so so that is a is now in limbo, so that is a totally unsatisfactory situation. and the point that i was making is that it would be an improvement right now to reintroduce fearless work to cover, as a previously did, ministers. i was astonished when the permanent secretary gave evidence of the committee and said she was an expert on fearless work. and said it didn't cover harassment. the first section of what it covers is bullying and harassment. it does cover bullying and harassment and it is important is it moment for the civil service, is important is it moment for the civilservice, it is important is it moment for the civil service, it isjust is important is it moment for the civil service, it is just not enforced as as harassment concerns with ministers. so totally unsatisfactory situation, something that whenever people think about this inquiry or the events of the last few years, should have been sorted out. you cannot have a policy in limbo, but in limbo it must certainly is. i thought it was a

good policy, but much more importantly, the union representatives but it was notches ago policy, they thought it was a triumph and a huge achievement —— notjust a good policy, they have said so on many occasions, and the decision to cast it aside strikes me as an unusual and foolhardy step. what you haven't addressed is the informal resolution which we know was applied to address some of these concerns and we know that you know about this because on page 115 of the open record, then there was chance of competency —— charge of competency which had already been resolved under the informal protest, so can you talk generally about how this informal process worked for resolving complaint against any of

these ministers. was mediation used and who would be involved? flan i and who would be involved? can i seak and who would be involved? can i speak generally? _ and who would be involved? can i speak generally? process - and who would be involved? (can i speak generally? process of and who would be involved? (1531 i speak generally? process of informal resolution is notjust for ministers. it applies across the policy, in fact, ministers. it applies across the policy, infact, dominates ministers. it applies across the policy, in fact, dominates the policy, in fact, dominates the policy —— mediation is not the same thing. that comes in beyond informal resolution. that's as far as civil servants are concerned and ministers are concerned and then when you get to mediation, it's important for ministers that the first minister is not the person doing that because the first minister, if the complaint is not mediated, they are the person has to judge at the end the fate of that particular minister. so what was done was having the deputy

minister responsible for mediation. if mediation failed then it... and testing my memory now, another minister, a senior servant and an outside factor to put impartiality and then after that was finished, if the complaint was still sustained, the complaint was still sustained, the matter goes to the first minister for her final adjudication. a key point was made and i check my notes sometimes ago on this, in february 2010, when i gave approval to the policy, that the permanent secretary at the time explained, he said it was absolutely vital not to have the first minister at two stages in the process otherwise process would be unlawful, or potentially unlawful. obviously, sound advice in terms of subsequent events. but, it was a carefully

considered advised policy, supported strongly by the trade unions. it was their ambition to have that policy is configured and it still applies, as far as the general civil service is concerned, because clearly having achieved something like that, it wouldn't be likely given up by the workforce representatives. flan i wouldn't be likely given up by the workforce representatives. can i ask ou, was workforce representatives. can i ask you. was the — workforce representatives. can i ask you. was the deputy _ workforce representatives. can i ask you, was the deputy first _ workforce representatives. can i ask you, was the deputy first minister l you, was the deputy first minister then aware of mediation, did they conduct some mediations in that informal process, because we want to know who knew what and when? it wars know who knew what and when? it was mediation beyond _ know who knew what and when? it was mediation beyond informal _ know who knew what and when? it w; mediation beyond informal process. it's part of the formal process. there were no complaints, i was going to say to my knowledge, but they were certainly no complaints between 2010 and 2017 which required mediation. nothing went to nicola sturgeon as deputy first minister.

in evidence, and i only learned this in evidence, i learned there were two complaints, suspecting under the bullying at —— aspect. i don't know the outcome of these complaints but i heard about the first time when it was given as evidence in this committee. was given as evidence in this committee-— was given as evidence in this committee. thank you, that's helful. committee. thank you, that's helpful. good _ committee. thank you, that's helpful. good afternoon, - committee. thank you, that's helpful. good afternoon, mrl committee. thank you, that's - helpful. good afternoon, mr salmond. just to— helpful. good afternoon, mr salmond. just to follow on from margaret mitchell's questioning. the evidence we have _ mitchell's questioning. the evidence we have received showed that there were voices who supported a robust response _ were voices who supported a robust response to — were voices who supported a robust response to the revelations of the me too— response to the revelations of the me too movement, as did the presiding _ me too movement, as did the presiding officer of parliament, the head of— presiding officer of parliament, the head of the uk civil service, the

permanent secretary. msps and all parties _ permanent secretary. msps and all parties spoke up. a response, so do you agree _ parties spoke up. a response, so do you agree that putting in place a sexual— you agree that putting in place a sexual harassment procedure was absolutely necessary but also in line with — absolutely necessary but also in line with the consensus view across the political spectrum in scotland? well, _ the political spectrum in scotland? well, as— the political spectrum in scotland? well, as far as current ministers or civil stir than is, there already was one in the fairness at work policy. if it felt —— was felt it needed attentional strengthening then this should have been brought up then this should have been brought up with the union representatives, then that could have been done and would have been an appropriate response. but that was not what happened. what happened was the development of an entirely new policy developed at pace, which ended up in the court of session and a total disasterfor all

ended up in the court of session and a total disaster for all concerned. but, from the evidence we've heard, they said _ but, from the evidence we've heard, they said that it would have taken a considerable amount of work to refit the fairness of work policy and that policy _ the fairness of work policy and that policy did _ the fairness of work policy and that policy did not have a specific focus on sexual— policy did not have a specific focus on sexual harassment and the revelations of the knee too movement, many people thought there was a need _ movement, many people thought there was a need to start afresh and look at how— was a need to start afresh and look at how we — was a need to start afresh and look at how we use sexual harassment. isn't at how we use sexual harassment. isn't new— at how we use sexual harassment. isn't new procedure the best way to do this? _ isn't new procedure the best way to do this? , , ., isn't new procedure the best way to do this? , ., , .., do this? just give me a second because i- -- — do this? just give me a second because i... this _ do this? just give me a second because i... this is _ do this? just give me a second because i... this is the - do this? just give me a second| because i... this is the fairness do this? just give me a second . because i... this is the fairness at work policy of 2010 is passed then. it seems to me from some of the papers you have been given there are some amendments i don't understand that this was the policy i knew and understood. what does the policy cover? problems and concerns are covered, most of them, bullying and

