spat 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 haven't looked in detail at the current legislation, but if you are going retrospective, then you certainly should do it by alleged reform and make the argument —— make the argument for it. otherwise, you will be on the receiving end of more courtjudgments. i would will be on the receiving end of more courtjudgments. iwould have thought, though, that the overwhelming priority at the present moment in the future. the legislative basis going back to the policy would be the only way you could do it, but certainly it is not speculation as to what happened to the policy that originated in november and december 2017. we know that from thejudgment november and december 2017. we know that from the judgment in the session. although the permanent sector has been anxious to give the impression that there was only one act perspective the application of the policy, and i think she said in

one press statement other parts were dismissed. she actually said that in a press statement. of course, the reality is as you rightly say that many aspects of the problems of the policy weren't considered. they didn't need to be considered because the government had been, had thrown in the towel, had conceded everything that could possibly be conceded, so the rest of the arguments didn't need to be explored. to think that the rest of the arguments were robust from the scottish government public point of view which has been suggested by this committee, is a huge extension and not there advice that i have received and not the government that there —— the advice that the government have received because they kept it under wraps for so long. they kept it under wraps for so lon. _ g ., . ~' they kept it under wraps for so lon,u,' , thank long. jackie baillie, please. thank ou ve long. jackie baillie, please. thank you very much- — long. jackie baillie, please. thank you very much- i _ long. jackie baillie, please. thank you very much. i wonder - long. jackie baillie, please. thank you very much. i wonder whetherl long. jackie baillie, please. thank. you very much. i wonder whether we can move on to talk about the

interest on the confidentiality of the complainers and start with an issue raised by myself yesterday in the chamber. this issue arose in the context of one of the meetings held with the former chief of staff, jeff aberdeen, there was a precursor to your meetings with nicola sturgeon. do you know whether the name of the complainant was checked out one of those meetings? yes. can i ask you how you know that? we are into chested in evidence been corroborated in this committee. my chief corroborated in this committee. ij�*i chief of corroborated in this committee. m chief of staff corroborated in this committee. m1 chief of staff told me corroborated in this committee. m1: chief of staff told me that. corroborated in this committee. my chief of staff told me that. is - chief of staff told me that. is anybody else party to that information? figs anybody else party to that information?— anybody else party to that information? a ., �* ., ., information? as far as i'm aware, and ou information? as far as i'm aware, and you would — information? as far as i'm aware, and you would have _ information? as far as i'm aware, and you would have to _ information? as far as i'm aware, and you would have to ask - information? as far as i'm aware, and you would have to ask the - information? as far as i'm aware, - and you would have to ask the people concerned, as far as i'm aware there are three other people who know that to be true. i are three other people who know that to be true. , _, to be true. i believe the committee have written _ to be true. i believe the committee have written to _ to be true. i believe the committee have written to them _ to be true. i believe the committee have written to them so _ to be true. i believe the committee have written to them so thank - to be true. i believe the committee have written to them so thank you | have written to them so thank you very much for that. can i take you to the daily record league, sticking with the interest of the complainers. how were you notified of the daily record story on the

23rd of august? flan of the daily record story on the 23rd of august?— of the daily record story on the 23rd of august? can i go through that day in _ 23rd of august? can i go through that day in sequence, _ 23rd of august? can i go through that day in sequence, because i i that day in sequence, because i think there is a bit more to it than the story. this was the 23rd of august, and we were either meeting with my legal team at edinburgh airport, and we were considering what to do. we went to launch a petition forjudicial review —— lodge our position forjudicial review. we were meeting on how to respond and to lodge a judicial review. we received that from their scottish government saying they were going to make a press statement on theirfact of the going to make a press statement on their fact of the complaints at 5pm. we considered it remarkable then, but i consider it even more remarkable now because i now know that they were advised against any publicity by the police in beating

two days previously, or at least the crown agent was. they were going to make a statement at 5pm. obviously, any hope of confidentiality in the process would have gone once that statement was made, because the idea that the press would have just said, well, there has been to complaints and we are not going to point to anything else would have been extraordinary to believe. so we said that in return we would lodge an interdict along with the review to rebut that statement. the government response was that they would withdraw the statement therefore there was no need to put forward the interdict. at four o'clock, roughly, we were told by the government that they had received a query from the daily record and were concerned that they had knowledge of the complaints. if we had gone ahead with the interdict at that stage given that we were interdicting our

government statement as opposed to a supposition of a newspaper, we may well have provoked the very thing that we were trying to avoid, but they e—mailed us at about eight o'clock and e—mailed us at quarter past eight saying there was a substantiation of their story. the phone call came to me and i said nothing in response. the maureen watt put the story out —— daily record put the story out at ten o'clock. that was the deadline. i released a statement saying i was going to sue the scottish government and i held a press conference the next day, but the press conference didn't talk about the nature of the complaints the judicial review and why i thought the government were behaving unreasonably and unlawfully. the next day there was another daily record story which

demonstrates that the daily record had either a copy of our extract from the secretary decision report. so, someone had to have given them that he meant. it has been confirmed that he meant. it has been confirmed that there daily record was given the document. in questioning, she said it caused enormous distress to everyone concerned. the only question i would have for the permanent secretary is notwithstanding the leak, what did she think would have happened if she had gone ahead and put out the statement at 5pm on that day? i find it extraordinary. as you know, the icc it extraordinary. as you know, the ico has investigated the matter. they came to the conclusion that she was sympathetic to the idea that the source of the leak was from the

scottish government as she said the government's internal review was an investigation identifying 23 people who had access to the information, but the ico were not able, they did say that there leak was a criminal leak, but they had 23 suspects and no ability to go beyond that in terms of determining who might be responsible for the leak. it said they were sympathetic to the idea that it came from the scottish government. whoever did that should answer for what is very serious matter, which caused enormous distress and the implications that followed. . ~ distress and the implications that followed. ., ~ , ., distress and the implications that followed. . ~' , ., ., distress and the implications that followed. ., ~ ., ., followed. thank you for that resoonse- — followed. thank you for that response. can _ followed. thank you for that response. can i _ followed. thank you for that response. can ijust - followed. thank you for that response. can ijust pursue| followed. thank you for that l response. can ijust pursue a followed. thank you for that - response. can ijust pursue a couple of things you said? firstly, the second leak, as i understand it, contained confidential information from one of both of the

complainants. you said that this has been subsequently confirmed that a copy of the report was given to the daily record. how is that subsequently confirmed? can you tell me what the evidences?— subsequently confirmed? can you tell me what the evidences? there was no doubt that they _ me what the evidences? there was no doubt that they had _ me what the evidences? there was no doubt that they had the _ me what the evidences? there was no doubt that they had the report - doubt that they had the report because the language languages identified colin the report to parts of the permanent secretary's decision report. the editor of the daily record said that they had a document at the end of last year so i had no reason not to be... the daily record have not to my knowledge said anything direct to the icc knowledge said anything direct to the ico to any investigator but said it on the documentary, but they had their document. there was no question about that, or part of the document or an extract from it. there is one point of sub—confusion of that i certainly haven't got to the button above yet and that the

ico's procurators report lists the various parties that had copies of the report. it lists for example the complainers, myself, and comes to the nut of reasonableness and sin that their neither of the complainants had any interest in linking the contents of the report. it leaks their criminal agent, but the police suggest someone who had —— could have been the source of the league refused to accept the report. the first minister was in that group of people. i am not suggesting that the principal permanent secretary of the principal permanent secretary of the first men witness leaks things. when he came, he said he had a copy or had received on behalf of the office a copy of the report and

subsequently wrote to the office saying that wasn't correct. my question is why did the procurator from the ico list the prime minister because my office in their list of people of interested parties who had access to the report. i don't know the answer but ijust know that that was done. they had to be a reason for believing that. my own feeling about this is that civil servants... i'm not saying that civil servants never leak, but they actually sell them leak but if they do they don't leak to daily record. i think the leak to daily record. i think the leak was politically inspired. from who i think should require further investigation. i don't think the matter should be at an end. i think it's a hugely serious matter. one final thing i would say on this, over the last few months there has

been a major police operation in scotland ordered by the crown office trying to find out who leaked information to kenny macaskill mp which came to this committee. that investigation that i know for a fact because macaskill told me a day or so ago is still ongoing. at the express wish of the crown office, it has been made clear by the police to everybody they have interviewed, including me incidentally, and my question is this wear has been the police investigation ordered by the crown office into what has been for many people concerned, not least the complainants, a hugely distressing leak to the daily record in august of 2018. as far as i know there has been nothing done or said by the crown office in terms of trying to

determine where that leak came from. it does seem to be a disparity in their attitude to criminal behaviour as they say. flan their attitude to criminal behaviour as they say-— as they say. can i pursue this very cuickl as they say. can i pursue this very quickly because — as they say. can i pursue this very quickly because i'm _ as they say. can i pursue this very quickly because i'm very - as they say. can i pursue this very| quickly because i'm very conscious of time. in your submission to us, page ten of appendix pouring our papers, appendix d, surrey. you talk about, i am confident that i know the identity of those involved in the identity of those involved in the leak. do you have any evidence to support that beyond what you have just told us, and are you suggesting this requires further police investigation? i this requires further police investigation?— this requires further police investigation? i think it does re . uire investigation? i think it does require further _ investigation? i think it does require further police - require further police investigation, i think i do know the identity but i'm not at liberty to speculate so i cannot substantiate. every statement i make before this committee i intend to have documentary evidence to support. on your question as to whether there should be a police investigation of this matter, i think there absolutely should because whoever

leaked that document at that time caused enormous distress, certainly broke the law, and certainly there are a huge number of consequences for all concerned as a result of that week. for all concerned as a result of that week-— for all concerned as a result of that week. ., ~ , ., ~ ., �* that week. thank you mr salmond. i'm very conscious — that week. thank you mr salmond. i'm very conscious of _ that week. thank you mr salmond. i'm very conscious of time _ that week. thank you mr salmond. i'm very conscious of time and _ that week. thank you mr salmond. i'm very conscious of time and we - that week. thank you mr salmond. i'm very conscious of time and we have - very conscious of time and we have taken a long time to get through one section. it will take a long time to do. i wonder whether it would be appropriate before we break to ask whether mr salmond would be able to stay longer to ensure that our questioning could be completed. i’iiii questioning could be completed. i'll consider that at the break. thank you _ consider that at the break. thank you iti— consider that at the break. thank you hi run— consider that at the break. thank you. i'll run on until half past two and i'm _ you. i'll run on until half past two and i'm quite keen to do that before we break_ and i'm quite keen to do that before we break because i would like to get this section — we break because i would like to get this section complete before we move onto the _ this section complete before we move onto the judicial review. i understand there is another over here _ understand there is another over here. ,., ., ., ., ., understand there is another over here. ., ~ ., here. good afternoon, mr salmond. when ou here. good afternoon, mr salmond. when you stated _ here. good afternoon, mr salmond. when you stated that _ here. good afternoon, mr salmond. when you stated that he _ here. good afternoon, mr salmond. when you stated that he believed i when you stated that he believed that the f a w policy was robust, i

would like to read out to quotes from evidence that have been provided to this committee. the first of which was from sir peter who sent in the me to movement. we saw a considerate brawl time delay fame coming forward. under the circumstances it seems right to enable those complaints to be made against former ministers. he continued, if we were to run the tape on the other direction and say that a person can never make a complaint against a minister in case he or she is in post that would seem highly restrictive. do you please —— do you agree with sir peter has and that that was right for foreign ministers to be included —— both former ministers to be included in that procedure? we former ministers to be included in that procedure?— former ministers to be included in that procedure? we went included in the procedure- _ that procedure? we went included in the procedure. that's _ that procedure? we went included in the procedure. that's one _ that procedure? we went included in the procedure. that's one of- that procedure? we went included in the procedure. that's one of the - the procedure. that's one of the remarkable things about what was done. if you are going to do that, then two things you would do. one

issue would have the legislative base for doing it, as the witness pointed out is being gone through at the moment. secondly, at least it would have been my preference, you would have been my preference, you would then take that legislation and apply it to the procedure that you have, i eitherfairness at apply it to the procedure that you have, i either fairness at work policy, orfor that have, i either fairness at work policy, or for that matter if it was decided that that wasn't good enough, develop another comprehensive policy to apply to all situations. obviously, that wasn't done. it wasn't something that was put into the procedure that was there. it was something that stood alone and indeed the issue of ministers was taken out of fairness to work as far as harassment was concerned. that is a shoddy way to approach things, and the outcome we all know about. so if you are going to do it, you would do it properly.

incidentally, if it had been announced to the permanent secretary it would have been done properly. the second quote is from malcolm clarke from the council of scottish unions. he says hindsight is a great thing and if moore could have been done around ministers, we would probably have introduced that earlier as well. do not agree with his sentiment that former ministers should have been included the procedure? i should have been included the procedure?— should have been included the rocedure? ., �* ~ procedure? i don't think malcolm clarke or anybody _ procedure? i don't think malcolm clarke or anybody would - procedure? i don't think malcolm clarke or anybody would agree i procedure? i don't think malcolm l clarke or anybody would agree with the policy that was defeated in the court of session so resoundingly. nobody that i can think of would ever want that circumstance to arrive —— to arise with the £630,000 of public money which went in terms of public money which went in terms of the court proceedings, not to mention the innumerable interminable civil service time that was spent on

it. if more time had been spent devising it, and less time spent attempting vainly to defend it, we would have all been in a much better place. it was developed with the unions over an 18 month period. it was carefully considered and above all it was lawful. the policy which you are examining as part of your inquiry was the exact opposite. it was rushed through and unlawful and an abject disaster. if you are going to apply a retrospective policy then apply a legal basis for it, and for any policy have a comprehensive full discussion with the trade unions. as he found in this committee that did not happen in this case. in my experience it happened in every workplace policy, but somehow not in this policy. you workplace policy, but somehow not in this oli . ., . ., , ., workplace policy, but somehow not in thisoli . ., . ., , ., this policy. you certainly have cast doubt on whether—

this policy. you certainly have cast doubt on whether former - this policy. you certainly have cast| doubt on whether former ministers should have been included in the procedure. surely it is quite clear from the two courts that i have read out that there are many good reasons to include former ministers and reasons in all likelihood are responsible for the inclusion of former ministers. do you not think that former ministers should have been included?— that former ministers should have been included? , , ., ., ., been included? they should not have been included? they should not have been included _ been included? they should not have been included in _ been included? they should not have been included in the _ been included? they should not have been included in the way _ been included? they should not have been included in the way it _ been included? they should not have been included in the way it was - been included in the way it was done. the way it was done ended in the abject defeat and the court session. if you're going to do something do it properly. i expect there is a debate to be had about retrospective tea but if you are going to do it do it properly. don't do it and go down to defeat. their question for this committee perhaps is why was it done in the way it was to be done? what was the extraordinary rush to get the policy for former ministers through in

november and december 2017, but not to develop or extend it to any other aspect of the process. if i remember correctly, when the cabinet office were consulted in mid november 2017, the response came, does this apply to former civil servant? and of course the answer came up none. if you are going to introduce something like that, the whole concept of fairness of work, which i remind you for the first time brought ministers into the workplace policy, the prime aim of the unions, so people could be as far as you could on an equal footing, what has happened to date is that former ministers and now ministers have been separated from the workforce policy and are considered on an entirely different way. the mission was to have a

policy that included everyone wear and was legal. that was what was done. what was done in 2017 was an abject disasterfor all done. what was done in 2017 was an abject disaster for all concerned. do you believe that the formation of the policy, the procedure, do you believe that the meeting movement was the genesis of the procedure? —— the me too movement. ii was the genesis of the procedure? -- the me too movement.— the me too movement. if anyone thou~ht the me too movement. if anyone thought and _ the me too movement. if anyone thought and believed _ the me too movement. if anyone thought and believed that - the me too movement. if anyone thought and believed that out - the me too movement. if anyone thought and believed that out ofl thought and believed that out of that, what you are absolutely required in the scottish parliament was the policy of former ministers, that strikes me as very difficult to believe. the issues that were at stake and being discussed, you would have thought would have applied to a range of policies which would then be developed. and as evidence for

