to get this 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 . 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 people overreacting because of the atmosphere at that time, november 17, in a number of weeks which perhaps explains other people's accents but the sky news story was never broadcast and with good reason. again, iwould just never broadcast and with good reason. again, i would just say that there are enormous issues before this committee and there will be plenty of questions you can ask my successor over areas that are fundamental to this enquiry but no, i didn't threaten resignation. there was nothing to threaten resignation about. and threatening resignation is probably not the right term anyway. it is probably not the right term an a . . , is probably not the right term an a . ., , , , anyway. it actually helps the subsequent _ anyway. it actually helps the subsequent line _ anyway. it actually helps the subsequent line of _ anyway. it actually helps the i subsequent line of questioning anyway. it actually helps the - subsequent line of questioning but i'll subsequent line of questioning but i'tt pause — subsequent line of questioning but i'll ause. ., ~ subsequent line of questioning but i'll ause. ., ,, subsequent line of questioning but i'll ause. ., ~' ., subsequent line of questioning but i'll ause. ., ,, ., i'll pause. thank you for your written evidence. _ i'll pause. thank you for your written evidence. can - i'll pause. thank you for your written evidence. can i- i'll pause. thank you for your written evidence. can i take l i'll pause. thank you for your i written evidence. can i take you back to the october events of 2017

which we have already talked about which we have already talked about which as you say were a heated moment with actresses and westminster mps being implicated and what was written in the sunday herald in 2017 of a "sexual innuendo, sexual abuse, sexual assaults, requests for sex, cover—ups and isolation in the scottish parliament. " so the government obviously set in place certain procedures and also parliament. you've touched on this already butjust parliament. you've touched on this already but just for parliament. you've touched on this already butjust for clarity, if parliament. you've touched on this already but just for clarity, if you had been first minister at the end of october 2017, we know what the current first minister did but what would you have done in response to all of that? ~ ., �* ~' all of that? well, i don't think that the approach _ all of that? well, i don't think that the approach would - all of that? well, i don't think that the approach would have |

all of that? well, i don't think - that the approach would have been much different until it came to looking at a change of policy. normally what you would do, you would have a discussion in the scottish parliament on the 31st of october. there is a debate or discussion in cabinet on the same day, a revision of policy called for. so, up untilthat day, a revision of policy called for. so, up until that point, day, a revision of policy called for. so, up untilthat point, i don't think any change at all. i would have thought that after hearing a variety of views that came across in that discussion, you would then address the policies that you had in place to see if they needed strengthening or improvement and you would do that in terms of negotiations. now, back in 2009 ten, it wasn't the same heated discussion but that policy took 18 months. that seems slow but it's not if you are

developing a policy of this importance so, i hope and believe that i would have then taken that policy we had and said what do we do to adjust to? to make changing circumstances and, above all, i would have taken the workforce representatives with me on that. it should be said that, you know, i was involved at fairness of work because it was a very specific issue that needed to be rectified about the ministerial code, balance it with the overall policy. these things, the overall policy. these things, the negotiations that take place, the negotiations that take place, the negotiators in the management board, they are not negotiations which would normally involve ministers, never mind the first ministers. the case of venice at work was a particular aspect which required ministerial approval which was the reason for my involvement, but in the circumstances, it was much more politically charged in

2017 and then all the more important to take the views, feed them in but i take your point, fairness at work was a robust foundation. you wouldn'tjettison policy for part of the workforce and keep it for the rest. it seems extraordinary, the circumstance that has been arrived at. , ., , , ., ., at. obviously, the whole event of the 2017 did _ at. obviously, the whole event of the 2017 did bring _ at. obviously, the whole event of the 2017 did bring down - at. obviously, the whole event of the 2017 did bring down a - at. obviously, the whole event of the 2017 did bring down a lot - at. obviously, the whole event of the 2017 did bring down a lot of l the 2017 did bring down a lot of powerful men and i want to move on to the one of the critical changes that was made in the procedure which was the retrospective element. now, in the judicial review at four bt the effect that was... retrospective and amplify that in your legal arguments. now, you are aware that petition was considered so it never actually got to court. it perhaps