harassment. now, the policy which you allude to, apply to former and current ministers, is the policy on the harassment, that's the title of it. if it was felt it was necessary to specify sexual harassment in that policy then what should have happened is ministers should have sat down with a train union who wanted to strengthen —— to make that policy wanted to strengthen that criteria —— trade union. it strikes me not that she's not an expert on the policy, it strikes me that she has not familiarise herself with a policy that she then wanted to replace. i think it's a reasonable, it would have been a reasonable assumption that the civil service, for the public and for everyone else that before you replace something, you at least understand the nature

of what you are replacing. and i've seen the documents that have come to the committee and i would say that there is a reason why the trade unions have not accepted a new policy applying to the workforce. and that reason is that not that they think that fairness at work is perfect but they think it's an extremely strong policy which is why still applies to thousands of people who work in the civil service. what was done was to take one aspect, actually we know as the origins of the policy was about former ministers, because it was originally only going to apply to former ministers not current ministers. i think that is a very bad way to develop policy. policy has to be developed and has to respond to circumstances. i can well understand that in the atmosphere of 2017, but what should have been done was to

look at that policy to see if it needed strengthening and, above all, consult, cooperate and discuss with the very representatives who'd spent 18 months, ten months before developing that policy. it appears from the evidence that we received that complaints were handled informally when you are first minister. yourformer permanent minister. your former permanent secretary minister. yourformer permanent secretary stated that no formal complaints were received when he was in post and fda discussed informal concerns being discussed.- in post and fda discussed informal concerns being discussed. surely you must a . ree concerns being discussed. surely you must agree that _ concerns being discussed. surely you must agree that there _ concerns being discussed. surely you must agree that there was _ concerns being discussed. surely you must agree that there was a - concerns being discussed. surely you must agree that there was a need - concerns being discussed. surely you must agree that there was a need for more _ must agree that there was a need for more robust — must agree that there was a need for more robust procedure and formal comptaints— more robust procedure and formal complaints were more effective than what went _ complaints were more effective than what went on when you were first minister~ —

what went on when you were first minister. well, the policy wasn't in terms _ minister. well, the policy wasn't in terms of— minister. well, the policy wasn't in terms of formal complaints, it was developed — terms of formal complaints, it was developed for everyone, not just the civil servants. it was notjust developed for everyone, not just the civil servants. it was not just the preference — civil servants. it was not just the preference of the trade union movement. they signed the policy as did the _ movement. they signed the policy as did the workforce representatives. i had to— did the workforce representatives. i had to agree. that was what the policy— had to agree. that was what the policy emphasised and that's the scottish— policy emphasised and that's the scottish government is on record as saying _ scottish government is on record as saying that — scottish government is on record as saying that many times. however, times— saying that many times. however, times and — saying that many times. however, times and things change and all i'm saying _ times and things change and all i'm saying is— times and things change and all i'm saying is that if you are going to change — saying is that if you are going to change a — saying is that if you are going to change a policy then you can —— should — change a policy then you can —— should consider what the policies, understand it and above all consult with the _ understand it and above all consult with the people who develop that policy _ with the people who develop that policy. now mr penman had no —— wasn't _ policy. now mr penman had no —— wasn't around in 2010 and didn't have _ wasn't around in 2010 and didn't have any— wasn't around in 2010 and didn't have any influence on the policy but there _ have any influence on the policy but there was _ have any influence on the policy but there was an fda representative in

decamber— there was an fda representative in december of 2017 who wrote a letter to the _ december of 2017 who wrote a letter to the permanent secretary reminding them that— to the permanent secretary reminding them that fairness at work was a fair achievement for all concerned and advancements for workplace policy _ and advancements for workplace policy over the united kingdom. seems — policy over the united kingdom. seems to— policy over the united kingdom. seems to me at the very least that if the policy was to be changed, it should have been changed in a developed fashion with full consultation, and of course one of the other things are enquiries thrown up is that last—minute suggested changes were being made to the review to develop policy on the day that it was being signed off by ministers. and considered even after. in fact, ministers. and considered even after. infact, no ministers. and considered even after. in fact, no substantive changes were made but that is not how you develop workplace policies. it seems to be, it would be a prime requirement to develop workplace policy in consultation with a workforce-— policy in consultation with a workforce. ~ ., , , ., ., workforce. we have been shown a staff survey _ workforce. we have been shown a staff survey by — workforce. we have been shown a staff survey by the _

workforce. we have been shown a staff survey by the fda _ workforce. we have been shown a staff survey by the fda that - staff survey by the fda that highlights a lack of confidence amongst civil servants in making complaints about bullying and harassment. so would you agree that there _ harassment. so would you agree that there was— harassment. so would you agree that there was a _ harassment. so would you agree that there was a clear problem with underreporting of both bullying and harassment generally and sexual harassment generally and sexual harassment specifically when you were _ harassment specifically when you were first— harassment specifically when you were first minister and that a fresh procedure — were first minister and that a fresh procedure in the wake of the me too movement— procedure in the wake of the me too movement would be necessary to attest _ movement would be necessary to attest this? | movement would be necessary to attest this?— attest this? i saw a survey, a current survey _ attest this? i saw a survey, a current survey from - attest this? i saw a survey, a current survey from the - attest this? i saw a survey, a l current survey from the trading attest this? i saw a survey, a - current survey from the trading is in the scottish government and there had been a sharp rise over the last 3-5 had been a sharp rise over the last 3—5 years and complaints. now, some people argue, and i think the permanent secretary does that that is a good thing because it shows that this rising level of complaints is a response to more robust policy. others would say that the level of complaints is that the workforce policy isn't working.

