MSPS demand missing evidence for inquiry
● Omission of emails branded as ‘completely unacceptable’
MSPS were forced to demand further documents from Scottish Government officials after it emerged corresp ondence existed about the harassment c o mpl a i n t s p r o c e d u r e t h a t had not b een passed to the committee.
The i n q u i r y i n to t h e h a n - dling of historic complaints of harassment involving former first minister Alex Salmond h e a r d e v i d e n c e y e s t e r d a y f r o m t wo s e n i o r c iv i l s e r vants when S cottish Lab our MSP Jackie Baillie mentioned emails which had not been disclosed to the committee.
T h e o m i s s i o n w a s l a t e r d e s c r i b e d a s “c o m p l e t e l y unacceptable” by the Labour MSP.
The exchange came during an evidence session from David Hynd, the head of Cabinet, Parliament and governance division, who led the development of the procedure later
ruled unlawful by the Cour t of S ession after a challenge by Mr Salmond, leading to a £500,000 bill for the taxpayer.
Ms Baillie, asking whether Mr Hynd had agreed with the policy of having independent
civil ser vants lead any invest i g a t i o n , s a i d : “My u n d e r - standing is that there are further emails from you agreeing with that proposition that the committee don’t have. Did you yourself not suggest indeed
three names of people, independent people?”
“Oh yes”, replied Mr Hynd. Ms Baillie said: “The committee doesn’t have that unfort u n a t e l y.” Mr Hy n d a d d e d : “They were Scottish Government civil servants, they were not independent third-parties to government. S o that was what I was agreeing with.”
The civil ser vant later committed to providing the committee with the emails.
Nicola Richards, the director of people at the Scottish Government, also gave evidence a t t h e c o mmi t t e e . S h e wa s challenged by Alison Johnstone MSP on whether sending the draft policy to an official who would later become a complainer, was “blurring the lines”.
Ms Johnstone asked the civil servant: “Is it your view that the lines were blurred between the two work streams, where you have a policy being drafted being shared with someone who then goes on to be a complainant?”
Questioned about why this h a d b e e n d o n e , M s R i c h - ards said: “The reasons why we shared that, we were tr ying to establish, in terms of our learning as an organisation, whether this would have made any difference to them a t t h e t i me . Wo u l d i t h ave made it more possible to raise issues about a first minister or former first minister?
“It was done so that if they decided to proceed to formal complaint, they had an awareness of the policy likely to be applied.”