would have been useful in hindsight and some incidents would have perhaps been resolved but did you set out this particular argument about retrospectively because you felt that it was not competent ever to investigate complaints of historic sexual harassment as a matter of principle or did you feel that the allegations consumed should not be investigated? i put that the allegations consumed should not be investigated?— not be investigated? i put forward the argument _ not be investigated? i put forward the argument on _ not be investigated? i put forward the argument on legal _ not be investigated? i put forward the argument on legal advice. - not be investigated? i put forward | the argument on legal advice. that advice was that if there was nothing else wrong with the policy and, as we both know, there were many, many things wrong in the policy but if nothing else had been wrong it may well have fallen on the question of retrospective at a. notjust because it was retrospective but because there had been in place at the time a perfectly acceptable, robust policy. where retrospective that he has been allowed, it was likely that

we don't have the expertise on it, but where there has been no available policy then a retrospective argument has much more sway. the second issue that is required in terms of policy the people who could apply to, presumably stretching back, normally would be consulted or give their approval in some way. indeed, there was a letter which has emerged quite recently which was meant to be sent to former first ministers, myself included that i know was not sent. so, ask them to consult ministers to consult ministers from past as struck to me is quite extraordinary. it would have been a huge challenge for the government to overcome legally if they had got that far,

but as they both know, —— as we both know, they fell at the very first hurdle. my legal advice and i've given this committee are substantial part of that legal advice in terms of, because it was laid out notjust in court but also to the permanent secretary as, who sought to find out what was wrong with the policy that had developed at pace. my legal advice that they were many grounds on which the policy would have fallen. our draft position for judicial review was drawn up in july. long before the application and the illegal, unlawful application of policy, and you are quite right, retrospective it is one of the grounds. i quite right, retrospective it is one of the grounds.— quite right, retrospective it is one of the grounds. i have that copy of that court letter _ of the grounds. i have that copy of that court letter and _ of the grounds. i have that copy of that court letter and i _ of the grounds. i have that copy of that court letter and i believe - of the grounds. i have that copy of that court letter and i believe it. that court letter and i believe it has not been provided to the

committee. but this is the draft letter either as a courtesy or to consult their view on the new procedure butjust to confirm you never received any consultation as a former first minister that this new procedure could be applied against former ministers? none whatsoever. that's fine. flan former ministers? none whatsoever. that's fine. ., that's fine. can i intervene here, we've never— that's fine. can i intervene here, we've never seen _ that's fine. can i intervene here, we've never seen this _ that's fine. can i intervene here, we've never seen this letter? - that's fine. can i intervene here, we've never seen this letter? it i that's fine. can i intervene here, i we've never seen this letter? it was one of the documents _ we've never seen this letter? it was one of the documents i _ we've never seen this letter? it was one of the documents i was - we've never seen this letter? it was one of the documents i was going i we've never seen this letter? it was | one of the documents i was going to offer to the committee today since i only received it in the last few days. but... can i ask?- only received it in the last few days. but... can i ask? no, iwas not consulted. _ days. but... can i ask? no, iwas not consulted. how— days. but... can i ask? no, iwas not consulted. how long - days. but... can i ask? no, iwas not consulted. how long is - days. but... can i ask? no, iwas not consulted. how long is this . not consulted. how long is this letter? — not consulted. how long is this letter? ., ., ., ., , , letter? pardon? how long is this letter? pardon? how long is this letter? two _ letter? pardon? how long is this letter? two pages. _ letter? pardon? how long is this letter? two pages. i— letter? pardon? how long is this letter? two pages. iwas- letter? pardon? how long is this letter? two pages. i was going l letter? pardon? how long is this| letter? two pages. i was going to ask ou letter? two pages. i was going to ask you to — letter? two pages. i was going to ask you to read _ letter? two pages. i was going to ask you to read it _ letter? two pages. i was going to ask you to read it out. _