that, as i said to mr blakeman, no one in that parliamentary statement raise that issue. they raised many issues, some of mitch might have been suitable for looking at in terms of policy, but not that one. this policy that came aboutjust because of the me too movement is difficult to understand. you because of the me too movement is difficult to understand.— difficult to understand. you hope that their first _ difficult to understand. you hope that their first minister - difficult to understand. you hope that their first minister would i that their first minister would intervene in the procedure under which you are being investigated at the time. according to our evidence that we've received, the procedure was intended to be entirely independent of ministerial involvement. wouldn't the first minister into feeding —— intervening on the half of her predecessor or any member of the party, would it

not have looked like an attempt to tamper with and invent —— an independent investigation? abs, tamper with and invent -- an independent investigation? a role in the oli independent investigation? a role in the policy along _ independent investigation? a role in the policy along with _ independent investigation? a role in the policy along with the _ independent investigation? a role in the policy along with the permanent| the policy along with the permanent secretary at to december the fit. i have not counted the number of iterations of the policy up until then but we're well into double figures. each reiteration up until december the 5th, the first minister is there in the policy to be informed at the same time as the permanent secretary. the permanent secretary assumes the dominant role in the decision—maker, and the first minister is supposed to be at a later date on a party basis. the idea you can develop a civil service policy and handed a crust to political party is obviously great difficulty in legal terms. i think the question is that is not how the policy was being developed. at some

point there was a decision to exclude the first minister. as i have already explained at some length, the policy fails to work in the first minister was part of the argument had to be had. what you might find more interesting is why, if it is all a question of making things independent, why the first minister still has a role in the policy as it applies to current ministers and is informed at the same time as the permanent secretary in that policy. does it not strike you as curious that it is about current ministers but not pass ministers. that came out of no precedent that i can think of in terms of putting the permanent secretary in that position of determination in that policy, and just that one aspect of the policy. incidentally, because i know there

is interest in it, one of the other things that would certainly have been problematic and commented on although we had no requirement too, was a mediation proposal in the policy for current ministers, but no mediation in the policy is applied to past ministers, something as i say was noted on delivering his interlocutor in january the 8th 2019. if the committee can find an explanation for that, we would all be interested to hear it. final question. _ be interested to hear it. final question, disregarding i be interested to hear it. final question, disregarding the intervening point, have you ever heard of any government minister intervening in an independent government procedure at request of a friend or colleague, and did you ever do that as first minister? hm; ever do that as first minister? any revious ever do that as first minister? any previous policy _ ever do that as first minister? 2311 previous policy would have allowed for the first minister role because it affects ministers. you just need to check the fairness at work policy

orfor to check the fairness at work policy or for that matter, to check the fairness at work policy orfor that matter, if to check the fairness at work policy or for that matter, if you became a minister continuing in office and you were the subject of a complaint, the first minister would have a role as specified in that policy. she would be informed that that had happened. it can't be that unusual, since it would apply to you if you gained ministerial office. the point i made, ithink, in whatsapp messages that you have seen to the first minister that the reverse is true. when the inquiry into the first minister was established, many of the oppositional parties said was this about the first minister intervening? actually, the first minister has nothing to prohibit the first ministerfor minister has nothing to prohibit the first minister for making the intervention. you will see that the first minister is duty—bound to act if she has a reasonable belief that her government is in danger of behaving in an unlawful fashion. therefore, it was an entirely

legitimate for me to ask the first minister to do so. whether she did not was a matter for her, not to allow an unlawful policy to continue is arguably in breach of the ministerial code. the first minister made her chill —— made her choices. but to argue that this is not somehow a difficulty in this where it would apply somehow to current ministers is difficult to understand. secondly, in the circumstances of time, i had no idea where this policy had come from. there had been no publicity about it or debate in parliament. as i subsequently found out, everyone else in the civil service was only informed about it after the policy had been applied. so, i naturally assumed that there must be some error for example of not having a mediation in the policy, which the

first minister would be entitled to point out, as she would be for current ministers step thank you. i understand, i current ministers step thank you. i understand, lam keen current ministers step thank you. i understand, i am keen to wind up this session — understand, i am keen to wind up this session under our obligations but there — this session under our obligations but there is a short question. thank ou and but there is a short question. thank you and good _ but there is a short question. thank you and good afternoon. _ but there is a short question. thank you and good afternoon. i _ but there is a short question. thank you and good afternoon. i have i but there is a short question. thank you and good afternoon. i have a i but there is a short question. i�*ifii�*us’. you and good afternoon. i have a lot of questions to ask about ministerial code but in this section just one follow—up question if i may. it was put you at the very start by margaret mitchell who was asking about the role of the crown office. you refer to the fact that the crown office had asked the parliament to redact a part of your written evidence to this committee. you have been notjust first minister of scotland. you've also been twice a member of the house of commons for substantial periods and are a member of the privy council. in your experience, with the crown

prosecution service in england ever as their committee of the house of commons to redact evidence that he had published in the same fashion, and if it had, what do you think would have been the response of any speaker of the house of commons to that request? the speaker of the house of commons to that request?— that request? the straight answer is no. the that request? the straight answer is no- they would _ that request? the straight answer is no. they would not. _ that request? the straight answer is no. they would not. the _ that request? the straight answer is no. they would not. the normal- no. they would not. the normal response from the house of commons, but any parliament i would argue, to reject any such overtures, the parliament is to serve the people, and the prior crown office said the crown prosecution service is there into the same obligation. parliament should not be interfering in the independence of the prosecution services, but neither should the prosecution service be interfering in the processes of parliament. to say these things as lord hope has

this morning, i listen to him on the radio, is not undermining the position of the crown office. on the contrary. to say these things is to say that that constitution should not be doing that, and what is it doing drawing itself into what is properly a political arena. to project the institutional framework and make it more robust and say that things have to be properly done, not improperly done. before i came to the committee, and the convener kindly allowed me to read a statement into the record. i received a letter of what i was and wasn't allowed to talk about. according to that letter, i am not allowed to talk about areas of my written evidence that were submitted in good faith to this committee, which are easily available online in

reputable journals for anybody to see, which are a wide part of political debate, and are accepted as that. the idea that the only place that can't be discussed is in a parliamentary committee is the direct opposite of what should be true. parliamentary committees should be able to discuss things that cannot be discussed elsewhere because of proper exercise of parliamentary privilege and duties of the members of parliament. therefore, it seems to be an extraordinary position and clearly something is wrong. as miss mitchell suggested, or personnel as i suggested, or personnel as i suggested as a matter for parliament to decide, but it is clearly an intolerable 0k, thank you, and we will consider this, _ ok, thank you, and we will consider this, not— 0k, thank you, and we will consider this, not necessarily for this inquiry— this, not necessarily for this inquiry but it is very helpful to have _ inquiry but it is very helpful to have your— inquiry but it is very helpful to have your response.— inquiry but it is very helpful to have your response. yes, that is a

matter for — have your response. yes, that is a matter for the _ have your response. yes, that is a matter for the sbpc _ have your response. yes, that is a matter for the sbpc to _ have your response. yes, that is a matter for the sbpc to consider, l have your response. yes, that is a i matter for the sbpc to consider, and before _ matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we _ matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we come _ matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we come to _ matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we come to the _ matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we come to the end _ matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we come to the end of- matter for the sbpc to consider, and before we come to the end of the i before we come to the end of the decision— before we come to the end of the decision there _ before we come to the end of the decision there are _ before we come to the end of the decision there are a _ before we come to the end of the decision there are a few - before we come to the end of the decision there are a few things i. decision there are a few things i would _ decision there are a few things i would like — decision there are a few things i would like to _ decision there are a few things i would like to pick— decision there are a few things i would like to pick up. _ decision there are a few things i would like to pick up. you - decision there are a few things i would like to pick up. you will. decision there are a few things ii would like to pick up. you will be aware. _ would like to pick up. you will be aware. you — would like to pick up. you will be aware, you have _ would like to pick up. you will be aware, you have heard _ would like to pick up. you will be aware, you have heard that - would like to pick up. you will be aware, you have heard that this. aware, you have heard that this partiament— aware, you have heard that this parliament is— aware, you have heard that this parliament is about _ aware, you have heard that this parliament is about to - aware, you have heard that this parliament is about to go - aware, you have heard that this. parliament is about to go through the final— parliament is about to go through the final process _ parliament is about to go through the final process you _ parliament is about to go through the final process you have - parliament is about to go through the final process you have noted i the final process you have noted that it _ the final process you have noted that it is — the final process you have noted that it is legislative _ the final process you have noted that it is legislative in— the final process you have noted that it is legislative in relation. that it is legislative in relation to msps — that it is legislative in relation to msps and _ that it is legislative in relation to msps and i_ that it is legislative in relation to msps and i understand i that it is legislative in relation to msps and i understand the| that it is legislative in relation- to msps and i understand the senate in wales— to msps and i understand the senate in wales is— to msps and i understand the senate in wales is also— to msps and i understand the senate in wales is also considering - to msps and i understand the senate in wales is also considering such i to msps and i understand the senate in wales is also considering such a i in wales is also considering such a thing _ in wales is also considering such a thing and — in wales is also considering such a thing and that _ in wales is also considering such a thing and that the _ in wales is also considering such a thing and that the westminster i thing and that the westminster partiament— thing and that the westminster parliament has— thing and that the westminster parliament has agreed - thing and that the westminster parliament has agreed that i thing and that the westminster i parliament has agreed that former mps can't — parliament has agreed that former mps can't come _ parliament has agreed that former mps can't come within _ parliament has agreed that former mps can't come within the - parliament has agreed that former mps can't come within the scope l parliament has agreed that formerl mps can't come within the scope of parliament has agreed that former. mps can't come within the scope of a policy _ mps can't come within the scope of a policy -- _ mps can't come within the scope of a policy. -- can — mps can't come within the scope of a policy. -- can come _ mps can't come within the scope of a policy. —— can come. i— mps can't come within the scope of a policy. —— can come. iwonder- mps can't come within the scope of a policy. —— can come. i wonder if- mps can't come within the scope of a policy. —— can come. i wonder if youl policy. —— can come. i wonder if you feel there's — policy. —— can come. i wonder if you feel there's a — policy. —— can come. i wonder if you feel there's a difference _ policy. —— can come. i wonder if you feel there's a difference mps, - policy. —— can come. i wonder if you feel there's a difference mps, msst feel there's a difference mps, msps and ministers, _ feel there's a difference mps, msps and ministers, and _ feel there's a difference mps, msps and ministers, and why— feel there's a difference mps, mspsi and ministers, and why governments should _ and ministers, and why governments should not— and ministers, and why governments should not be — and ministers, and why governments should not be doing _ and ministers, and why governments should not be doing this— and ministers, and why governments should not be doing this if— and ministers, and why governments should not be doing this if other- should not be doing this if other public— should not be doing this if other public institutions— should not be doing this if other public institutions are? - should not be doing this if other public institutions are? of- should not be doing this if other public institutions are? of course, in 2017, the _ public institutions are? of course, in 2017, the parliament _ public institutions are? of course, in 2017, the parliament did - public institutions are? of course, in 2017, the parliament did not i public institutions are? of course, in 2017, the parliament did not do| in 2017, the parliament did not do it for msps, and if it is now being donein it for msps, and if it is now being done in a legislative basis that is

a reasonable argument and no doubt parliament willjudge that, but parliament as far as i know has not embarked on an unlawful policy and got itself into deep trouble, and from what you have described the parliament is going about things in a responsible way and no doubt debates will be had but that is not the case you are examining. the case you are examining is something that was done in an irresponsible and unlawfulfashion. i see in the press, i think... unlawfulfashion. i see in the press, ithink... the unlawfulfashion. i see in the press, i think... the description thatis press, i think... the description that is most commonly made in the press about the government's policy and what happened is botched. your committee is examining as is often said the botched policy. the policy wasn't botched. the policy was unlawful. unfair. untainted by apparent bias. botch doesn't cover it. i'm quite certain that whatever parliament decides in retrospective tea and passed msps it will do so in a and orderly fashion and with due

regard to all of the arguments put forward. ., , ., , ., forward. your statements about the oli we forward. your statements about the policy we will _ forward. your statements about the policy we will look _ forward. your statements about the policy we will look at _ forward. your statements about the policy we will look at in _ forward. your statements about the policy we will look at in the - policy we will look at in the judicial— policy we will look at in the judicial review— policy we will look at in the judicial review aspect - policy we will look at in the judicial review aspect and l policy we will look at in the i judicial review aspect and about policy we will look at in the - judicial review aspect and about the application — judicial review aspect and about the application of — judicial review aspect and about the application of that _ judicial review aspect and about the application of that policy. _ application of that policy. regarding _ application of that policy. regarding the _ application of that policy. regarding the policy- application of that policy. regarding the policy that| application of that policy. i regarding the policy that was application of that policy. - regarding the policy that was in place _ regarding the policy that was in place that— regarding the policy that was in place that you _ regarding the policy that was in place that you were _ regarding the policy that was in place that you were obviously. place that you were obviously involved _ place that you were obviously involved in _ place that you were obviously involved in and _ place that you were obviously involved in and feel— place that you were obviously involved in and feel that i place that you were obviously involved in and feel that it i place that you were obviouslyl involved in and feel that it was place that you were obviously. involved in and feel that it was a very— involved in and feel that it was a very workable _ involved in and feel that it was a very workable policy, _ involved in and feel that it was a very workable policy, i— involved in and feel that it was a very workable policy, ijust i very workable policy, ijust wondered _ very workable policy, ijust wondered what, _ very workable policy, ijust wondered what, as - very workable policy, ijust wondered what, as first i very workable policy, ijust - wondered what, as first minister, at the time, _ wondered what, as first minister, at the time, you — wondered what, as first minister, at the time, you would _ wondered what, as first minister, at the time, you would have _ wondered what, as first minister, at the time, you would have done i wondered what, as first minister, at the time, you would have done hadl the time, you would have done had you received — the time, you would have done had you received a _ the time, you would have done had you received a complaint— the time, you would have done had you received a complaint about i the time, you would have done had you received a complaint about a i you received a complaint about a former— you received a complaint about a former minister? _ you received a complaint about a former minister? you _ you received a complaint about a former minister?— you received a complaint about a former minister? you cannot proceed on the basis — former minister? you cannot proceed on the basis of _ former minister? you cannot proceed on the basis of something _ former minister? you cannot proceed on the basis of something where i on the basis of something where there is no policy and no lawful way to do it. there are huge questions that you would have to ask as to the basis of it, of which the primary one, i suppose, basis of it, of which the primary one, isuppose, was basis of it, of which the primary one, i suppose, was there a policy in place at the time of the

supposedly or purported incident? you would have to consider that, but you cannot proceed on the basis that if there is no policy to proceed on, then you certainly don't construct one or bring one into being in a matter of weeks to say, we better get a policy in place so we can do something about that. i would have thought these would be the primary questions but anytime you are proceeding on such a matter should be with careful consideration and with proper argument and development. the policy which came into being is deficient in numerous ways. and it has question to answer across numerous ways. therefore whatever you do, you sony would not do what was done in november and december 2017 —— you certainly would not. you would take the argument in principle for the policy but you would not bring it into make a complaint, you would not certainly do that. , ~ , ., ,

do that. the first minister to be the ultimate _ do that. the first minister to be the ultimate arbiter _ do that. the first minister to be the ultimate arbiter of - do that. the first minister to be the ultimate arbiter of what i the ultimate arbiter of what happened. _ the ultimate arbiter of what happened, with _ the ultimate arbiter of what happened, with this, - the ultimate arbiter of what happened, with this, it i the ultimate arbiter of what happened, with this, it was| the ultimate arbiter of what i happened, with this, it was there any provision _ happened, with this, it was there any provision that _ happened, with this, it was there any provision that should - happened, with this, it was there any provision that should the i any provision that should the complaint _ any provision that should the complaint be _ any provision that should the complaint be against - any provision that should the complaint be against the i any provision that should the i complaint be against the first minister? _ complaint be against the first minister? if— complaint be against the first minister? _, , ., ., , minister? if the complaint was auainst minister? if the complaint was against the — minister? if the complaint was against the first _ minister? if the complaint was against the first minister, i minister? if the complaint was against the first minister, as l minister? if the complaint was against the first minister, as i | against the first minister, as i recall, the deputy first minister would be the person responsible. i can check the record but i'm pretty certain that is the case. two aspects of that was in terms of fairness at work and the other aspect, there was some debate about that at the time, whether it should go outside the scottish government, but no such complaint was made so it never came to pass, but i think it was the deputy first minister who was the deputy first minister who was finally agreed upon. the fairness at work looked at a whole range of possibilities but the structure we arrived at and it was

