Civil servant deleted text about ‘war’ over Salmond

One of Scotland’s most senior civil servants deleted a text from her boss saying they had not lost “the war” following Alex Salmond's legal victory over the Scottish government.

The Scottish government’ s former human resources director Barbara Allison initially told MSPS she had no recollection of receiving the text from the permanent secretary Leslie Evans.

But yesterday she told the inquiry into the government' s handling of the complaints against Mr S almond that she “must have deleted” the message.

One of Scotland’s most senior civil servants deleted a text from her boss saying they had not lost "the war" following Alex Salmond's legal victor y over the Scottish government.

The Scottish Government’ s former human resources director Barbara Allison initially told MSPS she had no recollection of receiving the text from the permanent secretary Leslie Evans.

But yesterday she told the inquiry into the government's handling of the complaints against Mr S almond that she "must have deleted" the message.

She said there was no record of the message on her phone, but she had managed to recover it from the Crown Office, who had held it in evidence.

Ms Allison, who gave evidence to the inquiry in person, said that she had been on holiday around the time the text had been sent.

In her written evidence, she also included a transcript of the text sent on January 8, 2019, and her response on the same day.

The text from Leslie Evans reads: “Thanks Barbara – battle maybe lost, but not the war. Hope you are having lovely & well deserved break. L”

Ms Allison then replies: “Thanks Leslie. It is lovely here. My mind and thoughts are with you all there tho. Best wishes. Bx”#

Ms Evans, during her evidence session with the committee, denied she was at war with the former first minister.

She also denied the text referred to “any individual”.

Ms Evans claimed it was instead about changing the culture of the civil service.

The permanent secretary said: “I think that [message] has been misinterpreted as having some kind of conspiratorial element to it. That is not the case. I was not referring to any individual when I sent that text.”

Yesterday, the inquiry also heard from the civil servant at the heart of the harassment complaints procedure that ultimately cost the Scottish government £500,000.

She said she has “no doubts” her appointment as investigating officer despite prior contact with complainers was appropriate.

Judith Mackinnon, who led the government’s investigation into harassment complaints against former first minister Alex S almond and whose appointment as investigating officer ultimately led to the concession of the subsequent judicial review, gave evidence to MSPS in audio form.

The committee also heard from both witnesses that the aspect of the complaints procedure that led to the concession of the judicial review - paragraph ten – had not been changed since the decision was taken to concede.

Ms Mackinnon led the investigation into the complaints against Mr Salmond, but her contact with the complainers prior to being appointed as the investigating officer led the Court of Session to conclude the process had been “tainted with apparent bias” and was unlawful.

The court found the Scottish government had breached its own procedures by appointing her to conduct the investigation, which was supposed to be independent.

This mistake led to the Scottish government paying £500,000 in legal costs to Mr Salmond.

During the evidence session, Ms Mackinnon told MSPS she was “always upfront” about her prior contact with the complainers Ms A and Ms B and said having prior contact with the complainers was “absolutely in line with my role as head of people advice”.

When asked whether she accepted the accusation of apparent bias, Ms Mac kinnon said she thought her involvement was “appropriate throughout” and that she “wouldn’t even have thought” that apparent bias would be a problem at the time she was appointed investigating officer. Ms Mackinnon also told MSPS that she had regularly sought legal advice, but deliberately avoided naming the specific Scottish government lawyer responsible for the advice on her appointment as investigating officer.

She said the role of investigating officer was “very clearly set out” in previous drafts of the procedure, which included a “very clear” description of the “engagement the investigating officer could have with potential complainers” and she acted in this capacity with the knowledge of previous versions of the guidance.

Ms Mack in non said: “Through drafting changes of the procedure, that detail was removed and the final phrase that was left in paragraph ten of the procedure was the IO would have no involvement with the issues being raised has it seems left that open to interpretation and potentially of accusations of apparent bias.”

She said the Scottish government had “not had the time” to issue detailed guidance about the role of the investigating officer, but said it was “clear from early doors” what was expected in the role.

Both Ms Mackinnon and Ms Allison confirmed the paragraph at the centre of the judicial review had not yet been changed by the Scottish government and remains ‘under review’ as part of an internal government process. , I was answering to my best recollection at the time” and added she then contacted the Crown Officer for copies of anything handed over as part of the criminal trial. Asked what the ‘battle’ was, Ms Allison said she believed the battle to be the judicial review and the war to mean the permanent secretary’s aim to make sure women can come forward with harassment complaints. Later pressed on whether she had encouraged members of staff to go to the police following intervention from a special adviser, Ms Allison said no, but said there had been one person who was highlighted in correspondence.

The First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is yet to give her evidence to the committee, but Mr Salmond is expected to be invited to give his evidence in December.

The inquiry continues.