CLEARED... BUT NOT IN THE CLEAR
Why Sturgeon still faces tough questions over issues covered in the Hamilton Inquiry report
Nicola Sturgeon has been facing questions over her conduct in relation to a range of issues related to her handling of Alex Salmond complaints. MICHAEL BLACKLEY AND RACHEL WATSON assess the key findings in James Hamilton’s report – and whether or not Nicola Sturgeon is off the hook.
THE CHARGE
Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament over when she found out about the Scottish Government investigation into Alex Salmond.
WHAT HAMILTON SAID:
Nicola Sturgeon told MSPs that she learned of the complaints about alex Salmond when he told her at a meeting in her home on april 2, 2018.
However, she subsequently admitted in written evidence that she had forgotten a meeting with Geoff aberdein, Mr Salmond’s former chief of staff, in her parliamentary office on March 29, 2018.
She suggested that he had been in parliament for a birthday party and had taken the opportunity to meet with her, whereas Mr aberdein denies this and says he was in parliament solely to see the First Minister.
in her interview with Mr Hamilton, Miss Sturgeon confirmed the talks covered the fact that Mr Salmond wanted to see her and that it was ‘in the realms of a potential concern or complaint about sexual misconduct’.
Mr Hamilton does not draw definitive conclusions, saying it is ‘hard to know what to make of this story about the birthday party’ and saying Mr aberdein and Miss Sturgeon’s differing accounts were convincing.
He says that it is ‘regrettable’ that the First Minister’s statement to parliament did not include a reference to the meeting with Mr aberdein on March 29 but that Miss Sturgeon’s explanation, while ‘inevitably likely to be greeted with suspicion, even scepticism, by some, is not impossible’.
He said he accepts that this omission ‘was the result of a genuine failure of recollection and was not deliberate’ and therefore did not amount to a breach of the ministerial code.
However, he added: ‘it is for the Scottish parliament to decide whether they were in fact misled.’
OFF THE HOOK?
No. as Mr Hamilton makes clear, it will be for MSPs to decide whether she has misled parliament.
THE CHARGE
Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code by failing to disclose her meetings with Mr Salmond to civil servants, record the basic facts of them, or add them to her list of official engagements.
WHAT HAMILTON SAID:
WHile Miss Sturgeon told MSPs that she believed the meeting on april 2, 2018, was going to relate to a party matter, she doesn’t seem to have made the same claim to Mr Hamilton. He says that, in her interview with him, the First Minister ‘did not seek to make any case to me that this was a party meeting’.
However, Miss Sturgeon has told the Holyrood inquiry that she did not disclose details of the meetings to civil servants because she feared it would look like she was trying to intervene and influence the investigation.
Mr Hamilton concluded that he does ‘fully accept the logic of the First Minister’s position that it would have been impossible to record such meetings or discussions without a risk of prejudicing the proceedings or interfering with their confidentiality’.
He said: ‘in my opinion, therefore, neither the letter nor the spirit of paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23 of the ministerial code applied to the discussions between the First Minister and Mr Salmond. consequently, i do not consider that the First Minister acted in breach of the code in not disclosing them prior to June 5.’
OFF THE HOOK?
PaRTiallY. Mr Hamilton was always going to be the judge of whether she breached the ministerial code in her meetings with Mr
Salmond. However, political opponents may highlight to voters that she has failed to stick to her pledge to follow the letter and the spirit of the code.
THE CHARGE
The name of a complainant was leaked to Mr Salmond’s former aide Geoff Aberdein by a senior government official in March 2018.
WHAT HAMILTON SAID:
MISS Sturgeon has insisted that the name of a complainant was not leaked – claiming that this is not what happened, to her knowledge.
However, Mr Hamilton has concluded that Mr Aberdein’s allegation that he was given the identity of one of the women by a senior official was ‘credible’.
OFF THE HOOK?
NO, there are still serious questions surrounding whether the name of one of the women who made a complaint against Mr Salmond was shared by a senior official.
Miss Sturgeon last night revealed an official complaint had been received and that an internal probe is now under way. If the official is found to have breached the privacy of a complainant there could be serious consequences, given the failures already suffered by those involved.
THE CHARGE Miss Sturgeon breached the ministerial code by ignoring legal advice by failing to concede the judicial review earlier. WHAT HAMILTON SAID :
MR Hamilton said that allegations there was a breach of the ministerial code were not accurate and it is therefore ‘not a matter for me to express any view upon’.
However, he did say there is ‘undoubtedly scope for political criticism of the manner in which the Scottish Government handled Mr Salmond’s proceedings’.
OFF THE HOOK?
NO, not fully. While Miss Sturgeon will be comforted by the outcome in the Hamilton Inquiry, the Government will still face questions over why officials and ministers failed to concede the legal battle with Mr Salmond sooner.
This is likely to be a major focus of the Holyrood inquiry report to be published today because of the huge costs to the public purse.
THE CHARGE
Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament by claiming she did not offer to intervene in her government’s investigation.
WHAT HAMILTON SAYS:
MISS Sturgeon insists she was clear she would not intervene in the Scottish Government investigation on Mr Salmond’s behalf, but he argues she did offer to intervene to secure a mediation process when they met on April 2. His account was backed up by lawyer Duncan Hamilton, who stated that he has a clear recollection that the First Minister said that ‘If it comes to it I will intervene’.
Mr Hamilton says: ‘As the First Minister has repeatedly, and correctly, stated, she did not intervene. Indeed, her failure to intervene has been a constant source of complaint from Mr Salmond, who has even suggested that her failure to do so may itself have been unlawful as contrary to the Scotland Act.
‘If Mr Salmond was entirely confident that he had in fact secured an unequivocal commitment from the First Minister to intervene one might have expected him to follow it up and to press home his advantage. In fact, however, the next communication between the First Minister and Mr Salmond did not occur until three weeks later.’
OFF THE HOOK?
NO, this is a crucial issue in the Holyrood inquiry report to be released today. A leak has already revealed that the committee voted by a five to four majority that Miss Sturgeon gave an ‘inaccurate’ account of the meeting with Mr Salmond, and therefore misled parliament, when she insisted she did not offer to intervene in the investigation.