to try and balance any workforce which would have to be done with the ministerial code, but the balance that was arrived at was the informal resolution which applied to all of the civil service, that was the cross fairness at work, and the mediation which was affected by the deputy first minister, and then if that wasn't accepted it went to a panel of three people and the report was given to the first minister who he or she as i have said in this inquiry, that there had been two complaints under fairness at work since 2017, then i would assume that they have been dealt with in terms of the policy, that is to say, through the various procedures that i've just outlined.— i've just outlined. thank you very much. i've just outlined. thank you very much- we _ i've just outlined. thank you very much- we are — i've just outlined. thank you very much. we are now— i've just outlined. thank you very much. we are now ready - i've just outlined. thank you very much. we are now ready to i i've just outlined. thank you very i much. we are now ready to suspend later than— much. we are now ready to suspend later than i— much. we are now ready to suspend later than i had _ much. we are now ready to suspend

later than i had planned _ much. we are now ready to suspend later than i had planned it— much. we are now ready to suspend later than i had planned it so- much. we are now ready to suspend later than i had planned it so we i later than i had planned it so we will suspend _ later than i had planned it so we will suspend for— later than i had planned it so we will suspend for a _ later than i had planned it so we will suspend for a short - later than i had planned it so we will suspend for a short break. later than i had planned it so we i will suspend for a short break and reconvene — will suspend for a short break and reconvene in— will suspend for a short break and reconvene in 20 _ will suspend for a short break and reconvene in 20 minutes, - will suspend for a short break and reconvene in 20 minutes, so i will suspend for a short break and reconvene in 20 minutes, so if. reconvene in 20 minutes, so if everyone. _ reconvene in 20 minutes, so if everyone. sorry _ reconvene in 20 minutes, so if everyone. sorry i_ reconvene in 20 minutes, so if everyone, sorry, i should i reconvene in 20 minutes, so if everyone, sorry, i should have formally— everyone, sorry, i should have formally said _ everyone, sorry, i should have formally said for _ everyone, sorry, i should have formally said for the _ everyone, sorry, i should have formally said for the benefit i everyone, sorry, i should have formally said for the benefit of everyone, sorry, i should have i formally said for the benefit of our broadcasters, _ formally said for the benefit of our broadcasters, i— formally said for the benefit of our broadcasters, i hereby— formally said for the benefit of our broadcasters, i hereby suspend i formally said for the benefit of ouri broadcasters, i hereby suspend the session _ broadcasters, i hereby suspend the session. ,, , ., , ., session. studio: that is it for the moment. session. studio: that is it for the moment- the _ session. studio: that is it for the moment. the inquiry _ session. studio: that is it for the moment. the inquiry taking i session. studio: that is it for the moment. the inquiry taking a - session. studio: that is it for the l moment. the inquiry taking a short break as you have just been hearing. we will return to it as soon as it gets going again and we are expecting that to be in around 20 minutes. to stay with us for that. we will be joined shortly with our correspondent nick who will put those comments and proceedings into context. so let's just recap some of what has been said already, in roughly the first hour and three quarters of this evidence session. well, alex salmond, the former first minister, appearing there — as you saw —

and just to let you know these aren't live pictures, they've been recorded in the last hour, before the holyrood inquiry into the scottish government's unlawful investigation of sexual harassment claims made against him. he's already told the committee members this lunchtime that the past two years have been a "nightmare". mr salmond began by first taking the oath and he said he didnt have to prove a case — there have already been two court cases — a civil court case and a criminal court case — where he has been cleared. and at one point the former first minister said there had been a "calculated and deliberate suppression of key evidence" to the parliamentary committee. nick, give us a summary of what we have been hearing. quite a lot has been said in the last two hours. it's been quite detailed. it is worth putting it into context, the committee has a pretty wide remit to look at a few things, one of those

things is how the scottish government changed its policy for dealing with harassment complaints and that is what most of the deliberation so far have been about, alex salmond thinks it was an unfair change and that the previous policy was better and some people like nicola sturgeon disagree, so some of the things we have been talking about, this morning, about accusations that nicola sturgeon broke the ministerial code or there was some sort of group around her who were conspiring against alex salmond, they are likely to come a bit later this afternoon. it was really interesting, a couple of things to pick up on from alex salmond's opening remarks at the start. quite a devastating critique from a former first minister who was arguing that scotland's leadership has failed and he pointed the finger at the civil service and the crown office and the government, saying not that everybody within the institutions, not that scotland was

governor bob, but the leadership was failing in the way it dealt with the allegations —— was governor ball. so that was a quite extraordinary claim from a former first minister. it was also quite fascinating that in the opening remarks, very quickly he pointed the finger at nicola sturgeon, and we know alex salmond is furious at her but that is the first time we have heard him say it on camera, when he said, that she had used the coronavirus briefing earlier this week, as he saw it, to call into question the decision made by a jury to acquit him. nicola sturgeon i'm sure would see it differently and remember we will hearfrom her next differently and remember we will hear from her next week but it seems clear to me that when we get to that ministerial code section of this evidence that alex salmond is giving, he is prepared to criticise nicola sturgeon and we know he thinks that she has made some poor decisions over the last few months

which could lead, he thinks, to her resignation. which could lead, he thinks, to her resignation-— resignation. indeed. much more to come, we resignation. indeed. much more to come. we were _ resignation. indeed. much more to come, we were expecting - resignation. indeed. much more to come, we were expecting this - resignation. indeed. much more to come, we were expecting this to l resignation. indeed. much more to| come, we were expecting this to go on until 430 and he has been asked if he might be able to stay longer, so what can we expect in the next two hours? i’m so what can we expect in the next two hours?— so what can we expect in the next two hours? �* ., ., , ~ , ., two hours? i'm going to stock up on food for the — two hours? i'm going to stock up on food for the evening, _ two hours? i'm going to stock up on food for the evening, because - two hours? i'm going to stock up on food for the evening, because i - two hours? i'm going to stock up on food for the evening, because i do | food for the evening, because i do think this could go on a bit longer. there has been a suggestion this morning that the four hour time frame that was given for this may be extended to five hours or so. a couple of people in holyrood are worried about how long the first section took and are worried he might not get to some of the accusations against nicola sturgeon but i suspect in his brief break there will be a conversation going on amongst msps because there is a lot more to get through and some of the most controversial parts of this story are still to come this afternoon. story are still to come this afternoon-— story are still to come this afternoon. ., ., ., ., afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for 'oinin: afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for joining us- —

afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for joining us- nick _ afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for joining us. nick will— afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for joining us. nick will stay _ afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for joining us. nick will stay with - afternoon. nick, for now, thanks for joining us. nick will stay with that i joining us. nick will stay with that as we are weak. now for some of today's other news. vaccinating people in order of age is the fastest way to cut covid—i9 deaths in the next phase of the roll—out, say experts advising the government. they have ruled out prioritising teachers and police officers saying age remained the strongest indicator of the impact of the disease. latest data shows that across the uk the number of people being infected continues to fall. 0ur health correspondent katharine da costa reports. the priority has been to protect the oldest age groups as quickly as possible, as well as front—line health and care workers and those who have been shielding. by mid april, it is hoped around 32 million people in the first phase of the roll—out would have been offered a vaccine. these groups represent 99% of those most at risk of dying from covid. the queen and prince philip received their firstjabs last month. in a video call with health leaders, the queen urged those still hesitating to take up the offer.

as far as i can make out, it was quite harmless. it was very quick and i have had lots of letters from people who have been very surprised by how easy it was to get the vaccine. and the jab was very, it didn't hurt at all. it is obviously difficult for people, if they have never had a vaccine but they ought to think about other people rather than themselves. so who is next in line in phase two? the joint committee for vaccination and immunisation has advised that because age is the biggest risk factor, the roll—out should continue with 40—49 year—olds next, followed by 30—39 year—olds and then 18—29 year—olds. following an age—based programme will be simple and simplicity has been one of the cornerstones of the current programme in terms of speed and its success. it is a major blow for those calling for teachers, police officers and other key workers to be pushed up the priority list.

we do a job that no one else does in this country. we can't afford a two metre perimeter from people. we have to be in people's faces at times. we have to rub around with people at times and my colleagues are genuinely scared, not getting the vaccination. thejcvi says those at higher risk from covid include men, those from ethnic minority groups, people who are obese and those living in deprived neighbourhoods. there are some communities where we have had historical issues with getting access to vaccination. traveller communities, for example, are one of those and a lot of our teams are working very closely to try to get those people on board. there will be some areas where they have heard misinformation about, you know, what is in the vaccine. there's a range of different factors and i think that is where local intelligence is really important in trying to engage people with the right message for the right group. vaccines will help to control the virus in time but for now,

health leaders say keeping covid cases at low levels is crucial. the latest 0ns infection survey for the week to last friday suggests one in 155 in the uk had the virus, a return to levels last seen in october. a fast and efficient roll—out is seen as key. the government said all four parts of the uk will follow the recommendations and it is hopeful all adults will have been offered a first dose by the end ofjuly. katherine da costa, bbc news. people from pakistani and bangladeshi backgrounds in england had a higher risk of dying with covid—i9 during the second wave of the pandemic. that's the conclusion of a government study which also found that the risk for black communities was reduced. adina campbell reports. we would have a cup of tea and we would just sit together and talk for a few minutes every morning. i miss that. remembering her mum, three weeks since she died from coronavirus. she suddenly deteriorated.

from that point, to the following morning... yeah, it hasjust been difficult to... ..kind of make sense of it. surinder kaur bains had been in relatively good health before she died in hospital in london. but the impact of covid—i9 continues to disproportionately affect people from ethnic minorities in england. to disproportionately affect people so why are these groups more at risk? well, these communities tend to live in more densely populated areas, in multi—generational households, and are more likely to use public transport and be injobs in front line services, which means they simply can't work from home. all of these factors mean they are at an increased risk of becoming infected by coronavirus. latest findings in a report by the government's race disparity unit show higher death rates among pakistani and bangladeshi communities between september and december last

year compared with other ethnic groups, while death rates fell in black communities over the same period, with a similar risk to those from white british backgrounds. but scientists say we must be cautious of this new data. it is too early to really make conclusions from the early second wave data. it only really includes deaths until the end of december and unfortunately, we had a lot more deaths in january and february. it is only when we include all of those deaths that we'll know what the true picture is. the government says it is doing everything it can to protect the most vulnerable. but vaccine hesitancy among these groups continues to be one of the biggest challenges. adina campbell, bbc news. the supreme court has ruled that shamima begum — the woman who left the uk as a teenager to join islamist fighters in syria in 2015 — should not be allowed to return to the uk to pursue an appeal

against the removal of her british citizenship. daniel sandford reports. shamima! shamima begum last summer in the al—roj camp in northern syria, where she remains to this day. she's been stripped of her british citizenship because the home secretary says she's a threat to national security. in court, her lawyers had argued that she must be allowed back to the uk to have a fair hearing to fight that decision, but today the supreme court unanimously ruled against her, saying her case should simply be postponed. national security comes first. the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public. shamima begum and two school friends, both now believed to be dead, left london aged just 15 to join the islamic state group in syria. there she married a foreign fighter and had three children, all of whom have now died. when is�*s rule collapsed two years ago, she reappeared,

asking to be allowed home to britain. i just want forgiveness, really, from the uk. like, everything i've been through, i didn't expect i would go through that. human rights groups say she and others like her must not be left in the camps. the only sensible option is to bring the 15—20 british family units back and then prosecute the adults where there are charges to answer. that is safe. there seems no prospect of that for now, and shamima begum will remain in al—roj camp, no longer a british citizen, and in legal limbo. daniel sandford, bbc news. 17 current and former british gymnasts have sent a legal letter to the sport's governing body to complain about the alleged conduct of coaches and people employed by clubs across the uk. they claim that athletes have been subjected to inappropriate coaching techniques and bullying. president biden has phoned king salman of saudi arabia for the first time since taking office. the white house is preparing

to release an intelligence report which is expected to implicate the king's son in the murder of the saudi journalist, jamal khashoggi, in 2018. crown prince mohammed bin salman denies any complicity. 0ur washington correspondent barbara plett usher gave us this update. it would have been a sensitive conversation for several reasons. one is that mr biden has generally said he wants to recalibrate relations with saudi arabia after its very cosy ties with the trump administration, and focus more on universal human rights and the rule of law. that was certainly raised in the call. we don't know if he talked about the report because it wasn't mentioned in the readout or in the account of the call, but i would have thought he probably raised it because it is something that is going to come out imminently, and that will be an issue between saudi arabia and the united states because it is an open secret, in washington, anyway, that the cia assessed

that the crown prince, with medium to high confidence, they assessed that he had ordered the killing ofjamal khashoggi, although they did not have direct evidence. so that is what congress has been demanding be made public. so, we may get a few more details about how the cia came to that assessment, but what is important is the actual naming. in the annex, we understand that mohammad bin salman will be named and that is really quite something, the de facto leader of another country, especially a us ally, to be made public in this way. and activists and politicians feel this is an important step to establish impunity, but it will complicate things for mr biden. mps are to investigate the safety of so—called smart motorways, which use the hard shoulder as an extra lane during busy periods. it comes after a coroner said the deaths of two men on a stretch of smart motorway near sheffield in 2019 could have been avoided. caroline davies reports. jason mercer was driving to work injune 2019.

he was on the mi near sheffield, a smart motorway with no hard shoulder, when he had a minor collision with another driver. both pulled over but the cameras didn't see them, the lane wasn't closed, and both drivers were killed by a lorry. the inquest into what happened heard that their deaths may have been avoided, had there been a hard shoulder. i should have been in the car that day but i was ill. since her husband's death, claire mercer has been campaigning against smart motorways. you can be the best driver in the world, and your tyre can burst or somebody can slam into you. if there is not a hard shoulder, you are more at risk. smart motorways mean that the hard shoulder operates fully or partially as a live lane with traffic. warning signs are meant to alert drivers when a lane is closed, but there are concerns about the number of breakdowns in live lanes. this footage shows a van missing a stopped car, swerving just in time. today, the transport select committee has said it will launch an investigation into smart motorways. the technology is not in place that highways england promised and quite frankly, i think they need to

be held to account. they need to investigate much more thoroughly whether smart motorways really are safe enough to continue. but claire is not convinced the investigation will go far enough. i am just worried it's going to be yet another busywork that doesn't achieve anything. it willjust come back and say, "well, wejust need a few more tweaks and a few more bits and pieces." we don't. we need the hard shoulder back. smart motorways were created to help ease congestion without building an extra lane of traffic, but given the way our lives have changed during the pandemic, some have questioned whether they are even needed. if use of motorways is reduced, you could then question, do we really need smart motorways and increased capacity if people are worried about them? the department for transport has said they welcome the inquiry and the transport secretary has expressed concerns over smart motorways and committed £500 million to safety improvements. but some still want smart motorways to be removed altogether. caroline davies, bbc news.

car manufacturing in the uk fell by almost a third injanuary compared to the same period a year ago. new figures from the society of motor manufacturers and traders shows production down 27% — the weakest figure for the month in 12 years. they put the decline down to a combination of factors, including the ongoing effects of the pandemic, friction at borders following the end of the brexit transition period and a global shortage of computer chips. activists from greenpeace have been dropping large boulders into the channel in an attempt to stop a destructive method of fishing — "bottom trawling". they've had support from pop stars and celebrity chefs — but the fishing industry has warned the action could cost lives, and the government says it's illegal. 0ur chief environment correspondent justin rowlatt reports. greenpeace says the idea is to create a defensive barrier in what is already designated as a marine protected area.

