this is bbc news with the latest headlines. a budget designed to steer the uk through the remaining stages of the covid crisis — and beyond — has been promised by the chancellor. the furlough scheme will be extended until the end of september — and some taxes could rise to pay for tough economic times ahead. scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon, is facing demands to resign as she prepares to answer questions about her government's mishandling of the seuxal harassment complaints against alex salmond. we will go live to the enquiry. for all those we will go live to the enquiry. igrr' all those watching, this evidence session at home that due to the necessary mitigations in place to allow us to make person today, we will be suspending the meeting

periodically to allow the room to be ventilated and cleaned. ourfirst suspension will be around 11am. i would suspension will be around ”am. i would also note for those watching that every effort has been made to make this in person evidence session as safe as possible for all involved, including social distancing around the table and the room. can i remind members of the committee and media representatives, to continue to observe social distancing when entering and leaving but. as i said at the outset of the meeting i would remind all of those present and watching that we are bound by the terms of our remit and the relevant court orders, including the relevant court orders, including the need to avoid that contempt of court by denting fine certain individuals. the committee as a whole has agreed that it is not our role to revisit events that are focused on the trial that could be seen to constitute a rerun of the criminal trial. seen to constitute a rerun of the criminaltrial. our seen to constitute a rerun of the criminal trial. our remit is clear and it is... to consider and report

the actions of the first minister, scottish government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about alex salmond, former first minister. considered under discussion government handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers and procedure and actions in relation to scottish ministerial court. the more we get into specifics of evidence, thatis we get into specifics of evidence, that is time, people cases, the more we run the risk of identifying complaints. the more we ask about specific matters covering the trial, including events exposed in the trial, the more we run the risk of rerunning the trial. in questions, reference to specific dates and individual should be avoided and questions should be phrased in general terms were possible, to avoid the risk of mixing complainers. in addition, please do not refer to civil servants by name and is absolutely nothing unnecessary and do not refer to civil servants by name if they are

below a senior civil service level. i would also emphasise that the committee would be content to receives written supplementary points, should anyone in this require have concerns that... given the number of documents and complaints handley, when asking a question, please mention the document number, footnote reference and whether it is a batch one or two. with that, can i welcome the first minister of scotland and i begin by inviting miss sturgeon to make the application. would you please raise your right hand first, minister? and repeat after me. i solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that i will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. i solemnly, sincerely and truly declare that i will affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. i would know as the first minister to make an opening statement.

minister to make an opening statement-— minister to make an opening statement. ., ~ , ., , statement. thank you. the spotlight shone on historic _ statement. thank you. the spotlight shone on historic workplace - shone on historic workplace harassment in late 2017 was long overdue — harassment in late 2017 was long overdue it— harassment in late 2017 was long overdue. it was absolutely right at that time — overdue. it was absolutely right at that time for my government to review— that time for my government to review its— that time for my government to review its processes and consider any weaknesses and gaps in them and put in _ any weaknesses and gaps in them and put in place _ any weaknesses and gaps in them and put in place a procedure that would allow _ put in place a procedure that would allow complaints, including those of historic— allow complaints, including those of historic nature to be investigated. when _ historic nature to be investigated. when complaints were made about alex salmond, _ when complaints were made about alex salmond, it— when complaints were made about alex salmond, it was also absolutely right _ salmond, it was also absolutely right that — salmond, it was also absolutely right that the government took them seriously— right that the government took them seriously and are them to investigation. and individuals profile, — investigation. and individuals profile, status or connections should — profile, status or connections should not result in complaints of this nature — should not result in complaints of this nature being ignored or swept under— this nature being ignored or swept under the — this nature being ignored or swept under the carpet. but —— in this case _ under the carpet. but —— in this case that— under the carpet. but —— in this case that it _ under the carpet. but —— in this case that it was a former first mihister— case that it was a former first minister does not change that. the procedure — minister does not change that. the procedure adopted in late 2017 in the wake — procedure adopted in late 2017 in the wake of that me two concerns, was drafted by civil servants, largely— was drafted by civil servants,

largely independent of me, however, i was largely independent of me, however, iwas kept _ largely independent of me, however, i was kept abreast of its development and i did sign it off. as a result— development and i did sign it off. as a result of a mistake that was made, _ as a result of a mistake that was made. a — as a result of a mistake that was made, a very serious mistake in the investigation of the complaints against — investigation of the complaints against alex salmond, two women were failed and _ against alex salmond, two women were failed and taxpayer's money was lost _ failed and taxpayer's money was lost i_ failed and taxpayer's money was lost. i deeply regret that. although i lost. i deeply regret that. although iwas _ lost. i deeply regret that. although iwas hot _ lost. i deeply regret that. although i was not aware of the error of the time, _ i was not aware of the error of the time, i_ i was not aware of the error of the time, i am — i was not aware of the error of the time, i am the head of the scottish government and i want to take this opportunity to say sorry to the two women _ opportunity to say sorry to the two women involved and to the wider puhiie _ women involved and to the wider puhiie i— women involved and to the wider public. i also accept, without any reservation, that my actions deserve to be _ reservation, that my actions deserve to be scrutinised. two years ago, i volunteered — to be scrutinised. two years ago, i volunteered for such scrutiny by referring — volunteered for such scrutiny by referring matters relating to my contact — referring matters relating to my contact with alex salmond to the al independent adviser in the ministerial court, james hamilton. mr hamilton is conducting an independent investigation i in await his findings. his investigation is not being — his findings. his investigation is not being conducted in public, though— not being conducted in public, though of course his conclusions will be _ though of course his conclusions will be published. as a result of

that, _ will be published. as a result of that, he — will be published. as a result of that, he is— will be published. as a result of that, he is able to hear and consider— that, he is able to hear and consider materials that because of a contempt _ consider materials that because of a contempt of court order, this committee cannot including, as i understand it, from people who are actually— understand it, from people who are actually party to discussions that others _ actually party to discussions that others who were not party to those discussions — others who were not party to those discussions are seeking to test two. mr hamilton has offered no commentary on his investigation and nor wiii— commentary on his investigation and nor will i _ commentary on his investigation and nor will i. however, this committee and the _ nor will i. however, this committee and the public are entitled to hear directiv— and the public are entitled to hear directly from me from the matter is under— directly from me from the matter is under consideration. today, iwill do my— under consideration. today, iwill do my best — under consideration. today, iwill do my best to answer each question directiv— do my best to answer each question directly and — do my best to answer each question directly and in as much detail as i can _ directly and in as much detail as i can firstly, — directly and in as much detail as i can. firstly, on the 8th ofjanuary, 2019. _ can. firstly, on the 8th ofjanuary, 2019. i_ can. firstly, on the 8th ofjanuary, 2019, i volunteered to parliament my contact _ 2019, i volunteered to parliament my contact with alex allan and stated as follows, and the 2nd of april 2018. _ as follows, and the 2nd of april 2018. he — as follows, and the 2nd of april 2018, he informed me about the complaints against him. i will explain — complaints against him. i will explain why i stand by that statement. second, iwill set explain why i stand by that statement. second, i will set out why i_ statement. second, i will set out why i did — statement. second, i will set out why i did not immediately record the april two— why i did not immediately record the april two meeting within the scottish government, a decision

based _ scottish government, a decision based entirely on my desire to protect— based entirely on my desire to protect the independence and confidentiality of the process. thirdiy. — confidentiality of the process. thirdiy. i— confidentiality of the process. thirdly, i will outline why i believe _ thirdly, i will outline why i believe it was right that i did not intervene — believe it was right that i did not intervene in the investigation when i intervene in the investigation when i became _ intervene in the investigation when i became aware of it, even though alex salmond asked me to do so. and finally, _ alex salmond asked me to do so. and finally, although the mistake made in the _ finally, although the mistake made in the conduct in the investigation meant _ in the conduct in the investigation meant that ultimately the action for judicial— meant that ultimately the action for judicial review could not be defended, i will demonstrate that the decisions taken at each stage of it were _ the decisions taken at each stage of it were legally sound. i'm sure we will return — it were legally sound. i'm sure we will return to all of these matters in detail, — will return to all of these matters in detail, however, i want to focus in detail, however, i want to focus in these _ in detail, however, i want to focus in these opening remarks on the issues _ in these opening remarks on the issues around my contact with alex salmond _ issues around my contact with alex salmond and the 2nd of april and my contact, _ salmond and the 2nd of april and my contact, three days earlier, with his former— contact, three days earlier, with his former chief of staff. alex has claimed _ his former chief of staff. alex has claimed in— his former chief of staff. alex has claimed in his testimony to the committee that the meeting in my home _ committee that the meeting in my home on— committee that the meeting in my home on the 2nd of april took place with a _ home on the 2nd of april took place with a shared understanding on the part of— with a shared understanding on the part of att— with a shared understanding on the part of all the participants of the issues _ part of all the participants of the issues for— part of all the participants of the issues for discussion. in other words. — issues for discussion. in other words. he _ issues for discussion. in other words, he turned up to the meeting leaving _ words, he turned up to the meeting leaving i_ words, he turned up to the meeting leaving i already knew everything. it is leaving i already knew everything. it is worth —