did a formal procedure on sexual harassment was one of the safeguards was it— harassment was one of the safeguards was it one _ harassment was one of the safeguards was it one of the safeguards likely to make _ was it one of the safeguards likely to make that more likely? i'm in, surely, _ to make that more likely? i'm in, surely. you — to make that more likely? i'm in, surely, you can't disagree that? are you saying _ surely, you can't disagree that? are you saying that you know, if you had been _ you saying that you know, if you had been first _ you saying that you know, if you had been first minister in the wake of the me _ been first minister in the wake of the me too— been first minister in the wake of the me too movement that you wouldn't — the me too movement that you wouldn't have commissioned exactly a review _ wouldn't have commissioned exactly a review of— wouldn't have commissioned exactly a review of the sexual harassment procedure, tailored to deal with sexual— procedure, tailored to deal with sexual harassment and to i'm sure he would say that his

advice to me over the period as permanent secretary and was first minister, trying to keep abreast of these things, and i said nothing is evidence that suggested otherwise, the hypotheticals, i do not know. but certainly i would not have thrown out a policy that was considered such a success, walk inserted team from the point that i read you that it would be a fairly simple exercise if you wanted to specify actual harassment in the harassment section, that that is clearly what that is about not policy. —— specified sexual harassment, so you need to look at that section and see how we look at that section and see how we look at that section, change the balance between informal resolution, mediation and former resolution, then of course you can amend the policy. he would check change that balance, and maybe that would be a good thing to do. my point is not that, my point is the last thing you do with subjects like this is rush

them through in a matter of days without consultation with the trade unions in a manner which ended up in the court of session and total disaster for everyone concerned. that seems to be a minimum requirement if you are dealing with an issue such as this. nor is it clearfrom the documents an issue such as this. nor is it clear from the documents you have received just how much ministerial consideration there was to this. on the one hand, it is argued that this is something to be done by the civil service, totally independent of ministers. on the other hand, there are areas which look like ministerial intervention. what you can certainly say from the documents that you have is that this policy arrived in early november with no discussion in parliament, no discussion in parliament, no discussion in parliament, no discussion in cabinet, a new policy dealing with former ministers had no discussion in cabinet or parliament

and the first ministerial aspect it was a commissioning letter of the 22nd of november by the first minister. so the policy had already been well established before it seems there was any direct political discussion of... that is one of the extraordinary things about it, and i find that virtually inexplicable. but maybe others have an answer to that _ but maybe others have an answer to that was _ but maybe others have an answer to that. was the fairness at work policy— that. was the fairness at work policy discussed?— that. was the fairness at work policy discussed? that. was the fairness at work oli discussed? ,. ,, _ policy discussed? itwas discussed by the trade unions, _ policy discussed? itwas discussed by the trade unions, it _ policy discussed? itwas discussed by the trade unions, it was _ policy discussed? itwas discussed by the trade unions, it was not, - policy discussed? itwas discussed by the trade unions, it was not, as - policy discussed? itwas discussed by the trade unions, it was not, as i - the trade unions, it was not, as i know, a voice raised against it, as a substantial, major innovation and policy. and certainly, it was publicised and everybody knew about it. there was no attempt to hide it or keep it under disclosed from the

country —— undisclosed to the country, we put it down as a major achievement. i'm not saying that changes shouldn't be made —— couldn't be made, but if you're gonna make changes to something as sensitive and important, it is really important to do it properly. i will take that as a no, then. we have _ i will take that as a no, then. we have heard — i will take that as a no, then. we have heard evidence that one of the matters _ have heard evidence that one of the matters which eventually resulted in a complaint against the was resolved by you _ a complaint against the was resolved by you apologising to the woman in question _ by you apologising to the woman in question. was it typical for issues like this— question. was it typical for issues like this to — question. was it typical for issues like this to be resolved by an apology— like this to be resolved by an apology rather than a formal complaints procedure when he refers minister? _ complaints procedure when he refers minister? you complaints procedure when he refers minister? ., . ., minister? you can choose whether or not to answer — minister? you can choose whether or not to answer that _ minister? you can choose whether or not to answer that mr _ minister? you can choose whether or not to answer that mr salmond. - minister? you can choose whether or not to answer that mr salmond. i'vel not to answer that mr salmond. i've had three not to answer that mr salmond. i�*e: had three years not to answer that mr salmond. ia: had three years of not to answer that mr salmond. i�*”;a: had three years of two court not to answer that mr salmond. i�*we had three years of two court cases, two judges, had three years of two court cases, twojudges, onejury, and as far as these matters are concerned, i will