it wants to deter bottom trawling — dragging weighted nets across the sea floor to catch animals like scallops, cod, plaice and crab. now what this is, is a battle of what you could describe as the green dividend of brexit. when the uk left the european union, it got back powers to control the marine environment. now what greenpeace is saying, is it should use those powers to deliver what the government itself describes as its plans for an ambitious blue belt of marine—protected areas all around the coast of the uk. the boulders have been painted with the names of celebrities who support the campaign, including the tv chef and environmental activist hugh fearnley—whittingstall. this is meant to be a marine—protected area, so designated by the government, and yet the most damaging forms of fishing are still allowed to take place.

the greenpeace vessel is shadowed by a boat from the marine management organisation, the government agency responsible for overseeing the uk's marine environment. it orders greenpeace to stop dropping the rocks. by continuing with this activity, it is a criminal offence, - contrary to section... the government says it's investigating greenpeace's activities and may take legal action. laying boulders on the sea bed could have deadly consequences, say some in the fishing industry. this is illegal. what they're doing is illegal. if you're trawling and you catch a large boulder like that, there's a risk of overturning the vessel and losing the whole crew. the government says it is already considering introducing restrictions on bottom trawling in four marine protected areas. so why doesn't greenpeace put its argument as part of this process? we have 76 so—called protected areas in our oceans around the uk.

and only two of them the government is thinking of fully protecting from really destructive bottom trawling. that is moving way too slow for the nature crisis that we're facing. but placing obstructions on the sea floor is deliberately provocative and is likely to make negotiations with the fishing industry — already struggling to adapt to the brexit changes — even more fraught. justin rowlatt, bbc news, the english channel. we will return to holyrood shortly where alex salmond will continue giving evidence in the inquiry but now it is time for the weather forecast. we are ending the week on a much quieter note, things are now largely dry across the board and the next few days are looking dry and settled for most, sunshine by day but chilly nights on the way. as we head to the

afternoon into the evening, largely clear skies and a bit more cloud with a few splashes of rain for northern ireland and scotland, but england and wales are staying clear and cold, with temperaturesjust below freezing so we are likely to see some frost and fog patches across more southern parts of england in particular tomorrow morning. it will brighten up for scotland and northern ireland tomorrow behind the band of cloud would sunshine reappearing. the south remains largely dry with sunny spells. temperatures 11—13. sunday, a bit of low cloud and mist and fog first thing. sunny spells, not quite as warm as saturday, around 9—11. goodbye.

in this is bbc news. the headlines... scotland's former first minister alex salmond goes before msps as part of an inquiry into the government's mishandling of sexual harassment complaints about him. i watched in astonishment on wednesday when the first minister of scotland — the first minister of scotland — used a covid press conference — a covid press conference — to effectively question the result of a jury. still i said nothing. today, that changes. the over—40s will be next in line to get a covid vaccine. teachers and other occupations should not be pioritised say vaccine experts. shamima begum, who left the uk to join islamic state group, will not be allowed to return and fight her citizenship case,

the supreme court has ruled. it was never walking away. it was stepping back rather than stepping down. prince harry says he stepped back from royal duties to protect himself and his family from the "toxic" situation created by the british press. the former first minister of scotland alex salmond is being questioned by members of the scottish parliament over his claims of a "malicious and concerted" conspiracy against him. we can speak to nick eardley now — he's at holyrood. give us a summary for those people justjoining us of what we have heard so far. alex almond is unhappy

that all of this evidence has been made public, some of it was published then unpublished. he spent a long time criticising that. perhaps more significantly, he has hit out at the way that parts of scottish institutions are being run. he doesn't think that the institutions themselves are a problem, but he said the civil service, the prosecution service, the government and its leadership. i think we will hear more from him on that over the course of the afternoon. a lot of what we have heard so far as been about how the scottish government keep up on this new policy for dealing with harassment come plaints. the reason this was so controversial, the complaints made against mr salmond, he took the government to court for the way they had handled them, and the way they had handled them, and the process was found to be unlawful and tainted by a parent backs. the

government has put its hand up and said they got it wrong. quite a lot of it so far has been quite a bit of detail about how the policy was constructed. this afternoon we will probably get to more of the stuff we have been talking about over the last few days. mr salman's extraordinary claims that nicola sturgeon, once his greatest political ally has mid—late —— has misled parliament. the first minister has husband, the snp chief executive and chief of staff there had been campaigned to remove him from public life and send him to prison. so far, i get the impression things have been running quite far behind. some mps have been quite concerned about how long it has been taking and will they get to other parts, but we'll get to that soon. we will indeed. thank you for that.

the session has resumed after a short break so let's dip back in. fin short break so let's dip back in. an issue that we did not quite cover this morning that moved us into the judicial— this morning that moved us into the judicial review. i wonder if not to take _ judicial review. i wonder if not to take too— judicial review. i wonder if not to take too long over it, but if you could _ take too long over it, but if you could give _ take too long over it, but if you could give us a fairly short view on your feelings and how the complaint process— your feelings and how the complaint process was actually run. the 'udicial process was actually run. the judicial review _ process was actually run. the judicial review was _ process was actually run. ire: judicial review was not process was actually run. iie: judicial review was not just process was actually run. iil: judicial review was not just a judicial review was notjust a challenge to the application of the procedure. it was a challenge to the basis of the procedure itself. but in terms of how it was run and what i know now, it should be said that we were well into the judicial review before documents were revealed to us, were extracted from the government, which told us there had been significant problems in application, as well as significant problems in its legal base. i can't think of anything which could be

worse handled in terms of how it was approached. clearly, the policy or the application of the policy went against one of the tenants of the policy with no prior involvement by the investigating officer. i have heard it said at this committee that this is something that crept into the policy later on, that there had been some sort of change. in fact, if you go back to the very first draft of the policy from james hind, way back in november the 8th or somewhere thereabout, you will see that almost exactly the same phrase, no prior involvement, in what i think is any aspect of the case in any aspect of the complaint, is one of the very few things that are consistent through innumerable drafts is the question of no prior involvement. no prior involvement is

not an esoteric thing. it's a cardinal principle of perceived impartiality and impartiality of somebody doing an investigation. so the application of the procedure was obviously deficient, but the procedure itself was deficient. in my estimation it would have fallen evenif my estimation it would have fallen even if it had been properly implemented. one significant thing, it only emerged in the vast data dump of documents that this committee received in november, december of last year that there was another hugely significant matter which we had no idea of and i had no idea until i saw these documents. that is that the permanent secretary herself, as the deciding officer, the person making the decision, actually met one of the complainants and phoned the other one mid process before i was informed there were

complaints against me. that in itself. let mejust complaints against me. that in itself. let me just say, complaints against me. that in itself. let mejust say, if complaints against me. that in itself. let me just say, if it is a very bad thing for an investigating officer to have prior involvement, it is a really difficult thing legally for a deciding officer to have during involvement in the middle of the process in terms of perceived bias. but perhaps even the most significant thing about that is thatis most significant thing about that is that is the first time my legal team, myself, this committee, anybody knew about that. it was not disclosed across the judicial review. despite the duty of candour which was explained to the government by their own counsel and by lord pentland. and it was not even disclosed in the criminal process where i know that i'm not going to stray into it, but there was a specific search warrant applied on the government a year past in october, november which specifically ask for contact between

the permanent secretary in complainants, and that contact was not disclosed even to a search warrant by the crown office. i know this committee has been hugely frustrated by the lack of information, but you can see that the pattern of nondisclosure goes right through the judicial review, right through the judicial review, right through the criminal case, and writing to this committee. it is not in a document that has been missed out. it is a sequence of deliberate suppression of information inconvenient to the government. find inconvenient to the government. and we will move — inconvenient to the government. and we will move on to questions from our committee. we will move on to questions from our committee-— we will move on to questions from our committee. thank you. i have a number of — our committee. thank you. i have a number of questions _ our committee. thank you. i have a number of questions if _ our committee. thank you. i have a number of questions if i _ our committee. thank you. i have a number of questions if i may - our committee. thank you. i have a number of questions if i may about | number of questions if i may about thejudicial review. number of questions if i may about the judicial review. the number of questions if i may about thejudicial review. the reason number of questions if i may about the judicial review. the reason that is very relevant to their working of this committee is the loss of public funds, not least in paying your own legal costs which were a substantial driver for this committee inquiry

being established, and the misuse of public funds which is a very serious matter. we know that the expense awarded to you was at the highest level possible, only made in the words of lord hodge where the defence has conducted either unreasonably or incompetently. there the scottish government except there were substantial flaws in the way they conducted the case. he has referred to the fact that we as a committee as legal advice. that has not been granted to us. twice i persuaded the scottish government to vote for motions in my name. but the practice location service has been resistant to those comments. i'd like to try and explore with you your own legal position. you say in

your own legal position. you say in your evidence that when you became aware in march 2018 that a complaints process was being into vented against you, at that point you took legal advice and the advice you took legal advice and the advice you took legal advice and the advice you took said that the process was defective and a number of ways. i'm a lawyer myself and among many lawyers to, legal advice usually, or very seldom comes in unequivocal fuzz passion. there is usually some shade of grey. how would you characterise the legal opinion you received in terms of the strength of the argument? i’m received in terms of the strength of the argument?— received in terms of the strength of the argument? i'm not a lawyer, and i have not the argument? i'm not a lawyer, and l have got some _ the argument? i'm not a lawyer, and i have got some experience - the argument? i'm not a lawyer, and i have got some experience in - the argument? i'm not a lawyer, and i have got some experience in terms| i have got some experience in terms of ministerial office of receiving legal advice and limited experience as a private citizen. i do know that all legal advice in terms of council advice would come in the balance of probability or some phase like that. i was told, and this is long before

the application of the process made it clearly unlawful, i was told that i had a very high probability of success. indeed, iwas in i had a very high probability of success. indeed, i was in the unusual circumstances, i think for most people, that my counsel were suggesting that the decision should be made to take legal action, and i was reluctant not for legal reasons, but because i was the former first minister of scotland about two sue the current government of scotland with all the political implications that would have, regardless of how it turned out. i was in a position of... anybody else who in these circumstances had the legal advice i got, would have gone tojudicial review much earlier in the process given the, on the balance of

probability, high probability of success, and that was before the questions of the application of the procedure came into prominence in late october and early november 2018. i'll late october and early november 2018. �* . ., ., late october and early november 2018. �* .., ., ., late october and early november 2018. �* ., ., 2018. i'll come in to that point in a second- _ 2018. i'll come in to that point in a second- just — 2018. i'll come in to that point in a second. just so _ 2018. i'll come in to that point in a second. just so we're - 2018. i'll come in to that point in a second. just so we're clear- 2018. i'll come in to that point in l a second. just so we're clear about this, according to your written evidence, you shared your legal opinion with the first minister initially, and then with a government secretary. did you ever receive a substantial argued response to that legal position you put forward. i response to that legal position you put forward-— put forward. i should say on fairness that _ put forward. i should say on fairness that the _ put forward. i should say on fairness that the meeting i l put forward. i should say on i fairness that the meeting i had put forward. i should say on - fairness that the meeting i had in july i put forward a draft position forjudicial review to the first minister who did not want to read it at first, glanced at it and handed it back to me. but i did indicate that the legal advice was strong and given that it was coming from my

advocates, it was not surprising that they are highly esteemed in the profession, but substantially, the letter of the 5th ofjune 2018 sets out the various grounds to the permanent secretary. what we got back, and you have the correspondence so you can judge for yourself as a committee. it was not an argument saying you are running that point because we have had advice to the country or any detail any argument. what we got backwards we are satisfied that the process is lawful.. that may be a tactic that is used between private citizens, but we are talking about government who are fully conscious that i was the former first minister, seriously contemplating civil action and therefore we would have expected to get a substantive reply telling us where we were wrong. perhaps they

were going to say we were about to legislate for this any way or say something remotely legal. we got were letters from the permanent secretary saying this process is fair basically because i say it is fair. at that stage, there was a very firm view in my counsel that we should go ahead, but again, i was reluctant, and therefore we offered legal arbitration. there was a method as i saw it for settling these legal arguments, nothing to do with the substance of the complaints, but settling the legal parameters with the retired judge, or i introduce the arbitration act. i know how it works. do it quickly in private so there is no breaching confidentially —— confident confidentiality for any party. follow it quite quickly and if policy was found to be legal i would

submit to the policy. that was rejected as well. you asked about cost and my total legal bill for everything, advice, was £591,689 and 73 p. recouped from the scottish government was £512,550. i haven't worked out the percentage. but it is a very high percentage. normally, presumably your percentage, what your recruitment costs, because this is not money for me but money for the legal bills and the court bills and all the other things. if you are taking out of position, it would be much, much more than that. it was at the very highest level. the reason for that was, and this indeed was considered by the government, we had to go through a whole commission and diligence procedure to extract

documentation. i saw paul kerr kept one of the government's lawyers giving evidence very honestly and came forward and said in his view that was unprecedented. he had never heard of having to have a commission to extract documentation and we had to extract documentation and we had to have it but without it we wouldn't have got the documentation and the government would have managed to hide it. can wejust understand one last point? the government were prepared to go before the court and say there was no more documents. and that was not the fault of their counsel. because he apologised repeatedly at the commission and made it absolutely clear it was the fault of his client, ie the government, where the duty of candour was placed and they had been withholding documentation notjust

had been withholding documentation not just from the had been withholding documentation notjust from the petitioner, myself, notjust from the court, but from their own counsel. that can't happen very often and is a totally extraordinary position. you referenced _ extraordinary position. you referenced that _ extraordinary position. you referenced that evidence. when we took evidence from him on the 31st of october 2018, that he established there had been prior contact, which in his words, everyone who was involved realised there was a potentially significant issue. that is what he told us. when did your team become aware of that? we became aware that something _ team become aware of that? we became aware that something was _ team become aware of that? we became aware that something was wrong - aware that something was wrong because a whistle—blower in the scottish government told us in october by means that were sent to us that there was something seriously wrong with government press statement. it had been released in late august when i

launched the press conference to say i was taking legal action against the government. that press statement, and i know you have got it because it has come up on the record, it said that it had published for the first time the policy and said that the policy approved in december 2000 and december 2017 and published at that time. that press statement very recently was revised because of course it wasn't published at the time. it was published in february. ways february 2018 important? that was after the complaints came in. obviously, when we got that information, there was a question. how can complaints coming under a policy which was not publicised internally to scottish government employees until february, how can complaints coming injanuary. that doesn't make sense. for that reason,

we started to ask questions about the contact between various people in the civil service and the complainants, priorto in the civil service and the complainants, prior to the formal complaints coming in. remarkably, and it has been done very often, so it is obviously something that the permanent secretary thinks is a strong point. she had said on various occasions, the reasons that the petition was proceeded went in the petition was proceeded went in the original petition. they went there because it wasn't known about and it wasn't known about because the government, totally contrary to any duty of candour, chose not to tell us. the first i learned about the permanent secretary's prior involvement was just before christmas when documents were obtained by this committee. that is remarkable, unprecedented, and of course in terms of the class, as you can imagine, well, i can't speakfor

the court, but i don't think the court was... the court, i think, could understand why it was not agreed on an exemplary punitive scale because of the conduct of the government. their counsel were totally innocent, i repeat. indeed, this committee knows that both councils of the government. i think that was the thing that eventually forced the concession. both councils to the scottish government said they were resigned from the case unless it was conceded because it isn't as datable. not unlikely to lose, but under state above. only when they had received that ultimatum from their own counsel, the government finally collapsed and conceded the