letter? two pages. i was going to ask you to read it out. no, - letter? two pages. i was going to ask you to read it out. no, i - letter? two pages. i was going to. ask you to read it out. no, i won't. but if— ask you to read it out. no, i won't. but if i _ ask you to read it out. no, iwon't. but if i can— ask you to read it out. no, i won't. but if i can accept that you will give _ but if i can accept that you will give it — but if i can accept that you will give it to — but if i can accept that you will give it to the clock so all the committee can see this letter and it can he _ committee can see this letter and it can be looked at. yes. if at committee can see this letter and it can be looked at. yes.— can be looked at. yes. if at all possible- _ can be looked at. yes. if at all possible- i _ can be looked at. yes. if at all possible. i mentioned - can be looked at. yes. if at all possible. i mentioned it - can be looked at. yes. if at all i possible. i mentioned it because can be looked at. yes. if at all - possible. i mentioned it because mr salmond mentioned it. yes. possible. i mentioned it because mr salmond mentioned it.— salmond mentioned it. yes, i understand. _ salmond mentioned it. yes, i understand. carry _ salmond mentioned it. yes, i understand. carry on. - salmond mentioned it. yes, i understand. carry on. just. salmond mentioned it. yes, i understand. carry on. just to | understand. carry on. just to clarify something. _ understand. carry on. just to clarify something. i- understand. carry on. just to clarify something. i know - understand. carry on. just to | clarify something. i know you understand. carry on. just to - clarify something. i know you feel uncomfortable about this but you've made the point in your full submission that there were no formal complaints made against any minister. underthe complaints made against any minister. under the policy because it was never invoked. but in a letter written to the permanent secretary on the 5th ofjune 2018, you do same relation to allegations d, there is a particular problem in relation to allegation d which was dealt with under the procedure in place, fairness at work policy and procedures. and that being so it would not be appropriate to resurrect it given that new procedure was in contemplation or force at the time. there had been a

complaint that it had been dealt with and that was informal, was it? yes, can i reply to you as i reply to loyal what that after two court cases, twojudges to loyal what that after two court cases, two judges and a jury, to loyal what that after two court cases, twojudges and a jury, i'm entitled to rest on the verdicts, particularly that of a jury. can entitled to rest on the verdicts, particularly that of a jury.- particularly that of a “ury. can i remind all h particularly that of a jury. can i remind all members, - particularly that of a jury. can i remind all members, we - particularly that of a jury. can i remind all members, we are i particularly that of a jury. can i i remind all members, we are here particularly that of a jury. can i remind all members, we are here to look remind all members, we are here to tookat— remind all members, we are here to took at the _ remind all members, we are here to look at the actions of the scottish government so please be very, very carefut— government so please be very, very careful to _ government so please be very, very careful to what we referring to in our questioning. we are expecting our questioning. we are expecting our witness to be careful in his responses _ our witness to be careful in his responses to this so that i think the same — responses to this so that i think the same respect should be shown to a witness _ the same respect should be shown to a witness. ., . , the same respect should be shown to a witness. ., ., , �* a witness. now, as i've indicated, one of the — a witness. now, as i've indicated, one of the key _ a witness. now, as i've indicated, one of the key things _ a witness. now, as i've indicated, one of the key things about - a witness. now, as i've indicated, one of the key things about the i a witness. now, as i've indicated, i one of the key things about the new procedure was its retrospective tea. do you think as a matter of principle, that they should be procedure for investigating sexual harassment against ministers in the scottish government? i

harassment against ministers in the scottish government?— scottish government? i don't think ou can scottish government? i don't think you can make _ scottish government? i don't think you can make that _ scottish government? i don't think you can make that argument - scottish government? i don't think you can make that argument if i scottish government? i don't think i you can make that argument if there was... i mean, ithink, legally, what i've been informed is that you can perhaps try that argument pre—2010 when there is no such policy for it would be very difficult to make that argument and make it legal or lawful and it's not a good idea for whole range of reasons to embark on unlawful procedures. indeed, it's a breach of the ministerial code, arguably in terms of what's been put forward. of course, every minister in all their actions in this parliament has to follow, something we've embraced since the start of this parliament. to further questions. given that then and given that a lot of women came forward in the aftermath of me too with historic complaints, you are basically saying they should not be any procedures in place to help resolve them because i didn't come