leave it to the courts and the jury and i will not be droning any further than that. and i think that is an entirely reasonable position under the circumstances. in terms of your question, the vast majority of issues were dealt with by informal procedures. i think barbara allison made that point, testimony, if i understood correctly and gave the reasons from a civil service point of view why she taught that can be advantageous. of view why she taught that can be advantageous-— of view why she taught that can be advantageous._ thank l of view why she taught that can be . advantageous._ thank you, advantageous. thank you. thank you, can ou advantageous. thank you. thank you, can you please _ advantageous. thank you. thank you, can you please move _ advantageous. thank you. thank you, can you please move to _ advantageous. thank you. thank you, can you please move to alex - can you please move to alex cunningham and andy whiteman? i would like to ask about culture and behaviours — would like to ask about culture and behaviours in — would like to ask about culture and behaviours in your— would like to ask about culture and behaviours in your time _ would like to ask about culture and behaviours in your time is - would like to ask about culture and behaviours in your time is first- behaviours in your time is first minister— behaviours in your time is first minister in _ behaviours in your time is first minister in the _ behaviours in your time is first minister in the government. i behaviours in your time is first- minister in the government. before i do, i minister in the government. before i do. i want _ minister in the government. before i do. i want to— minister in the government. before i do, i want to address _ minister in the government. before i do, i want to address one _ minister in the government. before i do, i want to address one aspect - minister in the government. before i do, i want to address one aspect of. do, i want to address one aspect of your opening — do, i want to address one aspect of your opening statement. _ do, i want to address one aspect of your opening statement. you - do, i want to address one aspect ofl your opening statement. you talked and striking — your opening statement. you talked and striking terms— your opening statement. you talked and striking terms about _ your opening statement. you talked and striking terms about the - your opening statement. you talked and striking terms about the injury. and striking terms about the injury done _ and striking terms about the injury done to— and striking terms about the injury done to you — and striking terms about the injury done to you by— and striking terms about the injury done to you by this _ and striking terms about the injury done to you by this whole - and striking terms about the injury| done to you by this whole process, this whole — done to you by this whole process, this whole experience, _ done to you by this whole process, this whole experience, but - done to you by this whole process, this whole experience, but you - done to you by this whole process, i this whole experience, but you need

no mention— this whole experience, but you need no mention of— this whole experience, but you need no mention of the _ this whole experience, but you need no mention of the considerable - no mention of the considerable distress — no mention of the considerable distress and _ no mention of the considerable distress and misery _ no mention of the considerable distress and misery because i no mention of the considerable distress and misery because of| distress and misery because of certain— distress and misery because of certain women— distress and misery because of certain women at _ distress and misery because of certain women at the - distress and misery because of certain women at the heart - distress and misery because of certain women at the heart ofl distress and misery because of- certain women at the heart of this. i certain women at the heart of this. i want _ certain women at the heart of this. l want to— certain women at the heart of this. i want to ask, _ certain women at the heart of this. i want to ask, laying _ certain women at the heart of this. i want to ask, laying aside - certain women at the heart of this. i want to ask, laying aside the - i want to ask, laying aside the charges — i want to ask, laying aside the charges of— i want to ask, laying aside the charges of which _ i want to ask, laying aside the charges of which you - i want to ask, laying aside the charges of which you have - i want to ask, laying aside the i charges of which you have been acquitted. — charges of which you have been acquitted. the _ charges of which you have been acquitted, the allegations - charges of which you have been acquitted, the allegations thati charges of which you have been i acquitted, the allegations that you deny. _ acquitted, the allegations that you deny. of— acquitted, the allegations that you deny. of the — acquitted, the allegations that you deny, of the behaviours _ acquitted, the allegations that you deny, of the behaviours that - acquitted, the allegations that you deny, of the behaviours that you l deny, of the behaviours that you have _ deny, of the behaviours that you have admitted _ deny, of the behaviours that you have admitted to, _ deny, of the behaviours that you have admitted to, some - deny, of the behaviours that you have admitted to, some of- deny, of the behaviours that you | have admitted to, some of which deny, of the behaviours that you - have admitted to, some of which are appalling _ have admitted to, some of which are appalling are — have admitted to, some of which are a- allinu. �* ,, have admitted to, some of which are a- allinu.�* ,, ~ appalling. are you sorry? well, firstl in appalling. are you sorry? well, firstly in my _ appalling. are you sorry? well, firstly in my statement, - appalling. are you sorry? well, firstly in my statement, let's i appalling. are you sorry? well, | firstly in my statement, let's not correct, i pointed out that the government's illegality has a huge consequence for number of people, specifically mentioned the complaints in my opening statement. as for the other part of the question, as i said over the last three years, there have been two court cases, two judges and a jury and i am resting on the proceedings of these cases.— of these cases. thank you, i think the nation — of these cases. thank you, i think the nation would _ of these cases. thank you, i think the nation would like _ of these cases. thank you, i think the nation would like to _ of these cases. thank you, i think the nation would like to hear... i of these cases. thank you, i think i the nation would like to hear... can ijust the nation would like to hear... can i just say, the nation would like to hear... can ijust say, he is not here on trial by this committee, so please be much

