Inquiry refuses to ask Salmond’s lawyers for papers
Holyrood’s harassment inquiry has refused to demand documents from Alex Salmond’s lawyers which, he claims, prove a plot to put him in the dock.
Closing his evidence session to the committee investigating the Scottish government’s unlawful handling of complaints against him, the former first minister suggested they could compel his lawyers to hand over the documents.
Salmond said the threat of prosecution by the Crown Office means he cannot share the material directly with the inquiry.
At the conclusion of his evidence to the committee last month, he said the parliament could use its powers under the Scotland Act to compel the production of the documents from his criminal trial.
He said that it could provide a solution to “obstruction” by the civil service and the Crown Office.
But in a letter to Salmond’s solicitors sent on Friday, committee chair Linda Fabiani said section 162 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 was “unambiguous” that parliament should not use its section powers to ask someone to produce documents “in a way the parliament has agreed is unlawful”.
A spokesman for Salmond described the decision as “inexplicable” and added: “Two weeks ago the committee was given a straight offer of important information that could be provided by Levy & Mcrae if they served a Section 24 order of the Scotland Act.
“A week ago it was reported a majority of the committee were going to do it. They’ve now written to say they’re not, implying they have had some legal advice to that effect.
“It means the committee are not going to receive key information that would have assisted them.”
Lib- Dem MSP and committee member Alex ColeHamilton said: “The committee explored Salmond’s suggestion extensively and came to the view the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act would make his disclosure of information to us illegal and that we could not in all conscience ask the parliament clerk to make an unlawful request.”
He added: “It is frustrating that there may be evidence of use to our committee that we have yet to see.
“But we are still committed to finding routes where we can legally view that.”