If Sturgeon didn’t know about 2013 complaint, then who in SNP did?

IT was a meeting that lasted only a matter of minutes – but will now be at the centre of a crucial courtroom battle between First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government.

In late 2013, Mr Salmond was the subject of an explosive allegation from a female member of staff who had accused him of acting inappropriately when they were alone together in Bute House, his official residence in Edinburgh.

The allegations could not have come at a worse time for Mr Salmond and his government.

It was at the height of the independence referendum campaign, and around the point when the SNP leader was appearing alongside his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, to present the country with their blueprint for breaking up Britain.

Had the allegations got out, it could have been catastrophic for the SNP’s hopes of success in the referendum.

As it happened, an ‘informal resolution’ was reached which meant the public would never find out about the complaint for five years – until a new complaint was made public in August and triggered an extraordinary legal battle between Mr Salmond and the government.

The woman’s complaint in 2013 did start a formal process outlined in the Scottish Government’s Fairness at Work policy, which specifically addresses how complaints about ministers are dealt with.

BuT it was at the very first stage of this process, described in the policy document as ‘local informal handling’, that a resolution was reached.

The woman had done as the policy suggested and raised the issue in the first instance with her line manager, either verbally or in writing. She would have explained the details of the complaint, and how she would like it to be resolved.

It would have then been established that an ‘informal resolution’ – such as a direct apology from the First Minister – would be acceptable to her.

At this stage in the process, a meeting was arranged with Mr Salmond and the woman. They met with another member of government staff and the then First Minister made an apology for the ‘misunderstanding’ that had occurred during the alleged incident.

For five years, that was the end of it. The next stage of the process was never invoked and the matter was closed.

Had it been escalated, both the Permanent Secretary and Deputy

First Minister – Nicola Sturgeon at the time – would have been informed and asked to consider the case.

In recent days, the Scottish Government has stuck to its story that there were no ‘recorded complaints’ about Mr Salmond prior to January 2018, when the two allegations at the centre of the current probe were first made. It has also made a point of stressing that Miss Sturgeon was not made aware of any complaint prior to April this year.

Yet it seems clear that, at best, the Scottish Government is playing with words.

The woman’s allegations five years ago did start a complaints process – it was just a process that was brought to a quick resolution during the first ‘informal’ stage. It remains surprising to those involved in the process that this was not ‘recorded’ by the Scottish Government in some way at the time.

Now the issue is going to be one of the central points to Mr Salmond’s judicial review against the Scottish Government. His view will be that the issue was dealt with back then under the policy that existed at the time.

He will argue that it should never have been investigated again through the successor policy to Fairness at Work following the January 2018 complaint.

Is the Scottish Government being truthful about events? It certainly has questions to answer about its public statements – and Labour is pushing for a parliamentary statement on the matter this week.

Whether that happens remains to be seen – although it is almost inevitable that ministers will argue that giving more detail would be inappropriate in the midst of a legal battle.

THe Mail previously used freedom of information laws to ask the Scottish Government how many times since 2007 its head of HR or other officials have approached the First Minister seeking an informal resolution to a staff complaint.

In its response, issued last month, James McConnell, head of employee relations, rejected the request because he said the disclosure would ‘be likely to prejudice substantially the administration of justice’.

A similar request about the number of Fairness at Work meetings which have been held with staff was also rejected for the same reason.

For now, the Scottish Government is likely to stick to that defence. But during the Court of Session case, and in the aftermath of it, some clearer explanations of its processes will need to be provided. And, in the name of open government, that has to include an explanation of the way the government has publicly responded to vital questions about previous complaints.

The public have a right to know about complaints about ministers, past and present, and it will not be acceptable for it to continue to hide behind whether these complaints were ‘recorded’ or not.