more general. i by this committee, so please be much more general-— more general. i understand that, i will move on- _ more general. i understand that, i will move on. so _ more general. i understand that, i will move on. so the _ more general. i understand that, i will move on. so the questions - more general. i understand that, i| will move on. so the questions i'm going _ will move on. so the questions i'm going to _ will move on. so the questions i'm going to ask— will move on. so the questions i'm going to ask are _ will move on. so the questions i'm going to ask are about _ will move on. so the questions i'm going to ask are about cultures - will move on. so the questions i'm| going to ask are about cultures and behaviours — going to ask are about cultures and behaviours while _ going to ask are about cultures and behaviours while you _ going to ask are about cultures and behaviours while you are _ going to ask are about cultures and behaviours while you are first - behaviours while you are first minister— behaviours while you are first ministerand _ behaviours while you are first ministerand how— behaviours while you are first minister and how they - behaviours while you are first minister and how they were . minister and how they were addressed _ minister and how they were addressed. this— minister and how they were addressed. this is- minister and how they were addressed. this is not- minister and how they were addressed. this is not a - minister and how they were - addressed. this is not a criticism of you. _ addressed. this is not a criticism of you. it — addressed. this is not a criticism of you. it is _ addressed. this is not a criticism of you. it is not _ addressed. this is not a criticism of you, it is not asking _ addressed. this is not a criticism of you, it is not asking you - addressed. this is not a criticism of you, it is not asking you to - of you, it is not asking you to defend — of you, it is not asking you to defend yourself _ of you, it is not asking you to defend yourself or— of you, it is not asking you to defend yourself or anything l of you, it is not asking you to . defend yourself or anything like that, _ defend yourself or anything like that, but— defend yourself or anything like that, but we _ defend yourself or anything like that, but we did _ defend yourself or anything like that, but we did hear— defend yourself or anything like that, but we did hear that- defend yourself or anything like that, but we did hear that while your— that, but we did hear that while your first— that, but we did hear that while your first minister— that, but we did hear that while your first minister there - that, but we did hear that while your first minister there was i that, but we did hear that while your first minister there was a i your first minister there was a degree — your first minister there was a degree of. _ your first minister there was a degree of, shall— your first minister there was a degree of, shall we _ your first minister there was a degree of, shall we call- your first minister there was a degree of, shall we call it, - degree of, shall we call it, discussion— degree of, shall we call it, discussion about _ degree of, shall we call it, | discussion about behaviour degree of, shall we call it, . discussion about behaviour on degree of, shall we call it, - discussion about behaviour on your part _ discussion about behaviour on your part not _ discussion about behaviour on your part not of— discussion about behaviour on your part. not of the _ discussion about behaviour on your part. not of the sexual— discussion about behaviour on your part. not of the sexual kind, - discussion about behaviour on your part. not of the sexual kind, but. discussion about behaviour on yourj part. not of the sexual kind, but of aggressive — part. not of the sexual kind, but of aggressive behaviour. _ part. not of the sexual kind, but of aggressive behaviour. the - part. not of the sexual kind, but of aggressive behaviour. the sort - part. not of the sexual kind, but of aggressive behaviour. the sort of. aggressive behaviour. the sort of hairdryer— aggressive behaviour. the sort of hairdryer treatment, _ aggressive behaviour. the sort of hairdryertreatment, sometimesl hairdryertreatment, sometimes people _ hairdryertreatment, sometimes people referred _ hairdryertreatment, sometimes people referred to. _ hairdryertreatment, sometimes people referred to. i— hairdryertreatment, sometimes people referred to. ijust- hairdryertreatment, sometimes people referred to. ijust want . hairdryertreatment, sometimes| people referred to. ijust want to know, _ people referred to. ijust want to know. do— people referred to. ijust want to know. do you _ people referred to. ijust want to know, do you recognise - people referred to. ijust want to know, do you recognise that - know, do you recognise that description? _ know, do you recognise that description?— know, do you recognise that description? know, do you recognise that descrition? ., , �* description? can i “ust say, as i've said already. — description? can i “ust say, as i've said already, we — description? can ijust say, as i've said already, we are _ description? can ijust say, as i've said already, we are not _ description? can ijust say, as i've said already, we are not here - description? can ijust say, as i've said already, we are not here to l said already, we are not here to look at mr salmond's actions here, we are here to look at the scottish government's actions in relation to complaints. government's actions in relation to complaints-— complaints. thank you for that, convene her. _

complaints. thank you for that, convene her. if— complaints. thank you for that, convene her. if you _ complaints. thank you for that, convene her. if you remember. complaints. thank you for that, l convene her. if you remember to correct mr hamilton's assumption from his evidence, as will be noted, he and i are not in agreement on a range of matters, but on that i very much agree and very much appreciated what he wrote. i much agree and very much appreciated what he wrote-— what he wrote. i don't disagree. and if ou will what he wrote. i don't disagree. and if you will permit _ what he wrote. i don't disagree. and if you will permit me, _ what he wrote. i don't disagree. and if you will permit me, convene - what he wrote. i don't disagree. and if you will permit me, convene her, l if you will permit me, convene her, i if you will permit me, convene her, lam _ if you will permit me, convene her, lam not _ if you will permit me, convene her, lam not in — if you will permit me, convene her, lam not in any— if you will permit me, convene her, lam not in any way— if you will permit me, convene her, i am not in any way trying - if you will permit me, convene her, i am not in any way trying to- if you will permit me, convene her, i am not in any way trying to draw. i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours — i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours of _ i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours of mr— i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours of mr sam _ i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours of mr sam and, - i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours of mr sam and, i - i am not in any way trying to draw behaviours of mr sam and, i want i am not in any way trying to draw. behaviours of mr sam and, i want to know— behaviours of mr sam and, i want to know about — behaviours of mr sam and, i want to know about the _ behaviours of mr sam and, i want to know about the informal _ behaviours of mr sam and, i want to know about the informal culture - behaviours of mr sam and, i want to know about the informal culture is l know about the informal culture is how things — know about the informal culture is how things were _ know about the informal culture is how things were dealt _ know about the informal culture is how things were dealt with - know about the informal culture is how things were dealt with at - know about the informal culture is how things were dealt with at the i how things were dealt with at the time when — how things were dealt with at the time when he _ how things were dealt with at the time when he was _ how things were dealt with at the time when he was first _ how things were dealt with at the time when he was first minister. | how things were dealt with at the l time when he was first minister. in particular. — time when he was first minister. in particular, because _ time when he was first minister. in particular, because i— time when he was first minister. in particular, because i think- time when he was first minister. in particular, because i think this - particular, because i think this speaks — particular, because i think this speaks to— particular, because i think this speaks to a _ particular, because i think this speaks to a lot _ particular, because i think this speaks to a lot of _ particular, because i think this speaks to a lot of the - particular, because i think thisj speaks to a lot of the evidence particular, because i think this - speaks to a lot of the evidence that was giving — speaks to a lot of the evidence that was giving your— speaks to a lot of the evidence that was giving your final— speaks to a lot of the evidence that was giving your final submission, . speaks to a lot of the evidence thati was giving your final submission, mr salmond, _ was giving your final submission, mr salmond, about— was giving your final submission, mr salmond, about things _ was giving your final submission, mr salmond, about things that - was giving your final submission, mr salmond, about things that were - salmond, about things that were raised _ salmond, about things that were raised with— salmond, about things that were raised with you _ salmond, about things that were raised with you and _ salmond, about things that were raised with you and things - salmond, about things that were raised with you and things that l salmond, about things that were i raised with you and things that were never— raised with you and things that were never raised — raised with you and things that were never raised with _ raised with you and things that were never raised with you. _ raised with you and things that were never raised with you. so _ raised with you and things that were never raised with you. so in- raised with you and things that were never raised with you. so in terms l never raised with you. so in terms of that— never raised with you. so in terms of that sort— never raised with you. so in terms of that sort of. _ never raised with you. so in terms of that sort of, whether _ never raised with you. so in terms of that sort of, whether that - never raised with you. so in terms of that sort of, whether that is - of that sort of, whether that is aggressive _ of that sort of, whether that is aggressive behaviour- of that sort of, whether that is aggressive behaviour broughtl of that sort of, whether that is - aggressive behaviour brought about by pizza _ aggressive behaviour brought about by pizza passion _ aggressive behaviour brought about by pizza passion or— aggressive behaviour brought about by pizza passion or whatever, - aggressive behaviour brought about by pizza passion or whatever, did i by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone _ by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone in— by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone in the _ by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone in the smp_ by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone in the smp or— by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone in the smp or the - by pizza passion or whatever, did anyone in the smp or the civil- anyone in the smp or the civil service — anyone in the smp or the civil service ever— anyone in the smp or the civil service ever address- anyone in the smp or the civil service ever address your - anyone in the smp or the civil- service ever address your temper with you — service ever address your temper

