Investigators: Evidence will not be concealed
Politicians: Messages allegedly suggesting conspiracy should be made public
Documents delivered to the Alex S almond inquiry by the Crown Office after an unprecedented legal demand by Holyrood must be made public, politicians insisted yesterday.
The evidence collected in preparation for Mr Salmond’s criminal trial was given on Friday to the committee of MSPS investigating how the Scottish Government handled complaints about the former first minister’s alleged harassment of female colleagues. However, the Crown Office asked the committee to consider if it would be “appropriate and in the public interest” to release the material.
Mr Salmond’s supporters have suggested mobile phone messages held by the Crown and involving senior figures in the government and the SNP bolster his claims of a political conspiracy against him.
The former First Minister was warned he risked committing an offence if he released the material or discussed it, but the committee, set up to scrutinise the botched handling of complaints against him, invoked a clause in the Scotland Act for the first time to secure the release of the documents.
It is understood the documents, emailed by the Crown Office to Scottish Parliament clerks on Friday at 5pm, include messages from a Whatsapp group codenamed Vietnam allegedly involving SNP staff and government officials. Parliament clerks received the documents by email on Friday but yesterday technical issues with attachments were being blamed as committee members were told they might not see them until tomorrow.
Former SNP justice secretary Kenny Mac as kill claimed on Friday that one message discussed putting pressure on an alleged victim who was expressing reluctance to give evidence against Mr Salmond. The former first minister was cleared of 13 charges of sexual assault after a High Court trial last year.
Lib Dem MSP and committee member Alex Cole- Hamilton said: “These messages are now at the centre of public attention and interest. They should now be published, although anything that identifies complainers should naturally be redacted. Publication
is essential so that we can ask witnesses about any alleged conspiracy without pre-condition.”
Scottish Labour interim leader and committee member Jackie Baillie said: “It is important that the committee is able to consider these documents in public. There is a substantial public interest in this, and therefore I think the documents should be available in public.”
Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservative MSP and committee member, said: “Conditional on the imperative to protect the identity of the complainers, the committee should endeavour for this material to be placed in the public domain.”
The Crown Office said in a statement on Friday that committee convener Linda Fabiani had been “respectfully asked to give careful consideration as to whether or not it is appropriate and in the public interest” to publish the material it provided.
But Mr Macaskill, now an SNP MP, said: “I do not think it is for the Crown Office to decide what is and what is not in the public interest in regard to this material. It is for the elected representatives of the Scottish people to decide upon that.”
Mr Salmond is due to give evidence on February 9.
SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, married to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, had been asked to appear this week. He previously gave evidence last month, when he admitted sending a message appearing to back police action against Mr Salmond.
Mr Fraser said: “Now that we know about the existence of the socalled Vietnamwhatsapp group, it is essential that Peter Murrell returns to tell us of his involvement in this. The evidence that he previously presented needs to be expanded on if the committee is to gain a full understanding of all relevant events.”
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has failed to meet Friday’ s deadline set by the committee for releasing the legal advice it received in the Alex Salmond judicial review.
In a letter to the committee, Deputy First Minister John Swinney said the committee had been given a summary of the legal advice and had “access to the necessary information”.
Mr Cole-hamilton refused to rule out of a vote of no confidence in Mr Swinney, adding: “He is now in abject contempt of parliament and may face its wrath sooner or later. I would need to consult with other committee members, but nothing is off the table.”