leaving i already knew everything. it is worth noting in passing, that this in— it is worth noting in passing, that this in fact — it is worth noting in passing, that this in fact represents a change in his position. on the 14th ofjanuary 2019. _ his position. on the 14th ofjanuary 2019. after— his position. on the 14th ofjanuary 2019, after the conclusion of the judicial— 2019, after the conclusion of the judicial review, a spokesperson issued — judicial review, a spokesperson issued this comment on his behalf. alex has _ issued this comment on his behalf. alex has no — issued this comment on his behalf. alex has no certainty as to the state — alex has no certainty as to the state of — alex has no certainty as to the state of knowledge of the first minister— state of knowledge of the first minister before then, by which he meant _ minister before then, by which he meant the — minister before then, by which he meant the 2nd of april, a brief account— meant the 2nd of april, a brief account about what happened on the 2nd of— account about what happened on the 2nd of april suggests as per his comment— 2nd of april suggests as per his comment injanuary 2019 2nd of april suggests as per his comment in january 2019 that he 2nd of april suggests as per his comment injanuary 2019 that he did not assume — comment injanuary 2019 that he did not assume full knowledge of my part in advance _ not assume full knowledge of my part in advance. when he arrived in my house, _ in advance. when he arrived in my house. he — in advance. when he arrived in my house, he was insistent that he speak— house, he was insistent that he speak to — house, he was insistent that he speak to me entirely privately, away from his— speak to me entirely privately, away from his former chief of staff and duncan _ from his former chief of staff and duncan hamilton, who had accompanied him and _ duncan hamilton, who had accompanied him and my— duncan hamilton, who had accompanied him and my chief of staff who was with me — him and my chief of staff who was with me. that would have seemed unnecessary, had their already been a shared _ unnecessary, had their already been a shared understanding on the part of att— a shared understanding on the part of all of— a shared understanding on the part of all of us — a shared understanding on the part of all of us. he then asked me to read _ of all of us. he then asked me to read a _ of all of us. he then asked me to read a letter he had received from the permanent secretary. this letter are set _ the permanent secretary. this letter are set out _ the permanent secretary. this letter are set out the fact that complaints of sexual— are set out the fact that complaints of sexual harassment have been made against _ of sexual harassment have been made against him _ of sexual harassment have been made against him by two individuals, they

made _ against him by two individuals, they made it— against him by two individuals, they made it clear that these complaints were being investigated under the procedure adopted at the end of 2017 and they— procedure adopted at the end of 2017 and they set out the details of what he was _ and they set out the details of what he was alleged to have done. reading this letter— he was alleged to have done. reading this letter is a moment in my life that i_ this letter is a moment in my life that i will— this letter is a moment in my life that i will never forget. although he denies — that i will never forget. although he denies the allegations, he gave me his _ he denies the allegations, he gave me his account of one of the incidents— me his account of one of the incidents complained of, which he said he _ incidents complained of, which he said he had apologised for at the time _ said he had apologised for at the time. what he described constituted in my— time. what he described constituted in my view— time. what he described constituted in my view deeply inappropriate trehaviour— in my view deeply inappropriate behaviour on his part, perhaps another— behaviour on his part, perhaps another reason why that moment is embedded — another reason why that moment is embedded so strongly in my mind. at the time _ embedded so strongly in my mind. at the time he _ embedded so strongly in my mind. at the time he was showing the letter and outlining his account, jess and duncan _ and outlining his account, jess and duncan were doing the same with my chief of— duncan were doing the same with my chief of staff, again, this would seem _ chief of staff, again, this would seem unnecessary had she and i known evervthing _ seem unnecessary had she and i known everything in _ seem unnecessary had she and i known everything in advance. questions have _ everything in advance. questions have been— everything in advance. questions have been raised about a conversation i had three days earlier— conversation i had three days earlier on— conversation i had three days earlier on 29th march 2018 with jeff aberdeen and another individual or stop i_ aberdeen and another individual or stop i have — aberdeen and another individual or stop i have not seen mr aberdeen's own account of that conversation,

however. — own account of that conversation, however. i— own account of that conversation, however, i obviously know the account — however, i obviously know the account mr salmond has given of the meeting. _ account mr salmond has given of the meeting, although he also said on friday— meeting, although he also said on friday that — meeting, although he also said on friday that he had not been given a of it _ friday that he had not been given a of it let _ friday that he had not been given a of it let me — friday that he had not been given a of it. let me say upfront that i have _ of it. let me say upfront that i have no— of it. let me say upfront that i have no wish to question the sincerity— have no wish to question the sincerity ofjeff's recollection. jeff aberdeen to somebody remain extremely fond of, but it is clear that my— extremely fond of, but it is clear that my recollection is different and that— that my recollection is different and that i— that my recollection is different and that i did not and do not attach the same _ and that i did not and do not attach the same significance to that discussion that he has. the purpose of the _ discussion that he has. the purpose of the conversation seemed to be to persuade _ of the conversation seemed to be to persuade me to meet with alex as soon _ persuade me to meet with alex as soon as— persuade me to meet with alex as soon as possible, which i did agree to do— soon as possible, which i did agree to do in— soon as possible, which i did agree to do in that — soon as possible, which i did agree to do in that conversation. jeff did indicate _ to do in that conversation. jeff did indicate that harassment issue had arisen _ indicate that harassment issue had arisen but — indicate that harassment issue had arisen but my recollection is that he did _ arisen but my recollection is that he did so— arisen but my recollection is that he did so in— arisen but my recollection is that he did so in general terms. since an approach _ he did so in general terms. since an approach of— he did so in general terms. since an approach of sky news in november 2017. _ approach of sky news in november 2017, and _ approach of sky news in november 2017, and i— approach of sky news in november 2017, and i mention this in my written — 2017, and i mention this in my written evidence to the committee, i had harboured a lingering suspicion that such _ had harboured a lingering suspicion that such issues in relation to mr saimond — that such issues in relation to mr salmond might be ahead. hearing of a potential— salmond might be ahead. hearing of a potential issue would not have been in a massive shock. i recall strongly— in a massive shock. i recall strongly about the conversation was

how worried jeff seemed to be about aiex's _ how worried jeff seemed to be about alex's welfare state of mind, which is a friend — alex's welfare state of mind, which is a friend concerned me. he also said alec— is a friend concerned me. he also said alec might be concerning resigning his party membership. it was these — resigning his party membership. it was these factors that led me to agree _ was these factors that led me to agree to — was these factors that led me to agree to meet him and it was these factors— agree to meet him and it was these factors that — agree to meet him and it was these factors that led the meeting in the 2nd of— factors that led the meeting in the 2nd of april firmly in the personal and party— 2nd of april firmly in the personal and party space. not unreasonably, at all. _ and party space. not unreasonably, at all. some — and party space. not unreasonably, at all, some people have asked howl couid _ at all, some people have asked howl could have _ at all, some people have asked howl could have forgotten the conversation of 29th march and i certainly — conversation of 29th march and i certainly wish my memory of it was more _ certainly wish my memory of it was more vivid — certainly wish my memory of it was more vivid. but as i have stated, it was the _ more vivid. but as i have stated, it was the detail of the complaints under— was the detail of the complaints under the — was the detail of the complaints under the procedure that i was given in the _ under the procedure that i was given in the 2nd _ under the procedure that i was given in the 2nd of april that was a significant and indeed shocking. that was— significant and indeed shocking. that was the moment in which any suspicions— that was the moment in which any suspicions i— that was the moment in which any suspicions i had or general awareness that there was a problem became _ awareness that there was a problem became actual and detailed knowledge. it's also worth saying that even— knowledge. it's also worth saying that even if i had known in 29th march _ that even if i had known in 29th march everything i learned in the 2nd of— march everything i learned in the 2nd of april, my actions wouldn't necessarily— 2nd of april, my actions wouldn't necessarily have been different. given _ necessarily have been different. given what i was about the distress alex was _ given what i was about the distress alex was in — given what i was about the distress alex was in and how it was suggested to me _ alex was in and how it was suggested to me that— alex was in and how it was suggested to me that he might be intending to

handle _ to me that he might be intending to handle matters, it is likely that i would _ handle matters, it is likely that i would likely meet him as a friend and as— would likely meet him as a friend and as a — would likely meet him as a friend and as a party leader. and as a set out, _ and as a party leader. and as a set out, my— and as a party leader. and as a set out, my decision not to require the meeting _ out, my decision not to require the meeting on— out, my decision not to require the meeting on the 2nd of april immediately, was not about the classification i gave it, not about it being — classification i gave it, not about it being a — classification i gave it, not about it being a party rather than government meeting, it was because i did not— government meeting, it was because i did not want— government meeting, it was because i did not want to compromise the independence of the confidentiality of the _ independence of the confidentiality of the process under way. all of which, — of the process under way. all of which, this— of the process under way. all of which, this begs the question as to why i_ which, this begs the question as to why i would — which, this begs the question as to why i would go to great lengths to conceal— why i would go to great lengths to conceal a — why i would go to great lengths to conceal a conversation that had taken _ conceal a conversation that had taken place and mere three days earlier — taken place and mere three days earlier let — taken place and mere three days earlier. let me turn out to my decision— earlier. let me turn out to my decision to _ earlier. let me turn out to my decision to not immediately report the contact. sections 4.22 and 4.33 of ministerial code seek to guard against _ of ministerial code seek to guard against undisclosed outside influence and decisions that ministers are involved in and likely to have _ ministers are involved in and likely to have ——... situation, as i saw it was _ to have ——... situation, as i saw it was the _ to have ——... situation, as i saw it was the opposite of that. the terms of the _ was the opposite of that. the terms of the procedure excluded me from