case. we finally collapsed and conceded the case. ~ : finally collapsed and conceded the case. ~ ., ., , ., finally collapsed and conceded the case. ., case. we have not put that specific case. we have not put that specific case of the — case. we have not put that specific case of the lord _ case. we have not put that specific case of the lord advocate - case. we have not put that specific case of the lord advocate as - case. we have not put that specific case of the lord advocate as you i case of the lord advocate as you know, but he pleads the privilege sent to deny to respond. at the end of october, the scottish government became aware there documents were a problem. even then, was it still the case with that they were not assisting your own legal team and is that what led to due diligence leading to proceed. this that what led to due diligence leading to proceed.— that what led to due diligence leading to proceed. as we began to net leading to proceed. as we began to get knowledge _ leading to proceed. as we began to get knowledge of— leading to proceed. as we began to get knowledge of the _ leading to proceed. as we began to get knowledge of the documents, l leading to proceed. as we began to - get knowledge of the documents, what i now know and what did i did not know then, the council told the lawyers in early november about duty of candour and disclosure and the importance of it. that is in your documents. then when we went to a preliminary hearing, a commission was not granted at that stage in november but an reminder was issued

that as a public authority they had a duty of disclosure. it should not be necessary in a case like this because it is against public authority and that public authority had to provide the court with all the information. we then found that a load more documents had been provided and it was quite clear there were documents missing. documents and then a gap and then another document. in that case, we went back to the court, and i think on december the 13th 2018, we asked for the commission and this time it was granted. our president had never been experience like it by the judge. it was clear to everyone that they were missing documents and that information was missing. we went into the commission of diligence and actually brought some of the papers along with me here. the government did not want us to give them to this

committee. we went into the commission of diligence and counsel for the government apologised profusely on repeated occasions for the position he was in. documents were literally coming in as the thing was ongoing. each document being more incriminating in the sense in strengthening our case and weakening the government's case. in the light commission was going on just before christmas in 2018. by then, my legalteam just before christmas in 2018. by then, my legal team moved a bit about the balance of probability. theyjust about the balance of probability. they just said this about the balance of probability. theyjust said this is only a matter of time. they have to concede, or we will certainly win outcomes when it comes to court injanuary given what was being revealed in the documents, because what they showed and i don't want to get to technically legal because i'm not qualified for a

start, but the documents showed that the government's own pleadings to the government's own pleadings to the court were wrong, they were inaccurate, misleading. their own pleadings. this is the scottish government's pleadings to the court in session and they were misleading. i can't put myself in the shoes of them, but i imagine they were numb best pleased in that circumstance because their flex on their professional reputation. one thing that i would say is that from everything i have seen the government counsel behaved honourably. i think you will find information that both councils said they would resign the case in senior davidson's report. i don't know how much you have seen and the redaction, but it is certainly there, and they assume the government had been given that

information. as i said, i'm not legally qualified but i know a wee bit about scots law. it is not unprecedented for counsel to resign from a case because they cannot continue because of their professional obligations. i think it must be unprecedented for it to happen when you are representing the government and to have to threaten to do it or to say you are going to do it. let's put it in more even language, in orderfor the language, in order for the government language, in orderfor the government to face reality. that is an unprecedented, extraordinary position. an unprecedented, extraordinary osition. : an unprecedented, extraordinary osition. . , ., ., ., position. final question from me on this because — position. final question from me on this because i _ position. final question from me on this because i know _ position. final question from me on this because i know others - position. final question from me on this because i know others want - position. final question from me on this because i know others want to l this because i know others want to come in. what you have outlined, and notjust come in. what you have outlined, and not just what you have outlined come in. what you have outlined, and notjust what you have outlined an but what the committee has discovered is an extraordinary catalogue of failures in the handling of the case by the scottish government, and indeed witnesses from the scottish government conceded that to us in the course of the inquiry. you have been first minister of scotland. if this

happened under your watch, who would you hold responsible? lmull. happened under your watch, who would you hold responsible?— you hold responsible? well, the government's — you hold responsible? well, the government's principal - you hold responsible? well, the government's principal legal - you hold responsible? well, the - government's principal legal adviser who i would have expected to be guiding the case. if we are talking about the specifics of this case, then i can only believe that... and james rolfe is an eminent lawyer. i can only believe that my it can't just be legal considerations. nobody continues a case they are going to lose. it would be quite interesting to find out the result. this is not an academic matter. this is not some interesting case that will inform people for years to come. this is people's lives we are talking about here. the complainants, myself, other people involved. you don't

have a sum of legal debate in order to find that out, and of course as you rightly mentioned, all that to lie —— all that delay, the decision not to accept arbitration when they must have known how the case was, the decision not to follow external counsel advice in october when probably on the balance of probability they were going to lose, the decision to continue on all that, it runs up the clock. these extraordinary bills are run up. the five hoods in 12,550 paid for my legal fees. five hoods in 12,550 paid for my legalfees. more pay to five hoods in 12,550 paid for my legal fees. more pay to their counsel, and the huge bill pay doing eternal civil service and legal time. all that clock is running as they are refusing. that cannotjust be the lord advocate, because if it

had just been a legal matter he would have said surely it is time to settle. that has to be a decision of the permanent secretary and presumably air decision of the first minister. ~., : presumably air decision of the first minister. : ~ : presumably air decision of the first minister. . ~ . ., , ., minister. margaret mitchell has a short supplementary _ minister. margaret mitchell has a short supplementary on - minister. margaret mitchell has a short supplementary on what - minister. margaret mitchell has a short supplementary on what she minister. margaret mitchell has a - short supplementary on what she has 'ust short supplementary on what she has just heard _ short supplementary on what she has 'ust heard. ,,, . , ., just heard. specifically on their government — just heard. specifically on their government signing _ just heard. specifically on their government signing a - just heard. specifically on their| government signing a certificate just heard. specifically on their- government signing a certificate on the fact there were no other documents after you had successfully petitioned for more documents and they said there was nothing relevant. he signed that on behalf of the scottish government? and there are a few parts to this. everybody else wants to come in as well so _ everybody else wants to come in as well so ask— everybody else wants to come in as well so ask it all at once.— well so ask it all at once. would it be the respondent _ well so ask it all at once. would it be the respondent who _ well so ask it all at once. would it be the respondent who was - well so ask it all at once. would it be the respondent who was the i be the respondent who was the permanent secretary of the interested party who was the first minister or who would be if not signing it who was responsible for

what was a really serious, if not a criminal offence? saying that, just that the convener is let allow me to get in this one question, given that —— given what we have said about the checksum government, if they were able to behave like this without a sanction, what kind of deterrent is that? has there been any sanction, and who you would you expect to take that sanction looking into the unlawful, if it was unlawful behaviour? i unlawful, if it was unlawful behaviour?— unlawful, if it was unlawful behaviour? ~ ., ., behaviour? i don't know if you are able to answer— behaviour? i don't know if you are able to answer mr _ behaviour? i don't know if you are able to answer mr salman. - behaviour? i don't know if you are able to answer mr salman. my - behaviour? i don't know if you are l able to answer mr salman. my legal team will certainly _ able to answer mr salman. my legal team will certainly write _ able to answer mr salman. my legal team will certainly write to - able to answer mr salman. my legal team will certainly write to you. - team will certainly write to you. i'm not even sure if we got to the point of decision that the undertaking was prepared to be signed, but then when we said no we were going to heading, they ruled objection on december 13. i can get the precise detailfrom objection on december 13. i can get the precise detail from the army ——

from my legal team. on your other point, people make mistakes in terms of civil service, just like anybody else, government ministers, politicians. it happens all the time. but the terms of the richter scale of mistakes, this is right up there. this is a very big one and you would have expected under the circumstances of taking the choice of not conceding when they must have known that the legal position was not untenable then very difficult, and winding up the expenses over that period, you would hope to believe that someone would have accepted responsibility. when i walked out of the court of session in january the 8th 2019 walked out of the court of session injanuary the 8th 2019 and they pretty clearly did not say they should resign. in normal language i

said the permanent secretary should consider her position. i did that because i knew she had claimed ownership over this policy. she said onjune the 21st in a letter to my lawyers that it was a policy established by me. that was her words. i thought, established by me. that was her words. ithought, therefore, she established by me. that was her words. i thought, therefore, she had a responsibility for the policy, responsibility for not conceding to muesli and thejudicial responsibility for not conceding to muesli and the judicial review and for a range of other things that could have been done. but somebody has to accept responsibility for a calamitous occurrence in defeat. and as i have said in the first session, not a botched policy, and unlawful and unfair policy and one tainted by apparent bias in

while i am aware of the time and i know everybody — while i am aware of the time and i know everybody has _ while i am aware of the time and i know everybody has very - while i am aware of the time and i know everybody has very kindly i while i am aware of the time and i i know everybody has very kindly said that they are happy for the session? to go on longer but it doesn't mean we should _ to go on longer but it doesn't mean we should let — to go on longer but it doesn't mean we should let it— to go on longer but it doesn't mean we should let it go— to go on longer but it doesn't mean we should let it go on— to go on longer but it doesn't mean we should let it go on indefinitely. we should let it go on indefinitely because — we should let it go on indefinitely because we — we should let it go on indefinitely because we do— we should let it go on indefinitely because we do have _ we should let it go on indefinitely because we do have a _ we should let it go on indefinitely because we do have a lot- we should let it go on indefinitely because we do have a lot of- we should let it go on indefinitely- because we do have a lot of business to go— because we do have a lot of business to go through — because we do have a lot of business to go through so _ because we do have a lot of business to go through so i _ because we do have a lot of business to go through so i would _ because we do have a lot of business to go through so i would ask- to go through so i would ask everyone _ to go through so i would ask everyone to _ to go through so i would ask everyone to please - to go through so i would ask everyone to please bear- to go through so i would ask| everyone to please bear that to go through so i would ask. everyone to please bear that in mind — everyone to please bear that in mind. : ~ everyone to please bear that in mind. . ~' ,. everyone to please bear that in mind. . ,, y., ., .., mind. thank you. i wonder ifi could ursue a mind. thank you. i wonder ifi could pursue a point _ mind. thank you. i wonder ifi could pursue a point which _ mind. thank you. i wonder ifi could pursue a point which was _ mind. thank you. i wonder ifi could pursue a point which was raised - mind. thank you. i wonder ifi could pursue a point which was raised by i pursue a point which was raised by mr fraser— pursue a point which was raised by mr fraserjust before we broke up. that was— mr fraserjust before we broke up. that was around the difference between — that was around the difference between the concept of privilege in westminster and holyrood and i don't intend _ westminster and holyrood and i don't intend to _ westminster and holyrood and i don't intend to pursue you for an answer on that— intend to pursue you for an answer on that and — intend to pursue you for an answer on that and i— intend to pursue you for an answer on that and i appreciate you will know— on that and i appreciate you will know more about that than i do but the practical consequence of that is that you _ the practical consequence of that is that you were surprised that the crown _ that you were surprised that the crown office took an interest in the question— crown office took an interest in the question of— crown office took an interest in the question of whether parliament and its committees were in danger of breaking — its committees were in danger of breaking a — its committees were in danger of breaking a court order in its view, in this— breaking a court order in its view, in this instance one relating to the protection — in this instance one relating to the protection of the identity of complainers in a sexual harassment allegation — complainers in a sexual harassment allegation. i'm quite content for

the crown— allegation. i'm quite content for the crown office to take whatever view it _ the crown office to take whatever view it wants on this and to act independently but i'm curious why you would — independently but i'm curious why you would be surprised and shouldn't scotlandmight parliament be subject to the _ scotlandmight parliament be subject to the same court orders and liability— to the same court orders and liability for consequences from the crown _ liability for consequences from the crown office as anyone else in the country? — crown office as anyone else in the country? -- — crown office as anyone else in the country? —— scotland's parliament. there _ country? —— scotland's parliament. there are _ country? —— scotland's parliament. there are very good reasons for parliaments having privilege in a range of ways, and without parliamentary privilege then some of the major scandals of the age would never have been revealed, some of the major issues of the age would never have been tackled, because at some point a parliamentarian had used that privilege in the public interest which could not have been done outside parliament. the scottish parliament should very much be doing that, not to use it irresponsibly or in a cavalier fashion, but to accept responsibility as parliamentarians to do things which others can't and the reason privilege is given to

parliamentarians is to represent the people who in scotland in particular as we both know are the ultimate authority. it may be the crown office but the parliament represented the people, is the ultimate authority, you ask me why i was surprised and i was surprised because the crown office said diametrically the different thing two weeks ago in terms of the evidence that had been submitted and published in the spectator magazine. it is somewhat of a surprise therefore to find out that the crown office adopted a different view in the evidence before this committee then they adopted two weeks ago in then they adopted two weeks ago in the evidence published in the magazine. that requires explanation and exploration by this committee. thirdly, i resent the idea that

anything in my evidence lee gould by my lawyers and legal team with the intent that we had, would ever transgress on the order from lady dorian —— legalled. i got a number of reasons for saying that. you asked me about my attitude of supplies to the crown office. the reason is quite simple, we're talking about a case, and in october, octoberthe talking about a case, and in october, october the 4th, 2018, talking about a case, and in october, octoberthe 4th, 2018, in front of lord pentland, my legal team not in order to protect anonymity of the two complainants in the civil case of the scottish government —— an order. the scottish government —— an order. the scottish government did not turn up and they were not even represented at that hearing. when i heard some people

say that this is all about protecting anonymity of a complainant, and when i know that wasn't the view of the crown office two weeks ago, and when i know that the scottish government did not turn up the scottish government did not turn up in the civil case on the 4th of october 2018. then you should allow me the element of surprise and an element of disquiet that an argument is being used for totally different reasons. the very last point i would make is that the evidence has been widely shared, everybody in this committee i presume has read it even though they are not allowed to discuss it in detail, and is there anyone who seriously thinks that that evidence prejudices the identity or breaks in any way be anonymity given to complainants? —— the anonymity. i have not heard back from anybody who has read the

evidence and therefore it is a passing strange that the crown office should have adopted the attitude they have and it is not for me to speak to this committee at this parliament but i would hope that this parliament if it feels it doesn't have the powers then it soon gets the powers to exert its authority over things like that, and that's a prize is shared notjust by myself but as i said earlier by lord hope —— that surprise is shared. can hope -- that surprise is shared. can i interru -t hope -- that surprise is shared. can i interrupt as — hope —— that surprise is shared. can i interrupt as the convener and i want _ i interrupt as the convener and i want to— i interrupt as the convener and i want to make _ i interrupt as the convener and i want to make it _ i interrupt as the convener and i want to make it plain _ i interrupt as the convener and i want to make it plain to- i interrupt as the convener and i. want to make it plain to everyone that it _ want to make it plain to everyone that it is — want to make it plain to everyone that it is them _ want to make it plain to everyone that it is the... all— want to make it plain to everyone that it is the... all these - that it is the... all these questions _ that it is the... all these questions are _ that it is the... all these questions are for- that it is the... all these questions are for the - that it is the... all these i questions are for the spbc that it is the... all these - questions are for the spbc and i would _ questions are for the spbc and i would refer— questions are for the spbc and i would refer everyone _ questions are for the spbc and i would refer everyone to - questions are for the spbc and i would refer everyone to the - questions are for the spbc and i. would refer everyone to the written inspired _ would refer everyone to the written inspired question _ would refer everyone to the written inspired question the _ would refer everyone to the written inspired question the other- would refer everyone to the written inspired question the other day, . would refer everyone to the writtenl inspired question the other day, and as far— inspired question the other day, and as far as— inspired question the other day, and as far as this — inspired question the other day, and as far as this committee _ inspired question the other day, and as far as this committee is - as far as this committee is concerned. _ as far as this committee is concerned, we _ as far as this committee is concerned, we operate - as far as this committee is i concerned, we operate within as far as this committee is - concerned, we operate within the legal— concerned, we operate within the legal parameters _ concerned, we operate within the legal parameters set _ concerned, we operate within the legal parameters set out - concerned, we operate within the legal parameters set out in - concerned, we operate within the legal parameters set out in our i