forward at the time? i resolve them because i didn't come forward at the time?— forward at the time? i think it would be _ forward at the time? i think it would be very _ forward at the time? i think it would be very difficult - forward at the time? i think it would be very difficult to i forward at the time? i think it i would be very difficult to pursue in a workplace policy, not applying the procedures that were there at the time, i'm in, the procedures are there at the time, it would be possible to employ these procedures in a lawful fashion, possible to employ these procedures in a lawfulfashion, as i understand it, but to invent a totally new procedure which hadn't been in contemplation at the time and apply retrospectively, of all the arguments that came forward in terms of the me too movement and perfectly legitimate questions that you are asking about the balance between informal complaint and mediation, the formal process, it's a tiley legitimate. the idea out of that, out of nowhere, in fact, the idea that lets have a specific policy for former ministers of the scottish government, what i put to you, mr whiteman is that if that had been a

major issue contemplated at the time and being thought of as a major issue that has come up, then somebody, perhaps yourself, orany other person would have mentioned it in a full parliamentary debate, the statement from john swinney. no one mentioned it in the parliamentary statement. no one mentioned it in the scottish cabinet. the policy was never discussed. so where that's coming from, it wasn't coming from something that was seen as a major issue. i would have thought that the major issue politically would be to look at your current policies and think how they would make them responsive to the situation we have now, as opposed to let's have a policy for former ministers. i think the origins and reason from that came elsewhere —— make from elsewhere. came elsewhere -- make from elsewhere-— elsewhere. next week, we are actually at _ elsewhere. next week, we are actually at stage _ elsewhere. next week, we are actually at stage three - elsewhere. next week, we are actually at stage three of i elsewhere. next week, we are actually at stage three of the l actually at stage three of the standard sexual harassment complaint deal which does allow for the horrid

—— historic behaviour back from 1999 to be investigated against msps who behave badly to their own staff, so thank you, convenor. as has been made _ thank you, convenor. as has been made clear. — thank you, convenor. as has been made clear, we are not here to look at incidents, — made clear, we are not here to look at incidents, we are here to look at comptaints— at incidents, we are here to look at complaints against you and how they were handled. part of that discussion we have had as a committee has been about workplace culture _ committee has been about workplace culture more broadly, and within the scottish— culture more broadly, and within the scottish government. now, it is not for me _ scottish government. now, it is not for me to _ scottish government. now, it is not for me to rule on whether we should have pursued mr cole—hamilton's line of inquiry— have pursued mr cole—hamilton's line of inquiry any further, but i did notice — of inquiry any further, but i did notice that— of inquiry any further, but i did notice that when you're asked about it you _ notice that when you're asked about it you kind _ notice that when you're asked about it you kind of turn on the committee. now, i have questions about— committee. now, i have questions about the— committee. now, i have questions about the committee and some of what it has done _ about the committee and some of what it has done also. do not feel it is relevant — it has done also. do not feel it is

relevant for _ it has done also. do not feel it is relevant for us to ask you about the workplace _ relevant for us to ask you about the workplace culture in which peter appeared — workplace culture in which peter appeared to be commenting and ask about— appeared to be commenting and ask about your— appeared to be commenting and ask about your part in that culture? mr allen, i about your part in that culture? allen, i wasn't about your part in that culture? m allen, i wasn't turning about your part in that culture? ii allen, i wasn't turning on the committee, i was pointing out mr cole—hamilton that there had been a rage of criticisms from the fda about the conduct of the committee. what i said was that on the committee proceedings i had watched that i didn't find these criticisms justified as an observer. so i wasn't turning on the committee, i was, if you like, depending the committee and merely putting out thatjust because people say things, in this case the criticism of the nature of questioning, doesn't make them true. and a reasonable observer might come to a different conclusion. as far as the evidence is concerned, peter made the point very strongly that in his opinion, the written evidence, that the

workplace culture in the scottish government that he led as the senior civil servant stood in good comparison with any other department across the uk. what you heard in subsequent evidence is that they are now more complaints in the scottish government civil service than there are in other departments. now, you can... off the uk government, i would never describe as a government department, but the scottish government compared to other ministrations. now, you can take two views of that. you can either take the view that perhaps the policies employed in the past is not sufficiently encourage people to make complaints or you can take the view that the rising number of complaints indicates that there is a problem to be addressed. who knows? and may be sure both, but certainly subject to study. but i think peter houston gave a very good case as to why he believed the culture and