any investigation into a former minister. — any investigation into a former minister. i_ any investigation into a former minister, i had no role in the process— minister, i had no role in the process and should not have even known _ process and should not have even known an — process and should not have even known an investigation was under wav~ _ known an investigation was under wav~ in _ known an investigation was under wav~ in my— known an investigation was under way. in myjudgment, the undue influence — way. in myjudgment, the undue influence the section four is designed to avoid would have been more _ designed to avoid would have been more likely to arise had those conducting the investigation being informed — conducting the investigation being informed that i knew about it. i didn't— informed that i knew about it. i didn't want to take the risk that they— didn't want to take the risk that they might be influenced, even subconsciously, by any assumption of how i_ subconsciously, by any assumption of how i might _ subconsciously, by any assumption of how i might want the matter handled. their ability— how i might want the matter handled. their ability to do the job independently would be best protected by me saying nothing. it's also my— protected by me saying nothing. it's also my reading of the codes that had i_ also my reading of the codes that had i reported it, the fact of my meeting — had i reported it, the fact of my meeting with alex salmond would have to be made _ meeting with alex salmond would have to be made public and potentially breaching confidentiality of the process — breaching confidentiality of the process. it was for those reasons that i_ process. it was for those reasons that i did — process. it was for those reasons that i did not immediately record the 2nd — that i did not immediately record the 2nd of— that i did not immediately record the 2nd of april meeting or the subsequent phone 23rd of april in which _ subsequent phone 23rd of april in which mr— subsequent phone 23rd of april in which mr salmond wants me to tell the permanent secretary that i knew that the _ the permanent secretary that i knew that the investigation and persuade her to— that the investigation and persuade her to agree to mediation. it is worth— her to agree to mediation. it is worth noting that ministerial code places— worth noting that ministerial code places a _ worth noting that ministerial code places a number of obligations on

ministers — places a number of obligations on ministers and respect for the impartiality of civil servants and the confidentiality of government business — the confidentiality of government business are also obligations imposed on me by the code. my judgment — imposed on me by the code. my judgment on that changed when alex salmond _ judgment on that changed when alex salmond made it clear to me that he was seriously considering legal action, — was seriously considering legal action, i— was seriously considering legal action, i felt then that i had no choice — action, i felt then that i had no choice but _ action, i felt then that i had no choice but to inform the permanent secretarv. — choice but to inform the permanent secretary, which i did on the 6th of june 2018~ — secretary, which i did on the 6th of june 2018~ i— secretary, which i did on the 6th of june 2018. i also confirm to her that i_ june 2018. i also confirm to her that i had — june 2018. i also confirm to her that i had no intention of intervening in the process and i did not intervene in the process. mr saimon's— not intervene in the process. mr salmon's anger at me for this, i think. _ salmon's anger at me for this, i think. is— salmon's anger at me for this, i think, is evident, but intervening in a process— think, is evident, but intervening in a process that i was expressly excluded — in a process that i was expressly excluded from and trying on behalf of a close — excluded from and trying on behalf of a close associate to change the course _ of a close associate to change the course that — of a close associate to change the course that it might take, would have _ course that it might take, would have been— course that it might take, would have been an abuse of my role. the committee — have been an abuse of my role. the committee is also rightly interested in the _ committee is also rightly interested in the judicial review and the government has now published legal advice _ government has now published legal advice that informed the decisions we talk _ advice that informed the decisions we taik~ it— advice that informed the decisions we talk. it is clear from that advised _ we talk. it is clear from that advised that while the government had very— advised that while the government had very strong prospects of defending mr fallon's initial challenge, that changed over a two—month period from late october to late _ two—month period from late october to late december. the concerns raised _ to late december. the concerns raised by— to late december. the concerns

raised by counsel caused by emerging evidence _ raised by counsel caused by emerging evidence regarding the role of the investigating officer, undoubtedly cost me _ investigating officer, undoubtedly cost me and others to pause and check— cost me and others to pause and check to— cost me and others to pause and check to see whether we should defend — check to see whether we should defend the case, however, as late as the december the 11th,... defend the case, however, as late as the decemberthe11th,... very defend the case, however, as late as the december the 11th,... very clear no question— the december the 11th,... very clear no question or need to drop the case: _ no question or need to drop the case, the — no question or need to drop the case, the lord advocate was clear that even — case, the lord advocate was clear that even prospects are uncertain it is important that our case is heard and senior— is important that our case is heard and senior counsel made clear that his nose _ and senior counsel made clear that his nose was not intended to convey that he _ his nose was not intended to convey that he didn't think we had a stated case~ _ that he didn't think we had a stated case it— that he didn't think we had a stated case. it concluded that including on the employment of the investigating officer. _ the employment of the investigating officer, and again i am quoting, we have _ officer, and again i am quoting, we have credible arguments to make across _ have credible arguments to make across the — have credible arguments to make across the petition. it was when that changed that a decision was taken _ that changed that a decision was taken to— that changed that a decision was taken to conceit. there is a balance of risk, _ taken to conceit. there is a balance of risk, that— taken to conceit. there is a balance of risk, that risk cannot be eliminated but the task of ministers is to consider carefully all the advice — is to consider carefully all the advice that we receive and consider the broader— advice that we receive and consider the broader public interest. the test to— the broader public interest. the test to ministerial court is not the

view— test to ministerial court is not the view of— test to ministerial court is not the view of external lawyers, but of law officers _ view of external lawyers, but of law officers. finally, and you'll be glad _ officers. finally, and you'll be glad to— officers. finally, and you'll be glad to hear briefly, though i hope to see _ glad to hear briefly, though i hope to see more as we get into questions, i feel i must rebut the absurd _ questions, i feel i must rebut the absurd suggestion that anyone acting with malice or as part of a plot against — with malice or as part of a plot against alex salmond. that claim is not based _ against alex salmond. that claim is not based in any fact. what happened is this— not based in any fact. what happened is this and _ not based in any fact. what happened is this and it — not based in any fact. what happened is this and it is simple. a number ofwomen— is this and it is simple. a number of women made serious complaints about— of women made serious complaints about alex— of women made serious complaints about alex salmond's behaviour. the government, despite the mistake is undoubtedly made, tried to do the i’ili'lt undoubtedly made, tried to do the right thing. as first minister, i refused — right thing. as first minister, i refused to— right thing. as first minister, i refused to follow the age old pattern — refused to follow the age old pattern to allow a powerful man to use his _ pattern to allow a powerful man to use his status and connections to -et use his status and connections to get what — use his status and connections to get what he wants. the police conducted an independent criminal investigation, the crown office, as it does— investigation, the crown office, as it does in— investigation, the crown office, as it does in prosecutions every single day of— it does in prosecutions every single day of the — it does in prosecutions every single day of the week, considered the evidence — day of the week, considered the evidence and decided there was a case to— evidence and decided there was a case to answer. a court and a jury did their—

case to answer. a court and a jury did theirjobs and now this committee and an independent investigation are considering what happened and why. for my part, i am, if not _ happened and why. for my part, i am, if not relishing the prospect, retieved _ if not relishing the prospect, relieved to be finally facing this committee. given all that has brought— committee. given all that has brought us to this moment, being here also— brought us to this moment, being here also makes me really sad and in all that— here also makes me really sad and in all that legitimate consideration of this, sometimes the personaland human— this, sometimes the personaland human elements of the situation are lost. human elements of the situation are lost alex— human elements of the situation are lost. alex spoke on friday about the nightmare _ lost. alex spoke on friday about the nightmare of the last couple of years— nightmare of the last couple of years and — nightmare of the last couple of years and i don't doubt that. i have thought— years and i don't doubt that. i have thought often about the impact on him. thought often about the impact on him he _ thought often about the impact on him. he was someone i cared about for a _ him. he was someone i cared about for a long _ him. he was someone i cared about for a long time. maybe that is why on friday— fora long time. maybe that is why on friday i— for a long time. maybe that is why on friday i found myself searching for any— on friday i found myself searching for any sign, on friday i found myself searching forany sign, any on friday i found myself searching for any sign, any sign at all he recognised how difficult this had been _ recognised how difficult this had been for— recognised how difficult this had been for others also. first and foremost, _ been for others also. first and foremost, for women who believed his behaviour— foremost, for women who believed his behaviour towards them was inappropriate, but also for those of us who— inappropriate, but also for those of us who have campaigned with him,

