MSPs that parliament needed to “direct the Scottish Government to urgently expand the remit of the ministerial code investigation into the actions of the First Minister.”
He said: “At this time, James Hamilton QC is only charged with investigating the meetings held between the First Minister and Mr Salmond connected to the complaints against him and the government investigation of the same, but our inquiry has been passed significant and detailed evidence that now casts doubt over the First Minister’s version of events.
“For legal reasons this cannot yet be published, but I know I speak for colleagues when I say that when we saw it, we recognised the immediate need for the ministerial code referral to be expanded to examine whether Nicola Sturgeon knowingly misled Parliament under terms of section 1c.”
He said that as it was a quasi-judicial process, “the only body that can expand its remit is the government itself.”
“So I ask them to do that today,” he said.
Last week Sturgeon had said she could not stop the probe looking to see if she misled parliament.
The SNP leader said it was up to Hamilton to decide if he should broaden the scope of his investigation.
Replying to a question in Holyrood, Sturgeon said: “My view right now is that James Hamilton, who is the adviser undertaking the investigations into the ministerial code, is not restricted at all in the issues he can look at.
"If he thinks there are any issues that engage the ministerial code, or in any way could constitute a breach if the ministerial code, my view is that he is free to look at them.
"If he considers that requires any change to his official remit, I’m sure he is perfectly able to say that.
"But just for the record, and to be clear, I do not consider his remit to be limited to just one aspect of the ministerial code.”
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 hereComments are closed on this article