performance of the scottish government over his term of office in terms of what was being in surveys of work for satisfaction at the time was extremely good compared with whitehall departments. the permanent secretary makes the case on a number of occasions, she thinks things have dramatically improved since the trade unions issued a document quite recently saying that that wasn't the case. it is a matter of which, no doubt, this committee might want to reflect on and put in the recommendations. my point earlier on, though, is that i believe that fairness at work was a good, sound, robust policy. the fact it is still in play for the civil service is an indication that that is a view of the civil service unions as well. and any changes to that policy, and my estimation, should have been built on that policy. that would've been a good thing to do as opposed to casting it aside for other purposes. that

thing to do as opposed to casting it aside for other purposes.— aside for other purposes. that is very helpful. _ aside for other purposes. that is very helpful, but _ aside for other purposes. that is very helpful, but my _ aside for other purposes. that is very helpful, but my question, i aside for other purposes. that is i very helpful, but my question, you will have _ very helpful, but my question, you will have noticed, was about the fact that — will have noticed, was about the fact that we have evidence from sir peter _ fact that we have evidence from sir peter in _ fact that we have evidence from sir peter in which he comments on your personal— peter in which he comments on your personal role in the workplace culture — personal role in the workplace culture and i wonder if you had any comments — culture and i wonder if you had any comments on that. no. culture and i wonder if you had any comments on that.— comments on that. no. i watched peter's evidence _ comments on that. no. i watched peter's evidence and _ comments on that. no. i watched peter's evidence and merely i comments on that. no. i watched| peter's evidence and merely make comments on that. no. i watched i peter's evidence and merely make the point that people observe a different ways and i have an excellent relationship with him and what i can say is that in my time is first minister, his time is permanent secretary, he never expressed any concern to me whatsoever, but i took his evidence on his letter that he sent. his subsequent evidence as an indication that he thought policy should be improved over time, he did not dispute that, the new policies can come forward. but the evidence suggested that he thought in his spirit is permanent secretary that workplace culture was standing in comparison with other comparable

institutions, although certainly there is always room for improvement. what i also can say is at no time when he orjohn eldridge was permanent secretary did we end “p was permanent secretary did we end up in the court session on the receiving end of a calamitous decision of unlawful behaviour. so perhaps both of them can argue that indicates a tenure of office in this regard, and that regard was better than the more recent experience. thank you. can i ask about timelines around _ thank you. can i ask about timelines around the _ thank you. can i ask about timelines around the development of changes to the policy? _ around the development of changes to the policy? in your written evidence you have _ the policy? in your written evidence you have suggested that the chief minister— you have suggested that the chief minister was responsible for the inclusion— minister was responsible for the inclusion of former ministers in the procedure — inclusion of former ministers in the procedure and her e—mail on the 17th of november. can you tell me why the scottish— of november. can you tell me why the scottish government had that

document one week prior to this, includes — document one week prior to this, includes a — document one week prior to this, includes a paragraph on allegations by a current member of staff against fornter_ by a current member of staff against former minister and also no former process— former minister and also no former process to — former minister and also no former process to capture this. can you also _ process to capture this. can you also give — process to capture this. can you also give me your view on how what you've _ also give me your view on how what you've said — also give me your view on how what you've said about the e—mail on the 17th of— you've said about the e—mail on the 17th of november squares, as it were. _ 17th of november squares, as it were. with _ 17th of november squares, as it were, with the permanent secretary's statement _ were, with the permanent secretary's statement on the 8th of september to this committee the decision to include — this committee the decision to include former ministers came from an analysis — include former ministers came from an analysis that was already under way in _ an analysis that was already under way in the — an analysis that was already under way in the work had already been undertaken on the fairness at work procedure — undertaken on the fairness at work procedure and that from the very beginning — procedure and that from the very beginning it was agreed that they tidying _ beginning it was agreed that they tidying up of the consistency of the fairness _ tidying up of the consistency of the fairness of— tidying up of the consistency of the fairness of work procedure would always _ fairness of work procedure would always address the issue of former ministers? — always address the issue of former ministers? i wonder if you can offer some _ ministers? i wonder if you can offer some view— ministers? i wonder if you can offer some view on that timeline please. you have _ some view on that timeline please. you have a — some view on that timeline please. you have a number of points there. the first of the case is that has been seen by this committee suggested there were two documents. i think on the 7th of november and the 8th of november, one was from