legal parameters set out in our committee _ legal parameters set out in our committee is _ legal parameters set out in our committee is handling - legal parameters set out in our i committee is handling statement legal parameters set out in our - committee is handling statement and that is— committee is handling statement and that is what— committee is handling statement and that is what we — committee is handling statement and that is what we will— committee is handling statement and that is what we will continue - committee is handling statement and that is what we will continue to - committee is handling statement and that is what we will continue to do. i that is what we will continue to do. the evidence — that is what we will continue to do. the evidence that _ that is what we will continue to do. the evidence that we _ that is what we will continue to do. the evidence that we are _ that is what we will continue to do. i the evidence that we are considering today— the evidence that we are considering today in— the evidence that we are considering today in questioning _ the evidence that we are considering today in questioning on— the evidence that we are considering today in questioning on is— the evidence that we are considering today in questioning on is the - today in questioning on is the evidence _ today in questioning on is the evidence that _ today in questioning on is the evidence that has _ today in questioning on is the evidence that has been - today in questioning on is the i evidence that has been published today in questioning on is the - evidence that has been published by the committee — evidence that has been published by the committee in _ evidence that has been published by the committee in that _ evidence that has been published by the committee in that matter. - evidence that has been published by| the committee in that matter. thank ou, the committee in that matter. thank you. convener- _ the committee in that matter. thank you. convener- l— the committee in that matter. thank you, convener. iwant _ the committee in that matter. thank you, convener. i want to _ the committee in that matter. thank you, convener. i want to ask - the committee in that matter. thank you, convener. i want to ask on i you, convener. i want to ask on another— you, convener. i want to ask on another theme about some of the proposed — another theme about some of the proposed solutions that you had in mind _ proposed solutions that you had in mind to _ proposed solutions that you had in mind to the situation that arose in terms _ mind to the situation that arose in terms of— mind to the situation that arose in terms of alternative dispute resolution, those being, well, they are all— resolution, those being, well, they are all different and we are aware of that— are all different and we are aware of that but— are all different and we are aware of that but those including in totality. _ of that but those including in totality, conciliation and mediation, and they all have different— mediation, and they all have different levels of formality and different levels of formality and different repercussions in terms of binding _ different repercussions in terms of binding parties and so on, but to take _ binding parties and so on, but to take them — binding parties and so on, but to take them in their generality, do you have — take them in their generality, do you have a — take them in their generality, do you have a view about whether such alternatives — you have a view about whether such alternatives are appropriate for a public— alternatives are appropriate for a public law— alternatives are appropriate for a public law matter given that only a court _ public law matter given that only a court of _ public law matter given that only a court of law cannot hold that a decision— court of law cannot hold that a

decision of a government such as that of— decision of a government such as that of the — decision of a government such as that of the permanent secretary is unlawful? — that of the permanent secretary is unlawful? a that of the permanent secretary is unlawful? : . ., that of the permanent secretary is unlawful? : .., ., that of the permanent secretary is unlawful? : ., ., unlawful? a court of law has held it to be unlawful. _ unlawful? a court of law has held it to be unlawful, of— unlawful? a court of law has held it to be unlawful, of course, - unlawful? a court of law has held it to be unlawful, of course, and i i to be unlawful, of course, and i think the question of mediation is a fairly obvious one and i don't even know the answer to it yet and maybe it was just because the policy was being so rushed that they forgot to include the paragraph. but mediation is a proposal is not a difficult concept. it is in some form or another in every personnel policy i've ever heard of and i know that some people are much better qualified to speak, but this is not an unusual concept. but in terms of this policy the fact that mediation is included for current ministers but not forformer is included for current ministers but not for former ministers would lead me to believe that either the word processor wasn't working properly but i can't believe it

wasn't a deliberate act to exclude mediation so mediation is missing from the policy for no understandable reason whatsoever so it wasn't an unreasonable idea to suggest it should be looked at. as far as arbitration is concerned, well, arbitration, ithink far as arbitration is concerned, well, arbitration, i think it was 2010, it was brought in, the bill, and it was designed to provide a much cheaper and much less and much more private and confidential way of addressing certain disputes, so there is no reason whatsoever that it should not have been applied to this particular dispute. as has been said, this is not about the substance of the complaints, this is about the legality of the policy. i made it clear when we put forward the proposal that if my legal advice had been and then i would have submitted to the policy but the

government seemed less confident about their legal position than we were. the idea that that would not have been a better way and it's not with the benefit of hindsight, to approach this matter with what has transpired over the last three years, would be an extraordinary position to adopt. clearly, and not just with the benefit of hindsight, mediation would have been, so we can arbitration would have been a much better mains of trying to find the satisfactory resolution than what subsequently happened —— sorry, arbitration would have been a much better mains. i arbitration would have been a much better mains-— better mains. i understand you feel stronal better mains. i understand you feel strongly about _ better mains. i understand you feel strongly about that _ better mains. i understand you feel strongly about that and _ better mains. i understand you feel strongly about that and we - better mains. i understand you feel strongly about that and we have i better mains. i understand you feel. strongly about that and we have also heard _ strongly about that and we have also heard copious evidence in committee as to why— heard copious evidence in committee as to why others take a different point _ as to why others take a different point of— as to why others take a different point of view on that. can you understand the point of view or do you have _ understand the point of view or do you have a — understand the point of view or do you have a view on the point of view that it _ you have a view on the point of view that it would — you have a view on the point of view that it would be fundamentally

inappropriate to take a public law matter— inappropriate to take a public law matter involving accusations of sexual— matter involving accusations of sexual harassment and try to resolve it behind _ sexual harassment and try to resolve it behind closed doors? wouldn't it be inappropriate to do that rather than in _ be inappropriate to do that rather than in open court? in terms of perceptions, do you have a clue as to whether— perceptions, do you have a clue as to whether that might look like sweeping the matter under the carpet? — sweeping the matter under the caret? ., , ., ., , ., carpet? two things, mediation is a conce -t carpet? two things, mediation is a concept that _ carpet? two things, mediation is a concept that is _ carpet? two things, mediation is a concept that is not _ carpet? two things, mediation is a concept that is not sweeping i carpet? two things, mediation is a i concept that is not sweeping matters under the carpet, and i've heard that phrase many times over the last couple of years, that is part of a properly instructed personal policy. as far as arbitration is concerned i can't speak for others involved in this process directly but i can't think anybody would not have thought that would be the better way to approach things than what subsequently happened. the idea that the people at the centre of this, whether they be complainants or myself, one thing is debated in a public court, —— want things debated in the public court is to misunderstand being in the eye of

that particular storm. it is confidentiality in debating not the substance of complaints but the policy under which they were being applied to say if it was legal or not, it would have been a infinitely preferable way to proceed. with respect, and i know this is not the, because the committee is examining the behaviour of the civil service, of ministers and advisers, therefore by definition you tend to interview more people who are being examined than people who are commenting, but the people you say have supported the people you say have supported the rejection of arbitration, with respect other people who rejected arbitration. you would hardly necessarily think of and it would be great if people would come along and say, well, maybe on reflection we could have avoided this abject disaster and save the scottish people £600,000, that might be a good thing for people to say, but people who took a decision might be

expected to defend it, however disastrous the decision subsequently turned out to be.— disastrous the decision subsequently turned out to be. some of the people who expressed _ turned out to be. some of the people who expressed from _ turned out to be. some of the people who expressed from the _ turned out to be. some of the people who expressed from the evidence i turned out to be. some of the people who expressed from the evidence we | who expressed from the evidence we have, _ who expressed from the evidence we have, expressed a lack of enthusiasm for these _ have, expressed a lack of enthusiasm for these alternative routes seem to include _ for these alternative routes seem to include the — for these alternative routes seem to include the complaints themselves. the difficulty with that argument and i know you will do this because you study your papers, but in terms of the mediation offeree was rejected by the permanent secretary before it was put to the complainants and that is in your papers and they were presented with it later as a fate a company, that it later as a fate a company, that it had been done. even then, if you examine your papers, one complainant said she might wish to consider it at a later stage, but the offer was rejected by the permanent secretary before it was even put to the complainants. in terms of arbitration, it was rejected without

putting it to be complainants at all. they were not even consulted. and therefore the people you say are defending the position of not going to legal arbitration are the very people who took that decision not to accept legal arbitration. i people who took that decision not to accept legal arbitration.— accept legal arbitration. i want to ask as well _ accept legal arbitration. i want to ask as well about _ accept legal arbitration. i want to ask as well about the _ accept legal arbitration. i want to ask as well about the point i accept legal arbitration. i want to ask as well about the point that l accept legal arbitration. i want to i ask as well about the point that you make _ ask as well about the point that you make about distinguishing the substance of the complaints from the nature _ substance of the complaints from the nature of— substance of the complaints from the nature of the policy. the scottish government's former director of legal— government's former director of legal services told us that arbitration would not be appropriate in this— arbitration would not be appropriate in this situation firstly because it would _ in this situation firstly because it would not — in this situation firstly because it would not have been possible to separate — would not have been possible to separate out the substance of the complaints from the procedural issues — complaints from the procedural issues and secondly that arbitration was inappropriate and where there was inappropriate and where there was a _ was inappropriate and where there was a significant dispute over factual— was a significant dispute over factual issues such as in that case, so can— factual issues such as in that case, so can you — factual issues such as in that case, so can you understand why there were difficulties— so can you understand why there were difficulties about separating the

two issues out in the way you suggest? _ two issues out in the way you suggest? | two issues out in the way you sur est? : ., two issues out in the way you sunest? : ., ' . , suggest? i have no difficulties whatsoever. _ suggest? i have no difficulties whatsoever. we _ suggest? i have no difficulties whatsoever. we were - suggest? i have no difficulties whatsoever. we were not i suggest? i have no difficulties i whatsoever. we were not aware suggest? i have no difficulties - whatsoever. we were not aware when we were offering arbitration that there were any procedural difficulties in the inflammation of the policy because we were not about that until several months later because the government were conceding the evidence —— the implementation of the policy. in terms of the ground rules in terms of law, for settling a dispute, that is what arbitration is about. if you cannot separate the ground rules from the detail dispute, there will never be any arbitration, and all the arbitration was designed to do was to see if the policy was proper and legal, not to apply to any particular case, but to see if the policy in itself was constructed in a legalfashion. you are perfectly entitled to ask any questions you can and i think in terms of the people watching this, the people who have paid the £630,000 that the government wasted, that many people

watching this will find it surprising that anyone is seriously arguing that the judicial review in the full public court was worth the public expenditure that the government wasted upon it. i did not offer any opinion _ government wasted upon it. i did not offer any opinion as _ government wasted upon it. i did not offer any opinion as to _ government wasted upon it. i did not offer any opinion as to whether i government wasted upon it. i did not offer any opinion as to whether it i offer any opinion as to whether it was good — offer any opinion as to whether it was good value for money but i'm asking _ was good value for money but i'm asking you — was good value for money but i'm asking you about some of... as to whether— asking you about some of... as to whether you — asking you about some of... as to whether you have some of the views on what _ whether you have some of the views on what has — whether you have some of the views on what has been raised, and the lord _ on what has been raised, and the lord advocate on that subject you said about — lord advocate on that subject you said about the appropriateness of arbitration as a general rule, where an allegation is made, and the government has made a decision that is not _ government has made a decision that is not valid _ government has made a decision that is not valid because it is in breach of some _ is not valid because it is in breach of some public law or rule, that is generally— of some public law or rule, that is generally speaking not an issue that it is appropriate to submit to private — it is appropriate to submit to private arbitration and given the nature _ private arbitration and given the nature of— private arbitration and given the nature of the dispute here which is about— nature of the dispute here which is about whether the government had .one about whether the government had gone wrong in law in relation to its handling _ gone wrong in law in relation to its handling of— gone wrong in law in relation to its handling of the harassment complaints, then serious questions that arise _ complaints, then serious questions that arise as to whether that something should be dealt with by a

private _ something should be dealt with by a private procedure and any arbitration might simply give rise to further— arbitration might simply give rise to further legal issues so it might not necessarily result in finality. do you _ not necessarily result in finality. do you have a view on the assessment of the _ do you have a view on the assessment of the lord _ do you have a view on the assessment of the lord advocate?— of the lord advocate? some of the key phrases _ of the lord advocate? some of the key phrases l _ of the lord advocate? some of the key phrases i might _ of the lord advocate? some of the key phrases i might not _ of the lord advocate? some of the l key phrases i might not necessarily, that sounds very much, you are building up presumably from his evidence can and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could have the feel of the external counsel and what they thought about it —— you are reading out a presumably from his evidence. one thing we can absolutely say is that the lord advocate's bernard advice on this matter is that honoured advice on this matter is subsequently found to not stand the test of the court of session and if that is the case in terms of the arguments about the over policy, it might be the case that he was wrong on arbitration as

well. the record of the government in this case is not one that anyone would have a great deal of confidence in either in terms of the legal advice they have been getting from their internal mirrors under lord advocate and i think from what we have seen, we might place more stress on the external advice they were getting but are not willing to give the committee or the public, and i was actually expressing the view about being surprised at yourself, i was thinking much more of the people watching this, your constituents and the people who paid the bills. ., ~ , ., constituents and the people who paid the bills. ., ~ i., .., constituents and the people who paid the bills-_ and i the bills. thank you, convener. and the will you said you had documents in your possession _

will you said you had documents in your possession which _ will you said you had documents in your possession which were - will you said you had documents in. your possession which were disclosed in the _ your possession which were disclosed in the commission— your possession which were disclosed in the commission and _ your possession which were disclosed in the commission and i— your possession which were disclosed in the commission and i understand i in the commission and i understand why there _ in the commission and i understand why there is — in the commission and i understand why there is a — in the commission and i understand why there is a balmy _ in the commission and i understand why there is a balmy 2010 - in the commission and i understand why there is a balmy 2010 act, i in the commission and i understand | why there is a balmy 2010 act, there is a bar— why there is a balmy 2010 act, there is a bar on— why there is a balmy 2010 act, there is a bar on revealing _ why there is a balmy 2010 act, there is a bar on revealing documents- why there is a balmy 2010 act, there is a bar on revealing documents —— i is a bar on revealing documents —— why there — is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is — is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is a _ is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is a bar— is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is a bar in— is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is a bar in the _ is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is a bar in the 2010 i is a bar on revealing documents —— why there is a bar in the 2010 act. i why there is a bar in the 2010 act. any documents _ why there is a bar in the 2010 act. any documents you _ why there is a bar in the 2010 act. any documents you reveal- why there is a bar in the 2010 act. any documents you reveal today i why there is a bar in the 2010 act. | any documents you reveal today to the court _ any documents you reveal today to the court of session, could i invite you to _ the court of session, could i invite you to consider whether you are able to hand _ you to consider whether you are able to hand them over to the committee? we have _ to hand them over to the committee? we have already done so. we haven't handed them over but we indicated a willingness to do it. we then had correspondence with the government who only want a grey or didn't agree if we gave the documents to them so as they put it could make suitable redactions. —— who only agreed. the committee has had leave already from the court of session in terms of other documents in the civil case, and the committee request to have the full transcript of the

commission on intelligence would be well received by my legal team and well received by my legal team and we would be very happy and of course the committee can then make whatever redactions it feels are necessary but, yes, you would find that the documents most informative. i will follow that up _ documents most informative. i will follow that up with _ documents most informative. i will follow that up with mike _ documents most informative. i will follow that up with mike committee colleagues. secondly, in any civil there — colleagues. secondly, in any civil there will be a suite of remedies _ there will be a suite of remedies to increase your chance of success, _ remedies to increase your chance of success, what you have set out in paragraph — success, what you have set out in paragraph four of your draft position. _ paragraph four of your draft position, can you say and you have a number— position, can you say and you have a number of— position, can you say and you have a number of grounds for alleging that the procedure was unlawful but given that none _ the procedure was unlawful but given that none of these were tested in court. _ that none of these were tested in court. can— that none of these were tested in court, can you say anything more

about— court, can you say anything more about which— court, can you say anything more about which of the grounds for judicial— about which of the grounds for judicial review will give you the highest — judicial review will give you the highest chance of success? in the absence of— highest chance of success? in the absence of any — highest chance of success? in the absence of any legislation - highest chance of success? in the absence of any legislation in i highest chance of success? in the absence of any legislation in the l absence of any legislation in the presence of a proper ballad previous policy and in the absence of any consent from those who were being applied to and i think the procedural unfairness which if you remember is in the interlocutor, one of the strongest arguments and i'm not competent tojudge of the strongest arguments and i'm not competent to judge if this is the strongest, but by the strongest was put to me as the nature of the investigating officer and i'm not talking here about the prior involvement that was subsequently discovered, but the nature of how the investigating officer conducts his or her activities. it means that in this procedure and totally different from fairness at work and totally different from elsewhere, the investigating officer basically presents the case for the