with you personally? _ service ever address your temper with you personally?— with you personally? sorry, “ust cive me with you personally? sorry, “ust give me fl with you personally? sorry, “ust give me one second i with you personally? sorry, just give me one second because . with you personally? sorry, just give me one second because i l with you personally? sorry, just i give me one second because i was looking at a document last night which would be pertinent to this. if you'lljust which would be pertinent to this. if you'll just allow which would be pertinent to this. if you'lljust allow me. in general, mr cole hamilton, the first division association of civil servants have written on several occasions to this committee, you have been accused, not you personally, let me add, the committee as a whole has been accused of intimidation, printer quote politicians, undermining civil service, scapegoating individual civil servants, ineffective, bullying behaviour. i have not watched every session but i've watched every session but i've watched most of them for obvious reasons and i would say in this committee's defence, i have not seen

that. maybe it one or two sessions that. maybe it one or two sessions that i didn't see. i am merely saying that because something is said and written to you, it does not make it true. and i am quite sure you would take issue yourself with what the... and notjust them, but the representing members and the best way to the can. i am saying that this is a dangerous road to go down and the point has been made with the issues at stake are here and i think would be a good idea for us all to concentrate on these issues as opposed to trying to take it into more personal stuff. flan issues as opposed to trying to take it into more personal stuff. can i “ust it into more personal stuff. can i just make _ it into more personal stuff. can i just make very — it into more personal stuff. can i just make very clear _ it into more personal stuff. can i just make very clear at - it into more personal stuff. can i just make very clear at this - it into more personal stuff. can i just make very clear at this point that it just make very clear at this point thatitis just make very clear at this point that it is myjob to decide all of these things, so with the two of you just think on to what we are here for, take that on board, and mr cole hamilton, will you start again? thank you for a mining and as of the criticism _

thank you for a mining and as of the criticism that — thank you for a mining and as of the criticism that this _ thank you for a mining and as of the criticism that this committee - thank you for a mining and as of the criticism that this committee has - criticism that this committee has committed. _ criticism that this committee has committed, but _ criticism that this committee has committed, but nevertheless, i criticism that this committee has i committed, but nevertheless, there are answers — committed, but nevertheless, there are answers that _ committed, but nevertheless, there are answers that we _ committed, but nevertheless, there are answers that we need _ committed, but nevertheless, there are answers that we need today. - committed, but nevertheless, there are answers that we need today. ——| are answers that we need today. —— thank— are answers that we need today. —— thank you _ are answers that we need today. —— thank you for— are answers that we need today. —— thank you for reminding _ are answers that we need today. —— thank you for reminding us - are answers that we need today. —— thank you for reminding us of- are answers that we need today. —— thank you for reminding us of the i thank you for reminding us of the criticism, — thank you for reminding us of the criticism, and _ thank you for reminding us of the criticism, and you _ thank you for reminding us of the criticism, and you are _ thank you for reminding us of the criticism, and you are right- thank you for reminding us of the criticism, and you are right to - criticism, and you are right to withhold _ criticism, and you are right to withhold an— criticism, and you are right to withhold an answer— criticism, and you are right to withhold an answer if- criticism, and you are right to withhold an answer if you - criticism, and you are right to withhold an answer if you dol criticism, and you are right to i withhold an answer if you do not feel it _ withhold an answer if you do not feel it is — withhold an answer if you do not feel it is within _ withhold an answer if you do not feel it is within remit— withhold an answer if you do not feel it is within remit of- withhold an answer if you do not feel it is within remit of this - feel it is within remit of this committeem _ feel it is within remit of this committee... mr— feel it is within remit of this committee. . ._ feel it is within remit of this committee... ~ ., ., ., , committee... mr cole hamilton, it is also about committee _ committee... mr cole hamilton, it is also about committee members - committee... mr cole hamilton, it is also about committee members not| also about committee members not asking things that are in the remit of this committee. fiifi asking things that are in the remit of this committee.— of this committee. ok, i would disute of this committee. ok, i would dispute that — of this committee. ok, i would dispute that some _ of this committee. ok, i would dispute that some of _ of this committee. ok, i would dispute that some of this - of this committee. ok, i would dispute that some of this is - of this committee. ok, i would i dispute that some of this is about how the _ dispute that some of this is about how the government _ dispute that some of this is about how the government handles - how the government handles complaints— how the government handles complaints and _ how the government handles complaints and behaviours i how the government handles i complaints and behaviours and how the government handles - complaints and behaviours and how the development _ complaints and behaviours and how the development of _ complaints and behaviours and how the development of that _ complaints and behaviours and how the development of that over - complaints and behaviours and how the development of that over time, but nevertheless, _ the development of that over time, but nevertheless, i— the development of that over time, but nevertheless, iwill— the development of that over time, but nevertheless, i will move - the development of that over time, but nevertheless, i will move on. ii but nevertheless, i will move on. i would _ but nevertheless, i will move on. i would ask— but nevertheless, i will move on. i would ask a — but nevertheless, i will move on. i would ask a specific— but nevertheless, i will move on. i would ask a specific question, - but nevertheless, i will move on. i would ask a specific question, you| would ask a specific question, you have _ would ask a specific question, you have races— would ask a specific question, you have races in— would ask a specific question, you have races in the _ would ask a specific question, you have races in the final— would ask a specific question, you| have races in the final submission, so i have races in the final submission, so i think— have races in the final submission, so i think this _ have races in the final submission, so i think this is _ have races in the final submission, so i think this is pertinent - have races in the final submission, so i think this is pertinent to- have races in the final submission, so i think this is pertinent to our. so i think this is pertinent to our inquiry — so i think this is pertinent to our inquiry and _ so i think this is pertinent to our inquiry. and that— so i think this is pertinent to our inquiry. and that is— so i think this is pertinent to our inquiry. and that is around - so i think this is pertinent to our inquiry. and that is around the l so i think this is pertinent to our. inquiry. and that is around the fact that nobody— inquiry. and that is around the fact that nobody had _ inquiry. and that is around the fact that nobody had ever— inquiry. and that is around the fact that nobody had ever raised - inquiry. and that is around the fact. that nobody had ever raised concern about _ that nobody had ever raised concern about sexual — that nobody had ever raised concern about sexual misconduct _ that nobody had ever raised concern about sexual misconduct on - that nobody had ever raised concern about sexual misconduct on your. about sexual misconduct on your part _ about sexual misconduct on your part that — about sexual misconduct on your part. that being _ about sexual misconduct on your part. that being prior— about sexual misconduct on your part. that being prior to - about sexual misconduct on your. part. that being prior to november the 5th. _ part. that being prior to november the 5th. there _ part. that being prior to november the 5th, there was— part. that being prior to november the 5th, there was a _ part. that being prior to november the 5th, there was a complaint- part. that being prior to novemberj the 5th, there was a complaint that was handled — the 5th, there was a complaint that was handled informally— the 5th, there was a complaint that was handled informally around - the 5th, there was a complaint that was handled informally around the i was handled informally around the time at _ was handled informally around the time at the — was handled informally around the time at the referendum, _ was handled informally around the time at the referendum, which- was handled informally around thej time at the referendum, which has been _ time at the referendum, which has been discussed _