worked _ us who have campaigned with him, worked with him, cared for him and considering — worked with him, cared for him and considering friend and who now stand unfairly— considering friend and who now stand unfairly accused of plotting against him. unfairly accused of plotting against him he _ unfairly accused of plotting against him. he was acquitted by a jury of criminal— him. he was acquitted by a jury of criminal conduct is beyond question, bevond _ criminal conduct is beyond question, beyond question. but i knowjust from _ beyond question. but i knowjust from what — beyond question. but i knowjust from what he told me that his behaviour— from what he told me that his behaviour was not always appropriate. and yet, across six hours _ appropriate. and yet, across six hours of— appropriate. and yet, across six hours of testimony, there was not a single _ hours of testimony, there was not a single word — hours of testimony, there was not a single word of regret reflection or even _ single word of regret reflection or even simple acknowledgement of that. i can even simple acknowledgement of that. i can only— even simple acknowledgement of that. i can only hope that in private, the reality— i can only hope that in private, the reality might be different. today though _ reality might be different. today though is— reality might be different. today though is about my actions, i have never— though is about my actions, i have never claimed to be infallible and i have searched my soul and all of this many, — have searched my soul and all of this many, many times over. it may very wett— this many, many times over. it may very well be — this many, many times over. it may very well be that i didn't get everything right, that is for others tojudge. — everything right, that is for others tojudge, but in one of the most invidious— tojudge, but in one of the most invidious political and personal situations i have ever say faced, i believe _ situations i have ever say faced, i believe i— situations i have ever say faced, i believe i have acted properly and

appropriately and overall, i made the best— appropriately and overall, i made the bestjudgments i could. anyone, at least _ the bestjudgments i could. anyone, at least anyone willing to listen with an — at least anyone willing to listen with an open mind, that is what i will seek— with an open mind, that is what i will seek to — with an open mind, that is what i will seek to demonstrate today. thank _ will seek to demonstrate today. thank you. we will now go on to questions. our committee and therefore a report is split into various sections and about the development and limitation of policy, in some with the judicial review and of course the ministerial code. we will attempt to chronologically go through that for ease of the session. but there will be crossovers and that is understandable. can i ask the first question please about the new policy that was put in place and ask you to give us an outline of the development process? the give us an outline of the develoment rocess? , , , ., development process? the genesis of the new policy — development process? the genesis of the new policy was — development process? the genesis of

the new policy was of _ development process? the genesis of the new policy was of course - development process? the genesis of the new policy was of course that - development process? the genesis of the new policy was of course that me | the new policy was of course that me two revelations of late 2017, i don't — two revelations of late 2017, i don't need to go into detail around these _ don't need to go into detail around these table, this was something that rocked _ these table, this was something that rocked the _ these table, this was something that rocked the uk and indeed rocked many parts of— rocked the uk and indeed rocked many parts of the _ rocked the uk and indeed rocked many parts of the world and something that began with very serious, historic— that began with very serious, historic allegations about people in the entertainment and media business very quickly— the entertainment and media business very quickly and it became something that gripped the political system here in— that gripped the political system here in the uk. there were allegations about sexual harassment, inciuding _ allegations about sexual harassment, including historic sexual harassment at westminster and then in late october— at westminster and then in late october and i at westminster and then in late octoberand i am at westminster and then in late october and i am sure everyone at this table — october and i am sure everyone at this table vividly remembers this, there _ this table vividly remembers this, there were allegations, i think it was in _ there were allegations, i think it was in the — there were allegations, i think it was in the sunday herald at the time, _ was in the sunday herald at the time, about allegations of sexual harassment in this institution and a concern _ harassment in this institution and a concern that there were not proper processes — concern that there were not proper processes in place to allow those to come _ processes in place to allow those to come forward and the people, women, didn't— come forward and the people, women, didn't have _ come forward and the people, women, didn't have the confidence to bring

complaints forward. as the backdrop, i complaints forward. as the backdrop, i wrote _ complaints forward. as the backdrop, i wrote to _ complaints forward. as the backdrop, i wrote to the presiding officer, i believe — i wrote to the presiding officer, i believe it— i wrote to the presiding officer, i believe it was on the monday after the story— believe it was on the monday after the story to suggest cross—party discussions and they took place the following _ discussions and they took place the following day. the cabinets that morning. — following day. the cabinets that morning, as i believe the uk government was doing or had been doing. _ government was doing or had been doing. had — government was doing or had been doing, had a discussion about this and decided that we should review our processes. we didn't decide what the outcome of that review should be, but _ the outcome of that review should be, but we — the outcome of that review should be, but we decided it was right given— be, but we decided it was right given the — be, but we decided it was right given the concerns that have been raised _ given the concerns that have been raised about lack of processes, or at least _ raised about lack of processes, or at least processes that people had confidence in, that should happen. that was— confidence in, that should happen. that was a — confidence in, that should happen. that was a commission that was given by cabinet _ that was a commission that was given by cabinet to senior civil service, the deputy— by cabinet to senior civil service, the deputy first minister indicated that to _ the deputy first minister indicated that to parliament, i believe that afternoon. — that to parliament, i believe that afternoon, i think it was, i took part— afternoon, i think it was, i took part in— afternoon, i think it was, i took part in discussions in presiding officers — part in discussions in presiding officers here with representatives officers here with representatives of other— officers here with representatives of other parties. i think it's fair to say— of other parties. i think it's fair to say that _ of other parties. i think it's fair to say that other parties were reviewing their processes also and i know _ reviewing their processes also and i

know my _ reviewing their processes also and i know my party was and did. we have heard _ know my party was and did. we have heard evidence i know from senior civil servants were very involved in this work. — civil servants were very involved in this work, they did work in assessment in the gaps and there has been a _ assessment in the gaps and there has been a discussion of a route map that they— been a discussion of a route map that they had prepared, early drafts of the _ that they had prepared, early drafts of the procedure were prepared, the inclusion— of the procedure were prepared, the inclusion of— of the procedure were prepared, the inclusion of former ministers, because — inclusion of former ministers, because one of the gaps that it had been identified was the inability to under— been identified was the inability to under our— been identified was the inability to under our existing processes to investigate or address historic complaints, the inclusion of former ministers _ complaints, the inclusion of former ministers was there from the outset and hadn't _ ministers was there from the outset and hadn't been expressly requested by me _ and hadn't been expressly requested by me or— and hadn't been expressly requested by me or the cabinet, there was something — by me or the cabinet, there was something that was included because it was— something that was included because it was perceived to be a gap. the procedure — it was perceived to be a gap. the procedure then went through an iterative — procedure then went through an iterative process of drafting and redrafting on changes and i think i would _ redrafting on changes and i think i would probably summarise three key policy _ would probably summarise three key policy changes that took place over that period from early november to me signing off the policy on 20th of

december — me signing off the policy on 20th of december. firstly, that current ministers — december. firstly, that current ministers came to be added into this, _ ministers came to be added into this, the — ministers came to be added into this, the view being as i understand this, the view being as i understand this it _ this, the view being as i understand this it made — this, the view being as i understand this it made sense to have all ministers _ this it made sense to have all ministers dealt with in the same pro se procedure. secondly, at a later stage. _ se procedure. secondly, at a later stage, around mid—to—late november, my first— stage, around mid—to—late november, my first minister's role in effectively having a sort of gateway part of— effectively having a sort of gateway part of the process of deciding with the permanent secretary whether an investigation should be triggered, that was— investigation should be triggered, that was removed so that the permanent secretary could decide on her own— permanent secretary could decide on her own and a first minister would have _ her own and a first minister would have no— her own and a first minister would have no role in that decision. given this was— have no role in that decision. given this was a — have no role in that decision. given this was a procedure politicians or former— this was a procedure politicians or former politicians, i thought that was appropriate. then, finally, the change _ was appropriate. then, finally, the change that was made towards the end of the _ change that was made towards the end of the development closer to me signing _ of the development closer to me signing it — of the development closer to me signing it off was that in the case of former— signing it off was that in the case of former ministers are first minister— of former ministers are first minister should not be told about

the investigation or the outcome until the — the investigation or the outcome until the end of the process. i noted — until the end of the process. i noted alex saying on friday that he couldn't _ noted alex saying on friday that he couldn't understand why that was the case for— couldn't understand why that was the case for former ministers are not current— case for former ministers are not current ministers. i have to make test to— current ministers. i have to make test to be — current ministers. i have to make test to be consistent about the former— test to be consistent about the former first minister doesn't understand the distinction. the reason — understand the distinction. the reason my— understand the distinction. the reason my preference would have been that this _ reason my preference would have been that this would be a politician rx politicians, but for current ministers it's important that a first _ ministers it's important that a first minister knows of any concerns that have _ first minister knows of any concerns that have been raised because you have an _ that have been raised because you have an ongoing duty to decide whether— have an ongoing duty to decide whether somebody continues to be fit to hold _ whether somebody continues to be fit to hold office. that is the reason for that — to hold office. that is the reason for that distinction. that is a summary— for that distinction. that is a summary account, but i am happy to id summary account, but i am happy to go into— summary account, but i am happy to go intoany— summary account, but i am happy to go into any detail on any of these access— go into any detail on any of these access that — go into any detail on any of these access that members wish. thank you very much. — access that members wish. thank you very much. i'm _ access that members wish. thank you very much, i'm sure _ access that members wish. thank you very much, i'm sure that _ access that members wish. thank you very much, i'm sure that will - access that members wish. thank you very much, i'm sure that will be - access that members wish. thank you very much, i'm sure that will be the i very much, i'm sure that will be the case. , , ., ., case. first question. good morning, first minister. _ case. first question. good morning, first minister. i— case. first question. good morning, first minister. i wonder _ case. first question. good morning, first minister. i wonder if _ case. first question. good morning, first minister. i wonder if i - case. first question. good morning, first minister. i wonder if i can - first minister. i wonder if i can take _ first minister. i wonder if i can take you — first minister. i wonder if i can take you back— first minister. i wonder if i can take you back to _ first minister. i wonder if i can take you back to when - first minister. i wonder if i can take you back to when the - first minister. i wonder if i can. take you back to when the enquiry was announced _