prosecution before the defendant is even informed about the procedure, and then the person who has been complained about instead of being able to present their case has to give that case to the same person, to the investigating officer, to present on his or her behalf, my legal team and my legal team told me thatis legal team and my legal team told me that is not something the courts take kindly to, and there is another think about the permanent secretary's decision not to allow me any contact with civil servants or even have documents like my own diaries at that stage, which he spelt out boldly in a letter, saying i have decided not to allow new contacts with civil service. it was felt that the court would regard that as an unreasonable position. thirdly, the same thing is access to witness statements, and in any case people have normally given access,

not necessarily the names of witnesses, but certainly the content of witness statements, what was actually being said, so they can have their own witnesses prepared by the defence to give their account and then the two things can be judged by someone in an impartial manner, so these procedural difficulties about being able to present your case with information that should be available to someone on the receiving end of a complaint, well, sadly these are things are in the fairness to work policy which i'm sure you are well aware —— well, certainly these are things. lastly, it was pointed out, the hybrid nature of the procedure, whereby the civil service takes a procedure so far and then hands it over to a political party to implement a sanction, that is highly questionable. the political party has got their own procedures to do it and they should have their own procedures to do it and not rely on

the civil service procedure which somehow is handed over to them to make a decision. in every conceivable way this policy was badly thought out, rushed through a commit without consultation, and then badly implemented, and it would have fallen on innumerable grounds. you rightly say that most of the grounds were tested but they were not tested because they did not have to be tested because the government collapsed and collapsed in terms of the expenses to be awarded as well. lastly, that wasn't the view of the permanent secretary, and on the day of the 8th of january 2019 when this calamitous event from their perspective occurred, you would have, this has defeat in the court of the session with massive publicity and massive customer it was said that all other grounds were dismissed —— massive cost, it was said. you have said that the other

grounds were not tested because the case had already been lost by the government, so why put out a press release, we're not talking about a politician, we're not talking about myself or a member of this committee under pressure, we're talking about the permanent secretary of the scottish government, or grounds were dismissed apart from this one narrow ground, and whatever view we take, very substantial problems which would have to be addressed even if the investigating officer had not transgressed.— transgressed. thanks for that response- — transgressed. thanks for that response- in _ transgressed. thanks for that response. in paragraph i transgressed. thanks for that response. in paragraph 24 . transgressed. thanks for that response. in paragraph 24 of| transgressed. thanks for that - response. in paragraph 24 of your submission— response. in paragraph 24 of your submission on the judicial review, you say. _ submission on the judicial review, you say, we — submission on the judicial review, you say, we have a witness recognition statement which recounts that a _ recognition statement which recounts that a special adviser told the witness — that a special adviser told the witness that the government knew they would lose the jr but get to him in _ they would lose the jr but get to him in a — they would lose the jr but get to him in a criminal case. can you say any more_ him in a criminal case. can you say any more who— him in a criminal case. can you say any more who the witness is or the special— any more who the witness is or the special adviser is or whether you

can surtpty— special adviser is or whether you can supply the committee with a copy of the _ can supply the committee with a copy of the statement? it can supply the committee with a copy of the statement?— of the statement? it certainly happened- — of the statement? it certainly happened- we _ of the statement? it certainly happened. we have _ of the statement? it certainly happened. we have got - of the statement? it certainly happened. we have got the i of the statement? it certainly - happened. we have got the statements and i would have to consult the person concerned. the point being and the reason for it being there is that it demonstrates that in november 2018 the hope was on the part of that special adviser and others that the judicial review would be overtaken by the criminal case and what substantive evidence beyond the statement we have for that lies in the question of assisting which i know you will appreciate, and very few people watching will understand, but the idea that if the criminal case had been advanced than the civil case would not have gone ahead pending the outcome of the criminal case, and many people seem to invest a great deal of hope that the criminal case would ride to the rescue, like

the cavalry over the hill, and somehow the civil case would never be heard, but if you are in a situation where you have got a high degree of expectation that you are about to lose a civil case, that was about to lose a civil case, that was a pressing concern for many people. you say that enough the fourth submission, as well and the committee would welcome if you have any further _ committee would welcome if you have any further evidence on the question of evidence — any further evidence on the question of evidence that the government was consistent _ of evidence that the government was consistent. . , , of evidence that the government was consistent. ., , , ., ., ., ., consistent. that brings onto one of the essential _ consistent. that brings onto one of the essential difficulties _ consistent. that brings onto one of the essential difficulties because . the essential difficulties because there has been a lot of talk about section 162 and you know what this is, the prohibition of supplying evidence, and much of that has been around text messages which the committee has been very exercised about. you also realise it applies to government documents. government documents that i've seen in the criminal case, disclosed as part of

the disclosure in the criminal case, documents which should have been provided to this committee in terms of its raiment, that this committee should have seen these documents, and they were disclosed during the criminal case but they are not out of the criminal case. they are about the judicial review. of the criminal case. they are about thejudicial review. cystine has been mentioned by some of the witnesses and you have got one single document on the question of cystine. you know it there but 17 meetings with the council and you know that you were told there were daily meetings to discuss how the case was going and you knowjerick mckinnon told you that she had thrice weekly meetings about it, but this committee —— judith. thrice weekly meetings about it, but this committee ——judith. but thrice weekly meetings about it, but this committee —— judith. but this document doesn't have an iota of an e—mail or a text message or any other piece of information on a question which i can tell you was a huge preoccupation of the government in september and october 2018, and i

think it would be a wonderful reason for this committee to ask why. excuse me, mr salmon, it is up to the committee _ excuse me, mr salmon, it is up to the committee to _ excuse me, mr salmon, it is up to the committee to decide - excuse me, mr salmon, it is up to the committee to decide what - excuse me, mr salmon, it is up to| the committee to decide what they are going _ the committee to decide what they are going to— the committee to decide what they are going to ask— the committee to decide what they are going to ask and _ the committee to decide what they are going to ask and where - the committee to decide what they are going to ask and where they. the committee to decide what theyl are going to ask and where they are going _ are going to ask and where they are going to _ are going to ask and where they are going to go — are going to ask and where they are going to go -- — are going to ask and where they are going to go —— salmond. _ are going to ask and where they are going to go —— salmond. [— are going to ask and where they are going to go —— salmond. i amu- are going to ask and where they are going to go -- salmond.— are going to ask and where they are going to go -- salmond. i am in the hands of the — going to go -- salmond. i am in the hands of the committee _ going to go -- salmond. i am in the hands of the committee and - going to go -- salmond. i am in the hands of the committee and i'm - going to go -- salmond. i am in the| hands of the committee and i'm just pointing out that even if you did, the crown office would forbid me on pain of a criminal penalty from giving you these documents and perhaps that pertains to alasdair allan's question, but i don't think thatis allan's question, but i don't think that is the right balance between the crown office and a parliamentary committee. have one more question now because you've _ have one more question now because you've pre—empted my final one. on january— you've pre—empted my final one. on january the — you've pre—empted my final one. on january the 8th, you say lord pentiand _ january the 8th, you say lord pentland issued an interlocutor reducing — pentland issued an interlocutor reducing investigation and the

permanent secretary's decision. you io permanent secretary's decision. you go on _ permanent secretary's decision. you go on to— permanent secretary's decision. you go on to say— permanent secretary's decision. you go on to say the government provided undertakings not to distribute documents, and you say those undertakings were recorded in the n1inutes— undertakings were recorded in the minutes of— undertakings were recorded in the minutes of proceedings. forgive me, there _ minutes of proceedings. forgive me, there is— minutes of proceedings. forgive me, there is a _ minutes of proceedings. forgive me, there is a lot — minutes of proceedings. forgive me, there is a lot of evidence in this inquiry— there is a lot of evidence in this inquiry and _ there is a lot of evidence in this inquiry and i onlyjoined the committee in december, but i am not aware _ committee in december, but i am not aware as— committee in december, but i am not aware as to _ committee in december, but i am not aware as to whether we have the minutes — aware as to whether we have the minutes of— aware as to whether we have the minutes of proceedings. if we don't have it. _ minutes of proceedings. if we don't have it, could you provide that the committee? yes have it, could you provide that the committee?— committee? yes as far as i can understand _ committee? yes as far as i can understand it. _ committee? yes as far as i can understand it. i'm _ committee? yes as far as i can understand it. i'm surprised i committee? yes as far as i can l understand it. i'm surprised you don't have it. if you don't have it, and i know we have got it, of course, we will hand it over to the committee. i course, we will hand it over to the committee-— course, we will hand it over to the committee. ~' ., ., ., committee. i think we do have that. but we shall — committee. i think we do have that. but we shall double-check. - committee. i think we do have that. but we shall double-check. i - committee. i think we do have that. but we shall double-check. i move l committee. i think we do have that. l but we shall double-check. i move on but we shall double—check. i move on now _ but we shall double-check. i move on now. . ~' but we shall double-check. i move on now. ., ~ , ., but we shall double-check. i move on now. ., ~ but we shall double-check. i move on now. ., g , ., now. thank you, convener. just one ruestion now. thank you, convener. just one question for — now. thank you, convener. just one question for clarity, _ now. thank you, convener. just one question for clarity, probably - now. thank you, convener. just one question for clarity, probably more | question for clarity, probably more so for people watching this session and what has been discussed this ——

thus far. it's a comment from the lord advocate to the committee, and i quote, the petitioner in the judicial review, the application in this case on a number of grounds for the reasons set out the committee accepted that one of those grounds was well founded and conceded the case. therefore, just with that, just with clarity, do you agree that it was only on one ground that the government conceded the case? i agree with the interlocutor, his judgment that the government was found to have behaved unlawfully, procedurally unfairly and in a manner tainted by apparent bias. the government collapsed the case. you are petitioning forjudicial review to set aside procedure is unlawful.

if the government comes to you and says they will collapse the case and agree to expenses on the higher scale because of our behaviour during the case, i doubt if any lawyer on earth would not say we have one. to go ahead further and to win an all or many of the grounds as well would just cast people more money when the case was being dealt with. the reduction of course was not on the reduction of the decision but of the documents and the undertaking which doctor mike min referred to, we may have given them to the government but we moved to have them with move just to make sure it was london —— it was understood that the government was behind reduction and destruction of the decision and the documents. the victory was as comprehensive as you could possibly get on legal terms. the point i was making earlier was

that the permanent secretary per trail of it was at variance with reality. trail of it was at variance with reali ., . ~ a trail of it was at variance with reali , reality. jackie baillie please. thank you — reality. jackie baillie please. thank you very _ reality. jackie baillie please. thank you very much. - reality. jackie baillie please. thank you very much. can i l reality. jackie baillie please. i thank you very much. can i ask reality. jackie baillie please. - thank you very much. can i ask you for questions and they don't require long answers. in terms of the duty of candour, that requires full disclosure of information. you described a search warrant to the public so it should chew from the crown office for the trial, we also know there was a commission on diligence. when this committee asked for information on the complaints handling phase, i for information on the complaints handling phase, lam i for information on the complaints handling phase, i am i correct in saying there was still documents that you had not, or your legal team had not previously seen? if that is the case what did they relate to? i think we specified in number because we went through the many documents that came or were about to come to

this committee in late last year, and we went through each and every document and cross compared what had been disclosed in both the civil case and the criminal case, and we found there were 40 or so, i think, but i would not hold myself to an exact number. a substantial number of documents we had never seen before which was spectacular, because it is both the duty of candour that we should have seen these regardless of the exact specification. the whole point of a duty of candour as you're supposed to hand over things which are important. the criminal case which actually specified in the search warrant applying for the government a year past october or thereabouts, 2019. the most spectacular of these but i know means the own lee example. it was a series of documents demonstrating that the

permanent secretary had met one of the complainants and dealt with the other the day before i was informed of any complaints against me and after she had received the investigating officer's first report. as a point i made earlier, those two aspects of that. one is it is an extraordinary thing to happen. in some views, even more seriously than the investigating officer meeting before process start to meet people in mid—process, even if you disregard that, the question is one of disclosure. why was that information, clearly pertinent to the judicial review, information, clearly pertinent to thejudicial review, not information, clearly pertinent to the judicial review, not disclosed in the case. the instruction of the court and the advice of their own counsel that this was really important to follow that. second —— secondly and even more spectacularly, the search warrant in

the case evening specifies meetings between the permanent secretary and complainants, the crown office did not receive that document, i believe, or if they did they did not disclose it to us. i believe they did not receive it which is almost beyond imagination. it is not a duty of candour. it is a refusal to produce information in the face of a search warrant. its obstruction of justice. search warrant. its obstruction of 'ustice. . , . , , search warrant. its obstruction of 'ustice. ., i, ., , justice. that is a pretty serious char: e justice. that is a pretty serious charge and _ justice. that is a pretty serious charge and of— justice. that is a pretty serious charge and of course _ justice. that is a pretty serious charge and of course i - justice. that is a pretty serious charge and of course i want - justice. that is a pretty serious charge and of course i want to | charge and of course i want to explore with you the role of the permanent secretary. from what i can see she oversaw the development of the policy. she was the final arbiter in terms of the complaints. as you have said she met with complainants. she is responsible for leading the government in the judicial review process. do you think she has discharged her responsibilities in line with the civil service code? ihlo. responsibilities in line with the civilservice code? ihlo. thank responsibilities in line with the civil service code? ihlo. thank you. civil service code? no. thank you. can i

civil service code? no. thank you. can i move _ civil service code? no. thank you. can i move us _ civil service code? tic. thank you. can i move us the independence of the investigating officer? on the 17th of october the investigating officer was interviewed byjunior officer was interviewed by junior counsel and officer was interviewed byjunior counsel and she was open about her contact with the complainants. on the 31st of october there was a written opinion. on the 30th of november a freedom of information requests tells us there was a meeting between the council, the council, the first minister nicola surgeon, the permanent secretary in the chief of staff. as a former first minister, would carrying on legal action in the court of session knowing that you had acted unlawfully be a breach of the ministerial code? yes. do you believe that this was the case in this instance. 17 believe that this was the case in this instance.— believe that this was the case in this instance. ~ ., , , this instance. ? we cannot be sure because i this instance. ? we cannot be sure because i like _ this instance. ? we cannot be sure because i like you _ this instance. ? we cannot be sure because i like you have _ this instance. ? we cannot be sure because i like you have not - this instance. ? we cannot be sure because i like you have not seen . this instance. ? we cannot be sure i because i like you have not seen the external legal advice of october 2018. clearly it was as i think i

said you and evidence it was highly significant moment when it was realised by council that they had been prior contact. everything about it suggest, even how it has been described in terms, on the balance of probability, that that advice showed or indicated the government were about to lose. if that is the case, and if legal advice says that, and the case was continued in the knowledge of the first minister against that legal advice, then that would be a breach of the ministerial code. if we could just see the document, then we would all be better informed.— better informed. indeed, this parliament — better informed. indeed, this parliament has _ better informed. indeed, this parliament has asked - better informed. indeed, this parliament has asked twice . better informed. indeed, this l parliament has asked twice and better informed. indeed, this - parliament has asked twice and we have still not seen it. good luck with that one. can i minas —— can i move us finally onto the judicial review in terms of assisting. you say that assisting of the judicial review was about delaying the process in the court of session so

it would be overtaken by the criminal trial. it would be overtaken by the criminaltrial. can it would be overtaken by the criminal trial. can i refer you to your own submission to us, paragraph 24 of annex b where you are saying we have are witness pre—recognition statement which recounts that in late november 2018 a special adviser told the witness that the government knew they would lose the judicial review, but they would get him in the criminal case. would you share that pre—recognition statement with the committee? that that pre-recognition statement with the committee?— the committee? that is what was asked earlier. _ the committee? that is what was asked earlier. our— the committee? that is what was asked earlier. our aim _ the committee? that is what was asked earlier. our aim is - the committee? that is what was asked earlier. our aim is that. i l asked earlier. our aim is that. i would need the permission of the witness. i'm anxious to share all documentation that i can which establishes this point. there is no question, and i think if we are able to share the documentation the duck —— the government documents as well. there is a belief that the criminal case might overtake the judicial