time at the referendum, which has been discussed already— time at the referendum, which has been discussed already today. - time at the referendum, which has been discussed already today. i. time at the referendum, which hasi been discussed already today. ijust want to— been discussed already today. ijust want to get— been discussed already today. ijust want to get for— been discussed already today. ijust want to get for the _ been discussed already today. ijust want to get for the record _ been discussed already today. ijust want to get for the record about. want to get for the record about that complaint— want to get for the record about that complaint was _ want to get for the record about that complaint was handled - that complaint was handled informally— that complaint was handled informally around _ that complaint was handled informally around the - that complaint was handled informally around the time i that complaint was handled i informally around the time of that complaint was handled - informally around the time of the referendum. _ informally around the time of the referendum, did _ informally around the time of the referendum, did nicola— informally around the time of the i referendum, did nicola sturgeon... mr cole _ referendum, did nicola sturgeon... mr cole hamilton... _ referendum, did nicola sturgeon... mr cole hamilton... you _ referendum, did nicola sturgeon... mr cole hamilton... you said - referendum, did nicola sturgeon... mr cole hamilton... you said it- referendum, did nicola sturgeon... mr cole hamilton... you said it hadj mr cole hamilton... you said it had been discussed already today, can you bejust more been discussed already today, can you be just more specific about what you're about? i think i said to mr salmond that he was not required to answer that. i’m salmond that he was not required to answer that-— answer that. i'm “ust trying to get to the... answer that. i'm “ust trying to get to the. .. mr— answer that. i'm just trying to get to the... mr hamilton, _ answer that. i'm just trying to get to the... mr hamilton, if - answer that. i'm just trying to get to the... mr hamilton, if you - answer that. i'm just trying to get to the... mr hamilton, if you look semi-evidence _ to the... mr hamilton, if you look semi-evidence he _ to the. .. mr hamilton, if you look semi-evidence he will— to the... mr hamilton, if you look semi-evidence he will see - to the... mr hamilton, if you look semi-evidence he will see that i l semi—evidence he will see that i state explicitly —— if he looks at my evidence, asking the question at this committee, i am talking here generally that to my knowledge about any minister to my knowledge, no complaint was put forward or informed by nicola sturgeon, and i have not made that charge against nicola sturgeon and i think this