take you back to when the enquiry was announced and _ take you back to when the enquiry was announced and that _ take you back to when the enquiry was announced and that was - take you back to when the enquiry was announced and that was in . was announced and that was in january— was announced and that was in january 2019 _ was announced and that was in january 2019 and _ was announced and that was in january 2019 and use _ was announced and that was in january 2019 and use it - was announced and that was in january 2019 and use it at - was announced and that was in january 2019 and use it at that| january 2019 and use it at that point — january 2019 and use it at that point that— january 2019 and use it at that point that i_ january 2019 and use it at that point that i will— january 2019 and use it at that point that i will answer- january 2019 and use it at that point that i will answer any. point that i will answer any question— point that i will answer any question to _ point that i will answer any question to the _ point that i will answer any question to the fullest - point that i will answer any. question to the fullest extent possible _ question to the fullest extent possible that _ question to the fullest extent possible that my— question to the fullest extent possible that my government question to the fullest extent - possible that my government will cooperate — possible that my government will cooperate fuiiy _ possible that my government will cooperate fully with _ possible that my government will cooperate fully with all— possible that my government will cooperate fully with all enquiriesl cooperate fully with all enquiries and enquiries— cooperate fully with all enquiries and enquiries will— cooperate fully with all enquiries and enquiries will be _ cooperate fully with all enquiries and enquiries will be able - cooperate fully with all enquiries and enquiries will be able to- and enquiries will be able to request— and enquiries will be able to request whatever— and enquiries will be able to request whatever material l and enquiries will be able to. request whatever material they and enquiries will be able to- request whatever material they want. i request whatever material they want. i undertake _ request whatever material they want. i undertake today _ request whatever material they want. i undertake today that _ request whatever material they want. i undertake today that we _ request whatever material they want. i undertake today that we will- i undertake today that we will provide — i undertake today that we will provide whatever— i undertake today that we will provide whatever material- i undertake today that we will. provide whatever material they reguest~ — provide whatever material they request. why— provide whatever material they request. why didn't _ provide whatever material they request. why didn't that - provide whatever material they - request. why didn't that happen, ? the first _ request. why didn't that happen, ? the first minister? _ request. why didn't that happen, ? the first minister? i— request. why didn't that happen, ? the first minister? i consider- request. why didn't that happen, ? the first minister? i consider thatl the first minister? i consider that that has happened. i conceded at the outset that this committee has been frustrated and not been able to access certain information they wanted to access and i readily acknowledge that. some of that is informational material that is not within the control of the gift of the scottish government and i think i will go into that because the committee noted different categories. the scottish government has made available to this committee

copious amounts of information in terms of written information, documents, written material and of course civil servants and now me today are giving evidence orally. the main issue of difference between the government and the committee, and i recognise this and i recognise the different views that exist as around legal advice. there is a long—standing convention that governments do not release publicly their legal advice and it is not a convention that is in place for no good reason. as a minister or some long—standing now, it is really important for the governance of the country and to ensure that ministers are able to base their decisions on the best advice possible, open and frank advice, but that exists. because otherwise, if you had a situation where legal advice was routinely published, we could fashion our advice with that in mind. it is convention that is important and is notjust one but

the scottish government and years it is one that many governments as i understand it at dear to. that has been the basis for that decision. the lord advocate has said before this committee ensured very openly the decision making process around the decision making process around the judicial review and the factors that were taken into account by the government at different stages of consideration. there was also an agreement and i know the deputy first minister a range of the committee about sharing information privately, but also some information that was allowed to be shared publicly, effectively a summation of the legal advice. we have sought to try within the constraints of that convention to make information available to the committee. i appreciated that committee was not satisfied with that and that coupled with some of the, in my view, completely unfounded allegations that have been made by the basis for decisions that people were taking, in particularly allegations that

were being made around motives and factors in the consideration of judicial review, we decided yesterday to release the legal advice and a substantial legal advice and a substantial legal advice has been released, i think the committee has been told that any other material we can release later. the committee can now look at the opinions that were given to the government, can track the changing prospects as i read out in my initial remarks can see that up until well into december, the view of laufer officers was appropriate and we can to defend the case. as we come to thejudicial and we can to defend the case. as we come to the judicial review later, we were go into more detail as to why that was the case. openness, transparency and accountability is essential for any government to maintain trust. but essential for any government to maintain trust.— essential for any government to maintain trust. �* , , , , maintain trust. but the deputy first minister has — maintain trust. but the deputy first minister has refused _ maintain trust. but the deputy first minister has refused to _ maintain trust. but the deputy first minister has refused to allow- maintain trust. but the deputy first minister has refused to allow the i minister has refused to allow the calculation —

minister has refused to allow the calculation of— minister has refused to allow the calculation of the _ minister has refused to allow the calculation of the costs _ minister has refused to allow the calculation of the costs of- minister has refused to allow the calculation of the costs of the - calculation of the costs of the scottish — calculation of the costs of the scottish government - calculation of the costs of the scottish government legal. calculation of the costs of the - scottish government legal department spent on _ scottish government legal department spent on the _ scottish government legal department spent on the judicial— scottish government legal department spent on the judicial review, _ scottish government legal department spent on the judicial review, that - spent on the judicial review, that is iikeiy— spent on the judicial review, that is likely to — spent on the judicial review, that is likely to bring _ spent on the judicial review, that is likely to bring the _ spent on the judicial review, that is likely to bring the total- spent on the judicial review, that is likely to bring the total cost i is likely to bring the total cost much — is likely to bring the total cost much nearer— is likely to bring the total cost much nearer to _ is likely to bring the total cost much nearer to £1— is likely to bring the total cost much nearer to £1million- is likely to bring the total cost much nearer to £1 million in. is likely to bring the total cost i much nearer to £1 million in the is likely to bring the total cost - much nearer to £1 million in the 500 or 600.000 — much nearer to £1 million in the 500 or 600,000 often— much nearer to £1 million in the 500 or 600,000 often quoted. - much nearer to £1 million in the 500 or 600,000 often quoted. it- much nearer to £1 million in the 500 or 600,000 often quoted. it has. or 600,000 often quoted. it has already— or 600,000 often quoted. it has already been _ or 600,000 often quoted. it has already been explained - or 600,000 often quoted. it has already been explained to - or 600,000 often quoted. it hasl already been explained to release external— already been explained to release external iegai _ already been explained to release external legal advice _ already been explained to release external legal advice that - already been explained to release external legal advice that it - already been explained to release external legal advice that it was . external legal advice that it was clear— external legal advice that it was clear lee — external legal advice that it was clear lee in _ external legal advice that it was clear lee in the _ external legal advice that it was clear lee in the public- external legal advice that it was clear lee in the public interest i external legal advice that it was. clear lee in the public interest to do and _ clear lee in the public interest to do and only— clear lee in the public interest to do and only did _ clear lee in the public interest to do and only did so _ clear lee in the public interest to do and only did so as _ clear lee in the public interest to do and only did so as late - clear lee in the public interest to do and only did so as late as - do and only did so as late as yesterday— do and only did so as late as yesterday when _ do and only did so as late as yesterday when he - do and only did so as late as yesterday when he faced - do and only did so as late as yesterday when he faced a l do and only did so as late as i yesterday when he faced a vote do and only did so as late as - yesterday when he faced a vote of no confidence _ yesterday when he faced a vote of no confidence but— yesterday when he faced a vote of no confidence. but most— yesterday when he faced a vote of no confidence. but most frustrating - yesterday when he faced a vote of no confidence. but most frustrating for. confidence. but most frustrating for this committee _ confidence. but most frustrating for this committee has— confidence. but most frustrating for this committee has been— confidence. but most frustrating for this committee has been the - confidence. but most frustrating for this committee has been the fact i this committee has been the fact that despite _ this committee has been the fact that despite us— this committee has been the fact that despite us meeting - this committee has been the fact that despite us meeting two i this committee has been the fact l that despite us meeting two years, why we _ that despite us meeting two years, why we could — that despite us meeting two years, why we could meet _ that despite us meeting two years, why we could meet in _ that despite us meeting two years, why we could meet in public- that despite us meeting two years, why we could meet in public we i that despite us meeting two years, j why we could meet in public we did all the _ why we could meet in public we did all the groundwork— why we could meet in public we did all the groundwork in _ why we could meet in public we did all the groundwork in private - why we could meet in public we did all the groundwork in private to i all the groundwork in private to ensure — all the groundwork in private to ensure that _ all the groundwork in private to ensure that when _ all the groundwork in private to ensure that when we _ all the groundwork in private to ensure that when we did - all the groundwork in private to ensure that when we did meetl all the groundwork in private to i ensure that when we did meet last year in _ ensure that when we did meet last year in the — ensure that when we did meet last year in the summer, _ ensure that when we did meet last year in the summer, the _ ensure that when we did meet last i year in the summer, the government knew— year in the summer, the government knew exactiy — year in the summer, the government knew exactiy the _ year in the summer, the government knew exactly the information - year in the summer, the government knew exactly the information we i knew exactly the information we needed — knew exactly the information we needed required _ knew exactly the information we needed required and _ knew exactly the information we needed required and had - knew exactly the information we | needed required and had already provided — needed required and had already provided some _ needed required and had already provided some of— needed required and had already provided some of it. _ needed required and had already provided some of it. despite i needed required and had alreadyl provided some of it. despite this, in december— provided some of it. despite this, in december20_ provided some of it. despite this, in december 20 20, _