review. that assisting was being examined by the lord advocate because quite clearly, as the government's legal adviser, you would be expecting him to be looking at that, notjust council. it would be very important for those to see it. i'm not suggesting for a second that the lord advocate was engaged in thinking therefore we should accelerate the criminal case in order to afford —— in order to defeat the civil case. i'm not suggesting that for a second. i'm suggesting that for a second. i'm suggesting there was widespread knowledge by november 2018 that the judicial review was going to fail on the part of the government and that there was a prospect of it being assisted if the criminal case came to a moment before the judicial review hearing injanuary 2019. the reason for saying this as i can

think of no other reason that you would postpone taking a decision on a case that you knew in the bank —— you knew on the balance of probability you are likely to lose unless you thought there was going to be something else happening that avoided... there is no point in saying we won't concede because we will put it off untiljanuary before we lose catechist mickley, remembering that the clock was ticking all the time in terms of expenses. the case injanuary is gonna be much more serious than conceding in october. in october it would be embarrassing and difficult, but not as cataclysmic as in open court case injanuary. so perhaps we will hear what other motivation there perhaps could have been. and then a belief in what might have been and then a judicial review never came to court. if it had not

come to court at that stage if it had been postponed or assisted behind the court —— behind the criminal case, if i had been convicted of anything at all, then this inquiry would have been moot. nobody would have cared about the judicial review or anything like that. it would have been entirely overtaken by events. fortunately for me and i believe fortunately for justice in scotland that did not happen. this inquiry is taking place and hopefully the lessons that come from this will approve the scottish institutions so that people can have more confidence in them, whether they believe in deaf and or independence.— they believe in deaf and or independence. they believe in deaf and or indeendence. . ~ , ., , . independence. thank you very much, convener. independence. thank you very much, convener- can _ independence. thank you very much, convener. can i _ independence. thank you very much, convener. can ijust _ independence. thank you very much, convener. can i just go _ independence. thank you very much, convener. can ijust go back - independence. thank you very much, convener. can i just go back to - independence. thank you very much, convener. can i just go back to the i convener. can i 'ust go back to the timin: of convener. can i 'ust go back to the

timing of the _ convener. can ijust go back to the timing of the concession _ convener. can ijust go back to the timing of the concession of - convener. can ijust go back to the timing of the concession of the - timing of the concession of the judicial— timing of the concession of the judicial review which was conceded solely— judicial review which was conceded solely on _ judicial review which was conceded solely on the basis of one issue which _ solely on the basis of one issue which was — solely on the basis of one issue which was the contact between the complainants and the investigating officer _ complainants and the investigating officer. when we talk to counsel, he said it _ officer. when we talk to counsel, he said it took — officer. when we talk to counsel, he said it took time to work out what the circumstances really rent. it was not — the circumstances really rent. it was not a — the circumstances really rent. it was not a slam dunk moment. work required _ was not a slam dunk moment. work required to— was not a slam dunk moment. work required to be done as we try to establish — required to be done as we try to establish what the full factual circumstances were, and then work out whether— circumstances were, and then work out whether the combination of the wording _ out whether the combination of the wording of— out whether the combination of the wording of paragraph ten of the procedure, with the facts that were emerqinq _ procedure, with the facts that were emerging and continue to emerge as we find _ emerging and continue to emerge as we find out _ emerging and continue to emerge as we find out more and more had that effect _ we find out more and more had that effect the — we find out more and more had that effect. the lord advocate, when he .ave effect. the lord advocate, when he gave evidence to a said when the issue _ gave evidence to a said when the issue was— gave evidence to a said when the issue was identified in late october, people immediately went to paragraph _ october, people immediately went to paragraph ten of the procedure. that was not _ paragraph ten of the procedure. that was not considered to be fatal. it was not considered to be fatal. it was identified that there was a debate — was identified that there was a debate to be had. any lawyer and who

is involved _ debate to be had. any lawyer and who is involved in— debate to be had. any lawyer and who is involved in litigation understands that issues may arise that one _ understands that issues may arise that one may have to defend and argue _ that one may have to defend and argue in— that one may have to defend and argue in court. but the government was content that its interpretation of that _ was content that its interpretation of that sentence was one that was capable _ of that sentence was one that was capable of— of that sentence was one that was capable of being argued and defended in court _ capable of being argued and defended in court. and one that it would be right— in court. and one that it would be right to _ in court. and one that it would be right to submit to the determination of the _ right to submit to the determination of the court. the issue of apparent bias depends ultimately on close knowledge of the facts. regrettably at the _ knowledge of the facts. regrettably at the point where matters had to be investigated in november, and things were reviewed in the light of that, the full— were reviewed in the light of that, the full factual picture was not known — the full factual picture was not known. so wasn't it quite in order that the _ known. so wasn't it quite in order that the government took time to concede _ that the government took time to concede the case? and did the lord advocate _ concede the case? and did the lord advocate who has been an advocate and qc— advocate who has been an advocate and qc for— advocate who has been an advocate and qc for some 30 years and has also been —

and qc for some 30 years and has also been in — and qc for some 30 years and has also been in the faculty a post which — also been in the faculty a post which has _ also been in the faculty a post which has been elected by his peers. layinq _ which has been elected by his peers. laying aside what external counsel says. _ laying aside what external counsel says. are _ laying aside what external counsel says, are you really questioning the ability— says, are you really questioning the ability within government to decide when _ ability within government to decide when the _ ability within government to decide when the case should have been conceded?— when the case should have been conceded? ._ ., , ., ., conceded? laying aside what external counsel have — conceded? laying aside what external counsel have to _ conceded? laying aside what external counsel have to say, _ conceded? laying aside what external counsel have to say, is _ conceded? laying aside what external counsel have to say, is that _ conceded? laying aside what external counsel have to say, is that not - conceded? laying aside what external counsel have to say, is that not the i counsel have to say, is that not the exact point that parliament had voted for on two occasions? why don't we know what external counsel that make you say that external counsel was a past dean of the faculty. he is the present dean of the faculty. i would have thought it would be of extraordinary interest to see what he was saying in october 2018. and given that the public have paid dearly for the mistakes of the lord advocate and others, i think they are entitled to see that legal

opinion which would answer your question and answer the questions of many other people. in terms of the hopes of the lord advocate, i sat in the court of session where lord brent len, the interlocutor, although the case had been conceded and there wasn't much to be done, it was potently obvious in terms of what he said, to my hearing at least, that the interlocutor knew exactly what the problem was. he commented on the nature of the no prior contact stipulation. he looked back and saw almost exactly the same phrase was in the very first iteration of the policy on november the 8th and had not changed in any material sense. still no prior contact. the name of the investigating officer had changed. i don't think the lord advocate would have done very well if he had been in the shoes of having to argue the

case. i suppose the practitioner, the person having to argue the case in court, probably recognise the essential difficulties. two further points. why was this information only becoming available that make miss mckinnon said she discussed her role openly with her superiors. this does not seem to me a particularly difficult thing to me to do to find out what the prior contact was. it doesn't require massive investigation. with everything i know, miss mckinnon was perfectly open about what she had done. it was not a secret. therefore, i cannot see why it would have taken the length of time to do that. so why did they have to be some major consideration taking weeks and months in order to establish the inevitable result? excuse me. just one of the point. _

inevitable result? excuse me. just one of the point. you said that mediation _ one of the point. you said that mediation could have been pursued or arbitration— mediation could have been pursued or arbitration could also have, i think you said. — arbitration could also have, i think you said, been a much better means. ithink— you said, been a much better means. i think any— you said, been a much better means. i think any hr professional would say that— i think any hr professional would say that in— i think any hr professional would say that in terms of a sexual harassment case, both are totally unsuitable. harassment case, both are totally unsuitable-— harassment case, both are totally unsuitable. , ., , , , unsuitable. obviously, it can be the case that both _ unsuitable. obviously, it can be the case that both are _ unsuitable. obviously, it can be the case that both are unsuitable - case that both are unsuitable because it is in the policy as far as current ministers, as i know you ended as an hr professional will know and recognise. it cannot have been known to be thought to be unsuitable because it is in the policy that it only applies to current ministers and not passed ministers. that was the point i was making. as far as arbitration is concerned, anybody else who was facing what i was facing would have taken their counsel and gone court and expose the scottish government

much earlier. not go to court and was looking for another means of trying to settle the issue was because i was a former first minister and aware of how cataclysmic it would be for the current scottish government. thank ou. i current scottish government. thank you- i have — current scottish government. thank you. i have margaret _ current scottish government. thank you. i have margaret little. - current scottish government. thank you. i have margaret little. thank l you. i have margaret little. thank ou you. i have margaret little. thank you convener— you. i have margaret little. thank you convener -- _ you. i have margaret little. thank you convener -- thank— you. i have margaret little. thank you convener -- thank you - you. i have margaret little. thank i you convener -- thank you convener. you convener —— thank you convener. you have referred to documents in the public domain and what was asked about when you gave evidence on the 25th of january. which was sent on the 25th of january 2020, the date that you first appeared in court on criminal charges. the official report lists the text in full and i think it is worth reading it out so that you can respond to this.

totally agree foes should be asking police questions. physical and charges which leads the police twiddling their thumbs so a good time to be pressurising them. would be good to know the met are looking at the events in london. and the second text again from mr murrell. to be honest, the more fronts he is having to firefight, the better. for the complainers, parole complainers coverfor the complainers, parole complainers cover for the cps, the complainers, parole complainers coverfor the cps, it the complainers, parole complainers cover for the cps, it would be a good thing. the explanation for this has had to be the subject for some credibility. both mr murrell and the first minister when she spoke to parliament on that said that when they reflected on the messages now they reflected on the messages now they seem quite out of character and mr murrell says that suggests just how upset i was at the time. would that be your reading of them? i

don't want to be rude but i have got a small chest infection just now. i a small chest infectionjust now. i was actuallyjust going to say, would — was actuallyjust going to say, would you _ was actuallyjust going to say, would you like _ was actuallyjust going to say, would you like to _ was actuallyjust going to say, would you like to have - was actuallyjust going to say, would you like to have a i was actuallyjust going to say, would you like to have a little| would you like to have a little break? — would you like to have a little break? l _ would you like to have a little break? . , would you like to have a little break? ., , ., ., ,, break? i was going to say. i think it mirht break? i was going to say. i think it might be _ break? i was going to say. i think it might be better— break? i was going to say. i think it might be better if— break? i was going to say. i think it might be better if i _ break? i was going to say. i think it might be better if i can - break? i was going to say. i think it might be better if i can see i break? i was going to say. i think it might be better if i can see if. break? i was going to say. i think it might be better if i can see if i | it might be better if i can see if i consult my chest out.— it might be better if i can see if i consult my chest out. please do. if one of our— consult my chest out. please do. if one of our clerks _ consult my chest out. please do. if one of our clerks could _ consult my chest out. please do. if one of our clerks could ensure i consult my chest out. please do. if one of our clerks could ensure mr i one of our clerks could ensure mr salmond — one of our clerks could ensure mr salmond can— one of our clerks could ensure mr salmond can get _ one of our clerks could ensure mr salmond can get over— one of our clerks could ensure mr salmond can get over there. i one of our clerks could ensure mr salmond can get over there. and| one of our clerks could ensure mr| salmond can get over there. and i hereby— salmond can get over there. and i hereby suspend _ salmond can get over there. and i hereby suspend the _ salmond can get over there. and i hereby suspend the meeting. i hereby suspend the meeting. studio: _ hereby suspend the meeting. studio: just _ hereby suspend the meeting. srumo: just a _ hereby suspend the meeting. srumo: just a brief- hereby suspend the meeting. studio: just a brief break. i hereby suspend the meeting. i studio: just a brief break. we are in the hearing at holyrood, mr salmond being questioned. that has continued for much of the afternoon and as you can see our political correspondent nick eardley is there listening to it. it has been a lengthy session but not over yet. what has stood out for you so far? a

lot of this has been really detailed because a lot of the questions being asked by this committee into the scottish government are quite detailed so we have heard quite a lot about how the scottish government's new harassment policy was brought into being. mr salmond thinks it was a disaster and led to the situation where he was accused of harassment under an unlawful process. that was found in a judicial review. the other thing that has been talked about quite a lot is a lot of criticism by mr salmond on the way that was handled and the way the government legal officers dealt with some of the concerns that had been raised. for me the extraordinary moment so far has been mr salman's opening statement. in that he did three things that were really worth noting. one, he took no time at all to criticise nicola sturgeon. he accused her of using that covid—19 briefing earlier this week to call

into question the decision of a jury to acquit him of sexual assault. clearly... i suspect we will get more of the detail about his accusations against nicola sturgeon later this afternoon. on top of that, a man who was first minister of scotland seven years, made the point that the government the prosecution service the crown office the prosecution service and the scottish government had all failed. finally he said that if scotland is going to become independent, as the snp have all ways footfall, if that is going to happen, these institutions have to be robust. you may not have said that explicitly but putting those things together it is clear he doesn't think the current leadership of the scottish government and the current leadership of snp is in a place to do that. he has called into place —— he has called into question how

robust those institutions are. there is a lot more to come and we will get to questions on the ministerial code and that is when we will get to questions and accusations that mr salmond is making against nicola sturgeon. we are already about four hours in and there is more to come. all right. nick, we will be back with you when that session resumes. i should explain you can continue to watch that evidence session on our sister channel, bbc parliament, and on the bbc news website. they will be continuing coverage of that and the reaction from nick eardley as well who is following that over the course of the afternoon and evening. specifically pointing you there to bbc parliament and the website because we are edging up here to a number ten coronavirus briefing.

right now, we are going to pause and catch up with the weather prospects. we are ending the week on a much quieter note, things are now largely dry across the board and the next few days are looking dry and settled for most, sunshine by day but chilly nights on the way. high nights on the way. pressure really dominating our weather high pressure really dominating our weather at the moment. high moving thing out its way over the west. it is about 12 or 13 degrees in the warmer spots. is about 12 or 13 degrees in the warmerspots. quite is about 12 or 13 degrees in the warmer spots. quite a bit of try, settled weather as we head into the evening hours. this evening, a bit of cladding there. particularly scotland and northern ireland because we have an approaching weather front here. that could bring some letters of rain. nothing particularly heavy. you are likely to see a few showers overnight

there. furthersouth, clearer to see a few showers overnight there. further south, clearer skies and quite a cold night temperatures dipping down a degree or two below freezing. they could be some frost and also is in mist and fog patches early tomorrow morning. quite a chilly start with that mist and fog around. in south wales and south—west england there could be a little bit of mess further east as well. that should clear away over the course of the morning. we had this week whether front and it will brighten up behind that for scotland and northern ireland. sunny spells lasting all day in the north—east and temperatures ten to 13 celsius on saturday. as we move through into sunday, high—pressure well as well and truly establishes itself right across the uk, so it is going to be dry, but quite a chilly start to sunday morning. not as chilly saturday morning, but still the

chance of mist and fog in the ads spot of frost as well. light winds on sunday. sunny spells developing. a bit mcleod developing on central england and wales. nine to 12 celsius and the woman spots. largely dry and settled them with sunny spells and dry nights continues into next week two.

this is bbc news. i'm jane hill. the headlines at 4.30.... people over the age of 40 will be next in line to get a covid jab — teachers and other occupations should not be prioritised, say vaccine experts. we expect to hear more about this in half an hour's time when the health secretary, matt hancock, will be holding a press conference at downing street. people from pakistani and bangladeshi backgrounds in england had a higher risk of dying with covid—19 during the second wave of the pandemic than white people, according to a new report. the coronavirus reproduction number, or r value, remains unchanged from last week — it stands between 0.6 and 0.9 across the uk.