THE Holyrood committee probing the botched investigation into harassment allegations made against Alex Salmond has hit out at the Scottish Government and former first minister, accusing them of “prevarication and obfuscation”.

Linda Fabiani, the SNP MSP who chairs the inquiry said the evidence being shared with her and colleagues lacked “detail and indeed usefulness”.

“This is both deeply problematic and deeply disrespectful,” she said.

It is the second time in just over a week that Fabiani has publicly criticised the two sides.

In a letter to John Swinney, Fabiani called the Scottish Government’s delay in handing over documents, “unacceptable”.

She warned that the absence of documentation will leave the committee with no choice but to move to oral evidence to look at the complaints handling process in the absence of relevant documentation.

“This is likely to mean that Scottish Government officials will need to spend more time in Committee covering matters in person that should have been covered by the Scottish Government’s written statement and associated documentation.

READ MORE: Alex Salmond inquiry: FM set new harrassment policy after accuser's 'disclosure'

“The Committee has evidence from the inquiry phases on the development of the procedure and the judicial review and other sources of information it can draw upon to inform these sessions.”

Earlier this week it was revealed that Nicola Sturgeon’s principal private secretary, John Somers, had met with one of the women who eventually lodged a complaint against Alex Salmond.

That meeting was just days before the First Minister backed a new harassment policy that would apply to former ministers.

The revelation fuelled suspicions among Salmond’s supporters that the complaints policy was designed to target him.

News of the meeting came in a letter from Swinney to the inquiry.

Fabiani was furious that details had only emerged this week.

She told Swinney: “The Committee notes that your letter dated 6 November provides details of the involvement of the PPS to the First Minister. The Committee wants to know why this is the first time this information has been given to the Committee, including why it did not feature in the Scottish Government’s chronology of events relating to the development of the Scottish Government’s harassment policy.”

“The interaction between other officials and the complainants was referenced so the Committee fails to understand why this interaction was never mentioned.”

In a letter to Salmond, she said MSPs are still waiting for his written submission. She says that part of the committee’s remit is to “identify what meaningful changes can be made to the Scottish Government’s procedures and practices”.

That means that the MSPs “must report to Parliament in good time to ensure the report of its findings can be agreed, published, considered, and the recommendations responded to by the Scottish Government.”

READ MORE: Alex Salmond team ‘sought privacy assurances’ over botched probe

Given that there’s a Holyrood election just months away, there is only a little time to achieve this.

Fabiani told the former first minister: “I write again to impress upon you the urgency of this matter.”

In a statement, Fabiani said: “I am in a position today where I am, yet again, writing letters to express my frustration at the delay, the prevarication and obfuscation. But this goes beyond frustration.”

A source close to Salmond told The National: “Alex has done his level best to help the Committee providing not just his successful petition for Judicial Review but also his own private legal advice which demonstrated why the Government’s behaviour was unlawful. Significantly the Government’s legal advice paid for by public money remains hidden from the Committee.

“Alex will not submit partial evidence, as he is required under oath to tell the whole truth. As was explained in a letter to the Committee Convener back on 29th September, the Crown have threatened potential prosecution if Alex reveals even to the Parliamentary Committee, evidence disclosed during the criminal case.”