provided some of it. despite this, in december 20 20,20 _ provided some of it. despite this, in december 20 20,20 3rd - provided some of it. despite this, in december 20 20, 20 3rd of- in december 20 20,20 3rd of december, _ in december 20 20, 20 3rd of december, 288— in december 20 20, 20 3rd of december, 288 complaint- in december 20 20,20 3rd of- december, 288 complaint handling documents — december, 288 complaint handling documents were _ december, 288 complaint handling documents were sent _ december, 288 complaint handling documents were sent to _ december, 288 complaint handling documents were sent to this - documents were sent to this committee. _ documents were sent to this committee, and _ documents were sent to this committee, and asked - documents were sent to this committee, and asked for. documents were sent to this committee, and asked for at documents were sent to this i committee, and asked for at least six months — committee, and asked for at least six months before. _ committee, and asked for at least six months before. they- committee, and asked for at least six months before. they were i six months before. they were generally— six months before. they were generally faced _ six months before. they were generally faced with - six months before. they were generally faced with delays, l generally faced with delays, obstruction— generally faced with delays, obstruction obfuscation i generally faced with delays, obstruction obfuscation and | generally faced with delays, i obstruction obfuscation and still not received _ obstruction obfuscation and still not received some _ obstruction obfuscation and still not received some information. obstruction obfuscation and still. not received some information that is crucial— not received some information that is crucial to — not received some information that is crucial to it — not received some information that is crucial to it how— not received some information that is crucial to it how and _ not received some information that is crucial to it how and to _ not received some information that is crucial to it how and to our- is crucial to it how and to our enquiry _ is crucial to it how and to our enquiry. acceptable - is crucial to it how and to our enquiry. acceptable first i is crucial to it how and to our- enquiry. acceptable first minister? in enquiry. acceptable first minister? in the _ enquiry. acceptable first minister? in the terms— enquiry. acceptable first minister? in the terms you _ enquiry. acceptable first minister? in the terms you have _ enquiry. acceptable first minister? in the terms you have put - enquiry. acceptable first minister? in the terms you have put it, - in the terms you have put it, clearly it would not be acceptable but you would not be surprised to hear that while i understand the frustration and i will come in to perhaps share some of that frustration, i would not accept the characterisation. i and frustration, i would not accept the characterisation. land i frustration, i would not accept the characterisation. i and i will say this as a statement of fact, it is not in any way meant to say that i am not going to attempt to answer the question, i at the outset of this investigation and members are aware of this, i accused —— excused myself of government handling of it because i put i was appropriate given that i on the subject of at least in part the subject of the

investigation. the government has made available substantial amounts of written and oral evidence. i am substantial amounts of written and oral evidence. iam not substantial amounts of written and oral evidence. i am not aware of what you have a serving tea that is within the government's control that you still feel that we haven't handed over if that is... it has not already been made known to the government, if it can be, i am sure there will be attempts made to rectify that. within the constraints that we operate within, i have already talked about the position with legal advice but of course there are also court orders in place here and there that they are very elaborate and substantial processes that the government has through to the lease information in line with all its legal obligations and i know the committee understands that because the committee has often had to go through that as well. there are other elements of information which it has been claimed that the committee hasn't had when it should have done and that is for the

committee to address but they are not within the control of the government. obviously, there is material which is restricted in terms of what can be published. i'm not sure it is restricted in terms of what the committee can consider because of a contempt of court order and there is the mass of information that was handed over in the course of a criminal trial and they know the committee has had extensive deliberations with other witnesses about that but there is no intention on the part of the government. when you say these things to me as first minister i have got to take that seriously but there is no intention on the part of the government to withhold relevant information on this committee. the final point i would make here which is part of whether i would share some of the frustration. as you know and as i should say, i understand why this is the case and it's not intended to be in case there was any suggestion why it is a criticism of the committee, i have waited a long, long time to be sitting here myself while allegations and claims have been swirling around about me without me

having the ability to address them and as information that has been claimed was devastating to the government's position and proved all sorts of things has come to light, including information that this committee has seen, it has proved to be nothing of the sort, and therefore, i suppose, be nothing of the sort, and therefore, isuppose, there be nothing of the sort, and therefore, i suppose, there is also frustration on my part where information is not known to the committee often what is suggested about it bears very little relation to the reality of it and, therefore, what i would say is the more about this within all the legal constraints that none of us can magic away, i want as much of this to be known, out there than public, because while the government made mistakes and we will come under those, there is nothing here that the government has to hide. you mention first _ the government has to hide. you mention first minister that you have been frustrated waiting two years to give evidence. most of us have been in exactly the same position and

more frustrated because the delay has been fairly and squarely because the government hasn't provided the information it could have had when it had. but let me turn to your submission. you say, as first minister i wanted to ensure that the scottish government had robust procedures in place to allow any concerns of complaints by those in its employment to be properly and fairly considered. that hasn't happened, first minister. why do you think that's the case? it happened, first minister. why do you think that's the case?— think that's the case? it didn't ha en think that's the case? it didn't happen in _ think that's the case? it didn't happen in the _ think that's the case? it didn't happen in the case _ think that's the case? it didn't happen in the case of- think that's the case? it didn't happen in the case of the i think that's the case? it didn't happen in the case of the two| happen in the case of the two complaints that we are considering here because the government made a mistake. and, a very serious mistake, in how it applied the procedure to the investigation into alex salmond and, as i said, in parliament thejudicial alex salmond and, as i said, in parliament the judicial review was conceded and they have said today

that i deeply regret that. those words don't do justice to how i feel about that. i feel sorry for it, i feel very angry about it, and i am not going to try and suggest otherwise. that is what went wrong. the procedure itself and, again, we will come back to this, no doubt when we talk about the judicial review, one of the reasons why even when the prospects were not as strong as they had been at the outset, the government wanted to continue with the judicial review was that a number of attacks, legal attacks and challenges had been made on the procedure itself, on the lawfulness and appropriateness of the procedure. we thought and think that the procedure is lawful and sound. the procedure itself has never been declared unlawful despite what mr salmond was trying to suggest to you on friday and we want to, given the challenges that had been directed to the procedure, we wanted to find out through a court

process whether they were justified or not because this was, you on friday and we want to, given the challenges that had been directed to the procedure, we wanted to find out through a court process whether they were justified operation and through a court process whether they werejustified operation and is still in operation so that anybody who had complaints against first ministers of former ministers could, if they intended to, use it. so there was a public and legitimate interest in determining whether any of these fundamental challenges to its essential funds were justified. now, you heard alex rae on friday that his legal advice said he had really good prospects. you have seen how the initial note on prospects from the scottish government —— you have heard alex say on friday. the scottish government was confident it could have all of these challenges. we don't know who would have prevailed on that

because the judicial review, entirely down to the to the mistake the government made in the application of the procedure, it didn't get to that stage. but what went wrong and you will not get me today in any way trying to sugar—coat and shy away from this, the government made a serious error around the appointment of the investigating officer and that is something that this committee as well as... is carrying out an internal investigation for the government. i internal investigation for the government.— internal investigation for the government. . ., ., government. i really comment that to the first of this _ government. i really comment that to the first of this is _ government. i really comment that to the first of this is a _ government. i really comment that to the first of this is a mistake _ government. i really comment that to the first of this is a mistake also i the first of this is a mistake also service ever is somewhat disingenuous. —— to refer to this as a mistake. thejudicial review made it quite clear that the process was unlawful and that it was tainted with bias but that is for this to go into. just to concentrate now on your role as deputy first minister under fairness to work. in your submission, you said i had no general concerns from 2000 and 2014.

