SNP chief executive Peter Murrell clashed with MSPs on the Holyrood Salmond inquiry today, after he was accused of being "untruthful".

The party chief – who’s married to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon – said he “absolutely refuted” the claims.

But Tory MSP Murdo Fraser suggested the witness may have been guilty of perjury.

The cross-party committee is investigating the Scottish Government’s flawed probe into allegations of misconduct made against Alex Salmond by two civil servants.

He had the exercise set aside in January 2019, with a judicial review declaring it “unlawful” and “tainted by bias”. The Government’s botched handling ultimately cost the taxpayer half a million pounds.

At a later criminal case the ex-SNP leader was found not guilty on 12 counts of sexual assault.

Murrell’s evidence session came as it emerged Salmond had pulled out of giving evidence to the committee tomorrow in a row over withheld evidence. 

READ MORE: Alex Salmond will not appear before Holyrood inquiry in row over evidence

One of the central issues to the inquiry is over meetings between Sturgeon and Salmond during the Government’s initial investigation. 

Sturgeon told parliament that she became aware of the civil service probe of the allegations against Salmond when he told her at a meeting in her Glasgow home on April 2, 2018.

However, it later emerged that she met Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, in her office on March 29, 2018.

In her written evidence to the cross-party Holyrood inquiry, Sturgeon said she had forgotten that meeting because it was a busy day. 

There are also questions over the status of the meeting. The First Minister said she believed it was a party issue, meaning that it does not have to be recorded in line with the ministerial code. 

But at his last appearance in front of the committee back in December Murrell said he had not asked Sturgeon about the meeting because it was Scottish Government business.

In today's session, Murrell said he hadn’t known it was “a meeting for a purpose”.

He said: “I just thought [Salmond] was popping in for a chat about any matter.”

Back in December he also claimed in his written and oral evidence that he was not at home when the meeting took place, but then told the committee he arrived back at the house "not long before the meeting ended".

At today’s session, Fraser asked Murrell for clarity: “You have given this committee under oath two different accounts of the meeting of the 2nd of April, both in relation to your knowledge of it in advance and whether you were in the house. 

“Can you tell us which of these accounts is true and which is false?”

Murrell replied: “I wasn’t at the meeting, and I didn’t know what the meeting was about. I happened to arrive home just before the meeting finished.

“I came in the door, acknowledged the people that were in one room. Didn’t see Alex or Nicola at that point, and went upstairs to change, and by the time I had done that they had left. I just wasn’t at home.”

He said that Salmond being in the house was not uncommon.

Murrell added: “When you’re giving evidence and you’re being questioned in this fashion, it is difficult to go back to the point of what you knew and when.

“I didn’t know what the meeting was about. There were additional people in the house I didn’t expect. I had expected that Alex would be gone. I think the meeting was meant to happen earlier but he was late.” 

Fraser said: “When you told me, in response to my question, giving evidence to me under oath, that you were not at home during the meeting, and when you told me you were not really aware that Mr Salmond was coming to the house, you were giving us false information having sworn an oath to tell the truth?”

Murrell replied: “No. Because I wasn’t aware that the meeting was for a purpose. I just thought he was popping in for a chat about any matter.

“I had no awareness of the fact that it was a meeting for a purpose.

“I thought he was just coming for a catch-up with Nicola. It’s pretty simple.” 

Fraser: “I further suggest, Mr Murrell, you have made an untruthful statement to this committee, which is self-evident.”

Murrell interjected: “I don’t think so. I wasn’t at the meeting.”

When Fraser said that was "a false statement," the SNP head replied: “I absolutely refute what’s being suggested. I just happened to arrive home as the meeting was ending.”

After the session, Fraser tweeted: "Giving a false statement under oath is a criminal offence under s.44(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland)Act 1995.

"It is clear from his evidence today that Peter Murrell is guilty of this offence.

"A complaint has already been made to the Crown Office by @jackiebmsp [Scottish Labour's acting leader Jackie Baillie ] and the evidence today can only strengthen the case for a prosecution."

He added: "Mr Murrell has given false evidence to Parliament under oath.

"We had to drag him back to give evidence because of his previous contradictions around key aspects of his and his wife's actions in relation to the former first minister.

"Today's evidence session was no better.

"Mr Murrell seems incapable of giving a straight answer. His dismal and shifty performance was a masterclass in evasion.

"What was particularly craven was the attempt to use the female complainers as human shields to deflect the committee from getting the answers the public deserves."

Scottish Labour's Jackie Baillie said: "Once more, Mr Murrell's appearance before the Committee was an exercise in spin and obfuscation."

She added: "When faced with the charge that he may have misled the committee, Mr Murrell replies glibly and seemingly without understanding the gravity of the offence.

"This obstruction and obfuscation is simply unacceptable and this committee will continue to do all it can to get to the truth."

An SNP spokesman defended Murrell: "Peter agreed - for a second time despite some committee members having prejudged his evidence already - to appear at committee and he answered questions honestly while maintaining anonymity of the women.

"It is nothing short of disgraceful that some members of the committee are so willing to sideline the experiences of the women to try and score pathetic political points.

"Murdo Fraser's trolling tweets which mock the women's efforts to support one another are a disgrace. He should apologise and delete them."