the 8th of november, one was from the investigating officer, as she became, and one was from james. one was the route and the other was james hind's policy, appointed some detail, but it was that james james hind's policy, appointed some detail, but it was thatjames hind gave evidence to say that he started with a blank sheet of paper, but that doesn't seem to square with the fact there was also a route map. what you can certainly say is that theissue what you can certainly say is that the issue of former ministers was being considered about the seventh and 8th of november. as far as i'm aware, that is for the first time. in the point that i made about the chief of staff's e—mail on the 17th was not that she originated that the idea of former ministers, it was the phraseology of former ministers administrations regardless of party. i am not arguing that the cheapest

after the first minister originated the concept of former ministers, but certainly we know because she proposed a wording for the first minister's commissioning letter, i think it was, the 22nd of november to the private secretary of the permanent secretary, it shows that she was aware and indeed proposing that on behalf of the first minister. the evidence i have seen before the committee would suggest that civil service were working on the question of former ministers, whether that was former ministers of previous administrations before them, but not as explicitly as it eventually came out of this letter sent by the first minister on the 22nd of november. my view on this is thatis, 22nd of november. my view on this is that is, however you think of it, it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a significant departure from

previous policy. a departure that hasn't been followed by any other administration, not that i know of, and may be administrations anywhere is to have a policy saying, right, a policy on former ministers. it did seem to come out of a very, very surprisingly, the documents on the seventh and 8th of november, and the clarification that the chief of staff gave that they should apply to former ministers of previous ministrations, regardless of party. it seemed potentially to extend them back to the dawn of devolution, but it certainly shows at the chief of staff of the first minister was very much aware of it on november 17 when she was proposing such amendments. i think the more interest in question is why suddenly that emerged in november the 7th of november the 8th and why to civil servants, one who said he was starting with a blank sheet of paper, while another one

was thinking of another document. i find that aspect which have emerged in your inquiry quite surprising. you have referred to this issue have retrospectively. in your written evidence — retrospectively. in your written evidence you have taken issue with the inclusion of former ministers, and it— the inclusion of former ministers, and it has— the inclusion of former ministers, and it has been alluded to the scottish— and it has been alluded to the scottish parliament the standards of sexual— scottish parliament the standards of sexual harassment sent in place process — sexual harassment sent in place process bill is currently at stage three _ process bill is currently at stage three and — process bill is currently at stage three and it will indicate the complaints procedure for parliament that includes former parliamentarians in the same way that the _ parliamentarians in the same way that the government's procedure now includes _ that the government's procedure now includes former ministers. do not feel it _ includes former ministers. do not feel it is _ includes former ministers. do not feel it is right that former politicians, whether they are ministers or not, can be held responsible for actions or allegations about actions in the past? _ allegations about actions in the past? i— allegations about actions in the ast? ~ . . allegations about actions in the ast? ~' ., , ., ' . past? i think that is a difficult ruestion past? i think that is a difficult question legally, _ past? i think that is a difficult question legally, but - past? i think that is a difficult question legally, but if - past? i think that is a difficult question legally, but if you i past? i think that is a difficult l question legally, but if you are approaching at than you would approaching at than you would

approach it by the legislative route, which we are currently doing. there is a vast difference between putting forward legislation carefully considered by a parliament, and then the parliament and enacting it, which doesn't make it bombproof legally as we know, because legislation can also be challenged, there is a huge difference between considered legislation and dispatch code development of a policy apace over a matter of weeks for reasons which are not altogether clear. the first of these, the legislative route has a basis of argument and reason and legislation that gives everyone protection and some security. the first route ended in abject, total distractor. now, we can hypothesise —— total disaster, we can hypothesise this all we like, but on the 8th of january and 2019, the actions and content of the policy and the behaviour of the permanent

