MSPS complain over Alex Salmond questioning
Three cross-party MSPS have complained to the chair of the new parliamentary committee investigating the Scottish Government’s handling of historic sexual harassment claims, about her decision to shut down a line of questioning about whether female staff were allegedly warned “not to be left alone” with former First Minister Alex Salmond.
SNP MSP Linda Fabiani, who is chairing the committee, said the question posed by Scots Tory MSP Murdo Fraser to the government’s leading civil servant, Leslie Evans, was outwith the remit of the inquiry.
Mr Fraser said it had been “stated publicly that female civil servants were advised not to be alone in the company of the former First Minister. Is that something that you were aware of?” to which Ms Evans replied: “I cannot comment on that.”
Ms Fabiani then interjected to say the question was “not entirely appropriate in relation to what we are doing at this committee under its remit” and despite protestations from other MSPS on the committee, Ms Fabiani refused to change her mind and prevented any further discussion of the matter.
The remit of the committee, which met for the first time on Tuesday, is to investigate how the policy on dealing with sexual harassment complaints made against current and former ministers was produced, and why when it was challenged by Mr Salmond in the Court of Session, the government lost its case and had to pay £512,000 in costs to him.
However the remit also states that the committee “intends to ask all relevant witnesses about Scottish Government culture as an ongoing theme of its scrutiny”.
On Wednesday Mr Fraser, along with Scottish Labour MSP Jackie Ballie and Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP, Alex Cole-hamilton, wrote to Ms Fabiani raising their concerns about her decision.
The letter says: “Several members have stated on repeated occasions, in preparatory meetings of the committee, that an understanding of the culture that existed in the organisation and how concerns were dealt with informally before they became subject to formal procedure was essential to our committee’s work. At no point did you or any other committee member dissent from that view. As such we were taken aback that you were so vociferous in your opposition to this line of questioning.
“We are well aware of the legal issues surrounding our inquiry and have been well briefed by Parliamentary lawyers. We do not seek to examine the substance of allegations that have been tested and acquitted in court, but simply to understand the recollections of those involved in the creation of the procedure and those who were responsible for the day to day handling of complaints and concerns (either formally or informally) in the civil service at that time.”
It adds: “It is clear... that during that period when the procedure was created, there was little confidence in the formal complaints process amongst Government staff. As such, it seems that ‘concerns’ as the Permanent Secretary described them were commonly dealt with in an informal matter. We believe that an understanding of that reality is essential to our work.”
A Parliament spokesman said: “The convener will respond to the letter shortly.”