committee would be wrong to believe that was the case. to my knowledge no such complain about any minister has reached the desk of the deputy first minister. fiifi has reached the desk of the deputy first minister.— first minister. ok, so, can i “ust for the record, i first minister. ok, so, can i “ust for the record, ii first minister. ok, so, can i “ust for the record, i think i first minister. ok, so, can ijust for the record, i think you've - for the record, i think you've largely— for the record, i think you've largely covered _ for the record, i think you've largely covered that - for the record, i think you've largely covered that and - for the record, i think you've largely covered that and i. largely covered that and i appreciated. _ largely covered that and i appreciated, but - largely covered that and i appreciated, but prior- largely covered that and i| appreciated, but prior the largely covered that and i- appreciated, but prior the 5th of november— appreciated, but prior the 5th of november 2017, _ appreciated, but prior the 5th of november 2017, when - appreciated, but prior the 5th of november 2017, when she - appreciated, but prior the 5th ofi november 2017, when she asked appreciated, but prior the 5th of- november 2017, when she asked you about— november 2017, when she asked you about the _ november 2017, when she asked you about the sky— november 2017, when she asked you about the sky news _ november 2017, when she asked you about the sky news allegations - november 2017, when she asked you about the sky news allegations of. about the sky news allegations of the umbra — about the sky news allegations of the umbra airport— about the sky news allegations of the umbra airport which _ about the sky news allegations of the umbra airport which are - about the sky news allegations of. the umbra airport which are covered in your— the umbra airport which are covered in your statement, _ the umbra airport which are covered in your statement, which _ the umbra airport which are covered in your statement, which we - the umbra airport which are covered in your statement, which we will. in your statement, which we will come _ in your statement, which we will come onto— in your statement, which we will come onto again _ in your statement, which we will come onto again for _ in your statement, which we will come onto again for other- in your statement, which we will. come onto again for other aspects in your statement, which we will- come onto again for other aspects of the inquiry, — come onto again for other aspects of the inquiry was _ come onto again for other aspects of the inquiry was or— come onto again for other aspects of the inquiry, was orany_ come onto again for other aspects of the inquiry, was or any occasion - the inquiry, was or any occasion which _ the inquiry, was or any occasion which nicola _ the inquiry, was or any occasion which nicola sturgeon— the inquiry, was or any occasion which nicola sturgeon raise - which nicola sturgeon raise questions _ which nicola sturgeon raise questions or— which nicola sturgeon raise questions or concerns - which nicola sturgeon raise questions or concerns withl which nicola sturgeon raise i questions or concerns with you which nicola sturgeon raise - questions or concerns with you about what she _ questions or concerns with you about what she would — questions or concerns with you about what she would describe _ questions or concerns with you about what she would describe as - questions or concerns with you about what she would describe as sexuallyl what she would describe as sexually inappropriate — what she would describe as sexually inappropriate behaviour? _ what she would describe as sexually inappropriate behaviour? i’m“ - what she would describe as sexually inappropriate behaviour?— inappropriate behaviour? i'm going to answer, inappropriate behaviour? i'm going to answer. but _ inappropriate behaviour? i'm going to answer, but if— inappropriate behaviour? i'm going to answer, but if the _ inappropriate behaviour? i'm going to answer, but if the inquiry - inappropriate behaviour? i'm going to answer, but if the inquiry is - to answer, but if the inquiry is to... i'm going to answer to help mr cole hamilton, but if we're going to stick to the remit, then the huge issues at stake here, so the answer issues at stake here, so the answer

is no to your question. but they are not issues about any individual. and i have got points to make about what i have got points to make about what i believe the current first minister has done or not done and they will be made in response to relevant questions, relevant to the committee, but i have seen her pursued in the committee that somehow nicola sturgeon was covering up... that is not the case, my charge against nicola sturgeon do not include that in the point i was making in my submission with that until that event, and incidentally, i hope we do go on to discuss it because it would not have been front page news in any newspaper if it had ever been publicised at the time. that was, in all my years in public life, the first indication of anything of that nature was a november 2017, anything of that nature was a november2017, came anything of that nature was a november 2017, came from a report from ten years before, as a positive incident, it was dealt with and seem to cause a great deal of consternation by the permanent secretary. perhaps we can explore

that because it may have been a factor in her thinking at that time. i cannot be sure that, but i merely make the point in my submission that over that 30 year period i'm speaking about, i must have been, the most investigated politician certainly in scotland and perhaps across these islands. and the fact that nothing came forward over these 30 years is a reasonable indication that there wasn't much to come forward. and i would think you should bear that in mind. and as i said, for the first minister, that is not a grudge that i hold, and i know that a criticism that was made as well, which we move onto later, but i think it was said in the evidence as well. and with that, is it possible for us to get down to some of the big issues?- it possible for us to get down to some of the big issues? yes, i think mr cole hamilton _ some of the big issues? yes, i think mr cole hamilton had _ some of the big issues? yes, i think mr cole hamilton had quite - some of the big issues? yes, i think mr cole hamilton had quite a - some of the big issues? yes, i think mr cole hamilton had quite a bit - some of the big issues? yes, i think mr cole hamilton had quite a bit ofl mr cole hamilton had quite a bit of time already and i'm looking at the

clock and i'm anxious to get this session covering this ailment... one key question. one key question relating one question. _ one key question relating one question. very— one key question relating one question, very simple, - one key question relating one question, very simple, when. one key question relating one i question, very simple, when she presented — question, very simple, when she presented the _ question, very simple, when she presented the allegations - question, very simple, when she presented the allegations to - question, very simple, when she presented the allegations to you| question, very simple, when she i presented the allegations to you in november— presented the allegations to you in november 2017, _ presented the allegations to you in november2017, did— presented the allegations to you in november 2017, did you _ presented the allegations to you in november 2017, did you threaten i presented the allegations to you inl november 2017, did you threaten to resign— november 2017, did you threaten to resign from — november 2017, did you threaten to resign from the _ november 2017, did you threaten to resign from the snp _ november 2017, did you threaten to resign from the snp as _ november 2017, did you threaten to resign from the snp as a _ november 2017, did you threaten to resign from the snp as a response i november 2017, did you threaten to. resign from the snp as a response to the allegation? — resign from the snp as a response to the allegation?— the allegation? again, the answer is no. and the allegation? again, the answer is n0- and since _ the allegation? again, the answer is no. and since you _ the allegation? again, the answer is no. and since you phrased _ the allegation? again, the answer is no. and since you phrased it, - the allegation? again, the answer is no. and since you phrased it, it - the allegation? again, the answer is no. and since you phrased it, it was| no. and since you phrased it, it was a press story, a sky story which didn't amount to anything. and it never wooded amounted to anything. it was not the sort of matter which

would affect a resignation. perhaps