when, you as first minister had a key role in that procedure then can you outline just exactly what that involved and if it ever occur to you then that's the very high bar that was put in place in 2010 when the new fairness to work came into operation, that in order to make a formal complaint to the complainant had to put that in writing, and we know that these complaints, given the timescale, were against snp ministers. that is a very high bar, first minister, given that someone so powerful, given that it affects, potentially, career prospects. did it ever occur to you that that wasn't the best way to encourage people to come forward and to have their complaints are resolved? . their complaints are resolved? , firstly before i answer that, genuinely, i am firstly before i answer that, genuinely, iam not firstly before i answer that, genuinely, i am not seeking to be

disingenuous in my description of the ever. ever, mistake, if there is a better word i am happy to use it. i am not defending it. a better word i am happy to use it. iam not defending it. i a better word i am happy to use it. i am not defending it. i am deeply regretful, deeply angry, and will always feel incredibly bad for principally the two women who were let down because of that and also because of the wider implications in terms of cost to the taxpayer, so i apologise if i am not using vocabulary that properly gets that a cross, but i hope you will take at face value that i am not trying to underplay that in any way, shape or form, and, just to complete the point, the procedure itself and i recognise that it is a long time since i practised law and i do recognise the interchangeability of terminology sometimes confuses the situation. the procedure itself has not been declared unlawful. had the judicial review proceeded maybe

would have been. we were confident it wouldn't be but we do not know that because the judicial review didn't proceed. the application of it, which is perhaps what people talk about when they say the process was flawed and the terminology is used tainted by apparent bias is exactly what the court said through its interlocutor but that distinction between the lawfulness of the process and the flow of the application of it i think is one thatis application of it i think is one that is important to bear in mind. onfairness at that is important to bear in mind. on fairness at work, i heard alec talk about the length of time it had taken to develop that policy. i had, i suppose, taken to develop that policy. i had, isuppose, a... of taken to develop that policy. i had, i suppose, a... of my own, i taken to develop that policy. i had, isuppose, a... of my own, i heard him suggest how involved he would have been in that. i have to say, not my memory of the situation but i will not let that set anyone off at a tangent. it was developed with a loss of input and i, i am not going to sit here i and pretend i was

intimately involved in any aspect of the development of that policy, i don't remember that being the case, but it was developed over a period of time with input from trade unions and others. nothing was formally brought to me under the role of the deputy first minister which back then was me under that and i think you have heard evidence to that effect from others. did i, and this probably is something i would reflection myself, did i spend that much time thinking about whether fairness at work was fit for purpose back then? know, i didn't, and maybe i should have done. that is perhaps one of the lessons i have to learn out of this. but it was because, if we go back to october, late october 2017 in the wake of #metoo, it was a general sense that people didn't think of and processes were fit to for purpose that led us to review

these processes and one of the things that i think led to a distinctive stand—alone procedure was exactly what you are saying. there is a lot of focus at work on informal resolution and mediation and perhaps the bar is too high in of when things get too complaints and also perhaps that kind of approach is not entirely appropriate when you are dealing with sexual harassment allegations. —— when things get too formal complaints. i don't have it in front of me right now but i think fairness at work sites the in which one of the circumstances in which mediation is not appropriate is where there a significant power imbalance. i'm not going to sit here and say that i think everything at fairness at work is perfect but it was developed with a loss of input from trade unions and it is a policy that remains in place. and it is a policy that remains in lace. �* and it is a policy that remains in lace,�* ,. .,, and it is a policy that remains in lace.�* ,. ., , ., place. i'm conscious of time but all

i would place. i'm conscious of time but all i would save. _ place. i'm conscious of time but all i would save, first _ place. i'm conscious of time but all i would save, first minister, i place. i'm conscious of time but all i would save, first minister, was i i would save, first minister, was entirely in your remit as a deputy first minister to look at these complaints in the informal stage and were you aware that there had been complaints raised? all, predominantly, from females and you are certainly always set yourself up as someone who was a champion for women's issues, and yet she you didn�*t women's issues, and yet she you didn't pay that much attention to them. i didn't pay that much attention to them. . . didn't pay that much attention to them. ., , ., didn't pay that much attention to them. .,, ., ., didn't pay that much attention to them. ., ., ., ., ~ them. iwas not, and again, ithink ou have them. iwas not, and again, ithink you have heard _ them. iwas not, and again, ithink you have heard evidence _ them. iwas not, and again, ithink you have heard evidence from i them. iwas not, and again, ithink. you have heard evidence from others, i was not aware and i will come onto when i did become aware of things but before the november 2017 media query that came from sky news about... which i'm sure we will come until later, i was not aware of allegations or concerns about sexually inappropriate behaviour on the part of alex salmond and that is just... the part of alex salmond and that is 'ust. .. . . ,

the part of alex salmond and that is 'ust. .. , . , .,, the part of alex salmond and that is 'ust. .. , ., , ., , ,, just... generally, it was five snp ministers and, _ just... generally, it was five snp ministers and, can _ just. .. generally, it was five snp ministers and, can i _ just... generally, it was five snp ministers and, can i remind i just... generally, it was five snp ministers and, can i remind you, j ministers and, can i remind you, alex salmond is a key witness to this enquiry. he is not under trial, your actions are, and if you could focus on that that would be much appreciated. my focus on that that would be much appreciated-— appreciated. my apologies, iwas sa in: i appreciated. my apologies, iwas saying i hadn't— appreciated. my apologies, iwas saying i hadn't heard _ appreciated. my apologies, iwas saying i hadn't heard anything i appreciated. my apologies, iwas saying i hadn't heard anything so j appreciated. my apologies, i wasl saying i hadn't heard anything so i wasn't immune on trial for that. forgive me, miss mitchell, i don't know exactly what you are referring to in terms of five snp ministers so if that is something i could be given in more detail is i would be happy to respond to but i do not know right now what you are referring to. nothing came to me as deputy first minister under the fairness at work policy in terms of the role that the deputy first minister had and still has. in terms of more general concerns about sexual not relating to any one individual have i for my entire working life been aware of problems of sexual harassment and sexism and misogyny, you bet i have, but to say that means that things were brought

to me or that there were things i could have acted upon back then that i didn�*t, could have acted upon back then that i didn't, that is not the same thing. i didn't, that is not the same thin. , . i didn't, that is not the same thin. , , ., . i didn't, that is not the same thin. , ., . i didn't, that is not the same thin. ., . thing. just for reference, could you rive the thing. just for reference, could you give the referenced _ thing. just for reference, could you give the referenced comes - thing. just for reference, could you give the referenced comes from. . thing. just for reference, could you give the referenced comes from. i | give the referenced comes from. i willjust give the referenced comes from. i will just say, give the referenced comes from. i willjust say, in reflecting back to, this is the fda, in reflecting back the last ten years we are aware of approaches on behalf of around 30 members in relation to at least five ministerial offices so that was five snp ministerial offices. you are happy to look at that and i'm glad to pass it over.— happy to look at that and i'm glad to pass it over. now you have given the reference _ to pass it over. now you have given the reference i _ to pass it over. now you have given the reference i apologise _ to pass it over. now you have given the reference i apologise i- to pass it over. now you have given the reference i apologise i have i to pass it over. now you have given the reference i apologise i have not been able to watch all the evidence that was given to the committee, i tried to read as much as i could before coming here today so i recognise now that the reference that you were talking to me about. these were not things that were brought to me at the time under fairness at work so that means there is not much beyond what i have

already said that i can usefully say on these matters. if you're asking me does that concern me, of course, i don't want to be in a position, i would not have back then and i certainly don't now, where people in government feel they have any need formally or informally to complain about behaviours in ministerial offices. ~ ., ., , ., offices. we will go on, please, to maureen maud. _ offices. we will go on, please, to maureen maud. thank _ offices. we will go on, please, to maureen maud. thank you. i i offices. we will go on, please, to i maureen maud. thank you. i would like to focus _ maureen maud. thank you. i would like to focus on _ maureen maud. thank you. i would like to focus on the _ maureen maud. thank you. i would like to focus on the creation - maureen maud. thank you. i would like to focus on the creation of- maureen maud. thank you. i would like to focus on the creation of the | like to focus on the creation of the new procedure in the light of the me too movement. when he gave evidence, mr salmond questioned whether there was any need to create a new procedure and instead of he questioned why fairness at work wasn't simply edited to strengthen the criteria to include sexual harassment. why did the government take the decision to create a new procedure rather than tinker with the old one? figs procedure rather than tinker with the old one?—

the old one? as i heard alex's evidence _ the old one? as i heard alex's evidence on _ the old one? as i heard alex's evidence on friday _ the old one? as i heard alex's evidence on friday and - the old one? as i heard alex's evidence on friday and i i the old one? as i heard alex's evidence on friday and i may i the old one? as i heard alex's i evidence on friday and i may be being unfairto him evidence on friday and i may be being unfair to him here he seemed to be saying that he didn't think there should be a procedure in place that was capable of investigating him because he didn't think that they should have been or if there had been a procedure about a allowed historic allegations it should have taken 18 months to put in place and thatis taken 18 months to put in place and that is what struck me in terms of that is what struck me in terms of that section of his evidence that his view was notjust that section of his evidence that his view was not just that the complaints against him shouldn't have been investigated but that it should have been impossible to investigate them because they should have been no procedure that allowed it to happen. ifundamentally disagree with that and i know the community pursued this line of questioning and has with others. this parliament, in fact, i think it comes to stage three sometime over the next few days, is changing its procedures to allow historic complaints against msps to be investigated. why did we decide to... well, firstly, in light of me

too the cabinet took a decision on the 31st of october to review its procedures. it didn't take that decision with a preconceived notion of what the outcome of that review should be. we gave the civil service and open commission to review procedures. i think, and open commission to review procedures. ithink, given... i know we are talking about this with the passage of sometime but given the profile of the me too revelations, given how much attention organisations the world over were doing this at that time, would have been notjust remiss of us not to do it, i am been notjust remiss of us not to do it, iam pretty been notjust remiss of us not to do it, i am pretty sure it would have attracted substantial criticism haven't to be done that, so that is the first point, —— substantial criticism had we not done that. secondly, as the gaps and weaknesses in carving procedures were identified with the view was that stand—alone processes that allowed current for men ministers and allowed expressly historic allegations to be investigated was appropriate —— current orformer