secretary and interested party of the first minister was judged secretary and interested party of the first minister wasjudged in secretary and interested party of the first minister was judged in the court session to be unlawful, procedurally unfair and tainted by a bias. no one involved in this, not myself, not the complaint and said, not anything, would have wanted that extraordinary development which was a result of the nature of how that policy was developed. so we can argue that retrospectively through legislation can be applied, that is what you're talking about. but there is a talk about _ what you're talking about. but there is a talk about the _ what you're talking about. but there is a talk about the application - what you're talking about. but there is a talk about the application of- is a talk about the application of the policy— is a talk about the application of the policy pursued a policy perceived that the court ruled on, but given— perceived that the court ruled on, but given that the judgment didn't come _ but given that the judgment didn't come into— but given that the judgment didn't come into view that the possession of a former— come into view that the possession of a former minister as a principal, if you _ of a former minister as a principal, if you like — of a former minister as a principal, if you like is— of a former minister as a principal, if you like is an issue, why would we have — if you like is an issue, why would we have any— if you like is an issue, why would we have any reason to say that there is a legal— we have any reason to say that there

is a legal issue about the inclusion of former— is a legal issue about the inclusion of former ministers on a legal difficulty— of former ministers on a legal difficulty about including former ministers on a policy? presumably a thing _ ministers on a policy? presumably a thing as— ministers on a policy? presumably a thing as a _ ministers on a policy? presumably a thing as a man of principle that it is right— thing as a man of principle that it is right that employees have an avenue — is right that employees have an avenue of— is right that employees have an avenue of complaint, even if the complaint — avenue of complaint, even if the complaint is regarding a former employer. complaint is regarding a former emlo er. ~ ., complaint is regarding a former emlo er. ~ . , ., , complaint is regarding a former employer-— complaint is regarding a former emlo er. ~ . , ., ,., employer. well, that bears on the cuestion employer. well, that bears on the question that _ employer. well, that bears on the question that there _ employer. well, that bears on the question that there was _ employer. well, that bears on the question that there was an - employer. well, that bears on the j question that there was an avenue employer. well, that bears on the i question that there was an avenue at the time. and as a first minister or prime minister or person elected who introduced such a policy in 2010, then obviously i think that was something that should be noted and that was thoroughly agreed with. when i took out of the petition for judicial review, my legal advice, and legal adviserjust judicial review, my legal advice, and legal adviser just that, judicial review, my legal advice, and legal adviserjust that, just advice, is that we had a very high likelihood of success. before we knew about anything to do with the application of the policy, which was initially concealed from us and them

we learned about as the judicial review went on, i wouldn't have taken out the judicial review without the advice saying that the policy was unlawful. and i think there was a great deal of understanding in terms of the scottish government of the jeopardy that the policy was in. it was an issue, mrwhiteman that the policy was in. it was an issue, mr whiteman ray said, and i made the point that there is a difference between legislation, and you will note that it was notjust the application of the policy that was judge, the application of the policy that wasjudge, but the procedural unfairness of the policy. it is procedurally unfair and tainted by a bias because it is application, the procedural fairness we can well get onto if you like and i wanted to judicial review, but there were many things wrong with the policy. why were there many things wrong with the policy? because it was developed at pace as a civil service, spat

caucus i would say over a period of six weeks and the department panic which hopefully this committee can try and determine. however you look at it, from nobody�*s point of view was a satisfactory outcome, it was in abject, total complete disaster. you've mentioned legitimately about the unions and the policy fairness of work. it's also clear from the evidence that scottish parliament, i appreciate we're talking about a different policy there, but the scottish the secretary and the unions thought it was right to include former ministers in the case of parliament. can ijust clarify, are you in principle at least aligning with that position? i mean, i haven't looked _

aligning with that position? i mean, i haven't looked in _ aligning with that position? i mean, i haven't looked in detail _ aligning with that position? i mean, i haven't looked in detail at - aligning with that position? i mean, i haven't looked in detail at the i i haven't looked in detail at the current