ministers. keeping some of the points magnet mitchell made to me about the setting of the bar in the fairness of work and some of the focus in fairness at work on informal resolution and mediation i think was also part of a question about whether that was appropriate for the kind of complaints that we were trying to put in place to deal with. —— margaret mitchell. yes. with. -- margaret mitchell. yes, much has _ with. -- margaret mitchell. yes, much has been _ with. -- margaret mitchell. yes, much has been made _ with. -- margaret mitchell. yes, much has been made about i with. —— margaret mitchell. yes, much has been made about the time difference of fairness at work being designed over 18 months or so of the relative shortness of time in the new policy. was not something you wanted to happen all you want it done very quickly?— wanted to happen all you want it done very quickly? again, i will go back to the _ done very quickly? again, i will go back to the climate _ done very quickly? again, i will go back to the climate at _ done very quickly? again, i will go back to the climate at the - done very quickly? again, i will go back to the climate at the time i done very quickly? again, i will go| back to the climate at the time and the, for want of a better expression, the consensus of opinion that there was a big problem here

notjust in the uk but globally about an inability for women who felt they had experienced sexual harassment to come forward, a lack of confidence on their part coming forward and part of those concerns was a perception that it was particularly difficult to investigate allegations of historic harassment, so, yes, we felt we had a big problem, notjust us, but we had to contend with and address the problem that people felt was a serious one, so if you said to me back then, if the permanent secretary or, you know, the senior civil servants who were tasked with the drafting of this procedure, and they come to me then which she didn�*t, they come to me then which she didn't, so i'm speculating there, if they had come to me then and said first minister, this is going to take 18 months, i would have said get out of here and do it more quickly than that and because that

is not acceptable length of time and this is a serious problem we want to do address. that is something we wanted to quickly, not cutting any corners, there was trade union agreement as you have heard and in fact before i signed it off in december i had made sure that the trade unions had been involved so it wasn't a policy that there wasn't a lot of consideration too, there was, but it was a policy that we wanted to have in place sooner rather than later. �* ., , , to have in place sooner rather than later. �* . , , ., later. and under the fairness at work procedure _ later. and under the fairness at work procedure mediation i later. and under the fairness at work procedure mediation is i later. and under the fairness at work procedure mediation is anj work procedure mediation is an option available in the cases of complaints against current ministers, so why is that the difference between mediation available to comment ministers but not in relation to former ministers, do you think? —— two current ministers. do you think? -- two current ministers-— do you think? -- two current ministers. ~ . ,, ., ., ,, ministers. well, fairness at work only applies _ ministers. well, fairness at work only applies to — ministers. well, fairness at work only applies to current _ ministers. well, fairness at workl only applies to current ministers? mediation is another option there. there is an open question which people will have different views on

about whether mediation is always an appropriate procedure in cases of sexual harassment in cases where there is a significant power imbalance. i also think to be a reasonable process that has to be consent to the sum both sides but there isn't a distinction between current and former ministers in fairness, it fairness at work because fairness at work applies only to current ministers. in terms of the procedure which applies only to former ministers there is not an express mediation provision in the procedure for comment ministers. there is a reference, i think, from memory i am sure this will be noted if i am quoting the long paragraph here, i think from memory paragraph six has a reference to seeing whether there is any prospect of resolving things, which is not in parts of the procedure for former ministers but that is not an express mediation provision and, why is there that in one and not the other?

i am not sure i can fully answer that entities may be something that as we review all of this —— and it is maybe something that as we review all of this we will think further about. i suppose if i'm to offer any it is within it current minister you are more likely to be talking about people who are still working together and may there is an opportunity to resolve something because it has genuinely been an misunderstanding then that is a provision that should be there. with a former minister who is no longer in the workplace then perhaps then thatis in the workplace then perhaps then that is not appropriate but that is something we may need to think about as we complete these reviews, or that review. it as we complete these reviews, or that review— that review. it is clear from our evidence that _ that review. it is clear from our evidence that prior— that review. it is clear from our evidence that prior to - that review. it is clear from our evidence that prior to the i evidence that prior to the introduction of the siege of complaints were sometimes handled informally. for example, we heard from dave penman of the civil servants union that he talks about

concerns about instances being handled informally, for example staff who had moved on so that they wouldn't have to work with the minister or the person that they complained about. do you think that was, orsometimes complained about. do you think that was, or sometimes people could give an apology. do you think that that was a satisfactory way of dealing with complaints or concerns? 50. l with complaints or concerns? so, i think i with complaints or concerns? so, i think i would _ with complaints or concerns? so, i think i would answer— with complaints or concerns? so, i think i would answer that - with complaints or concerns? so, i think i would answer that two i with complaints or concerns? so, i think i would answer that two ways. sometimes that will be a satisfactory way of dealing with a particular complaint because it will be satisfactory to the person who is complaining because they would prefer to have it dealt with informally and an apology would suffice so i don't think it is never appropriate for that to be an approach which is taken by the second point goes back to margaret mitchell's question steamy and the fact that margaret mitchell is reading evidence to me that says the word complaints all, sorry, concerns from trade unions about a number of

ministerial offices and, at the time, as deputy first minister who had a role in fairness at work that never came to me so that does raise a question on my mind, to use margaret's terminology, is the bar set too high or is there an over reliance on informal resolution? or is it the case, and i am posting this is a question rather than a fixed view but it is certainly a question in my mind, is there was there an over reliance on informal procedures so that certain things which perhaps should have become more formalised and dealt with in a different way were not anything that is a legitimate question to be asked of the government and i certainly think it is a legitimate one for us to reflect on.— to reflect on. can you tell as if this policy _ to reflect on. can you tell as if this policy or _ to reflect on. can you tell as if this policy or procedure i to reflect on. can you tell as if this policy or procedure was i this policy or procedure was discussed at cabinet and how often, you know, giving the iteration of the process of growing up with me procedure wasn't discussed at cabinet? —— drawing up this new procedure was it discussed at

cabinet? i procedure was it discussed at cabinet? ., ., . a procedure was it discussed at cabinet? ., ., . ., cabinet? i will have to check how many times. _ cabinet? i will have to check how many times. if— cabinet? i will have to check how many times, if at _ cabinet? i will have to check how many times, if at all, _ cabinet? i will have to check how many times, if at all, it - cabinet? i will have to check how many times, if at all, it was. i cabinet? i will have to check how many times, if at all, it was. we | many times, if at all, it was. we have things which you will be aware of at cabinet called... , things that ministers have to bring, it doesn't have a full cabinet paper but maybe it was raised under that. the permanent secretary kept me updated in terms of how the development of the policy procedure was progressing. i think the first draft of it i got sent was towards the end of november and i... at that point, i think that was at the point where the role of the first minister had effectively been a bit of a gatekeeper where the permanent secretary's complaints had been removed. i had before that, the 22nd of november, i had formally written to the permanent secretary because there was a view that given notjust former ministers but current ministers had been included in the

interrelationship which that then created with the ministerial code meant that there should be express ministerial authority for the procedure being developed in that way and then, of course, i ultimately send it ultimately sounded off on the 20th of december. —— | sounded off on the 20th of december. —— i ultimately signed it off on the 20th of december. by, -- i ultimately signed it off on the 20th of december.— 20th of december. a couple more questions. — 20th of december. a couple more questions, convener. _ 20th of december. a couple more questions, convener. at _ 20th of december. a couple more questions, convener. at the i 20th of december. a couple more questions, convener. at the time | 20th of december. a couple more i questions, convener. at the time of the development of the new procedure were you aware of any questions being raised about behaviour of any current or former minister? that being raised about behaviour of any current or former minister?- current or former minister? at the time we commissioned _ current or former minister? at the time we commissioned it - current or former minister? at the time we commissioned it on i current or former minister? at the time we commissioned it on the l current or former minister? at the l time we commissioned it on the 31st time we commissioned it on the sist of october, no. as he said time we commissioned it on the 31st of october, no. as he said in my written evidence and... i became aware through a media enquiry about an allegation about a former first minister some days after that at the start of november. did minister some days after that at the start of november.— start of november. did that influence — start of november. did that influence the _ start of november. did that influence the way _ start of november. did that influence the way that - start of november. did that influence the way that he i start of november. did that. influence the way that he looks start of november. did that - influence the way that he looks at the procedure? —— the way that you looked at the procedure? mo.

the procedure? -- the way that you looked at the procedure? no. sorry, my apologies- _ looked at the procedure? no. sorry, my apologies- — looked at the procedure? no. sorry, my apologies. i— looked at the procedure? no. sorry, my apologies. iwill— looked at the procedure? no. sorry, my apologies. i will come - looked at the procedure? no. sorry, my apologies. i will come onto i my apologies. i will come onto parliament in a but i was definitely too quick sense of their because thatis too quick sense of their because that is one of the suggestions that has been made that this policy was somehow a bespoke alex salmond policy and even in the days where we were best these, you know, alex salmond has a tendency to see most things being in some way about him and i hope he takes that in the spirit it is intended, but it wasn't, no. wasn't and i think to see it in that way really ignores what was happening globally at that time. this was about the me too revelations. you ask did the sky thing then influence my views on it? no, it didn't. i think the danger, and, you know, i cannot say there

was no subconscious, kind of, thing in my mind about that, but the danger i think then would have been had i started to... to influence the development of this policy in a way that somehow protected him. you know, if i had taken my red pen or black pen as it is just now and gone like that with former ministers because i had this, you know, this guy thing had put a lingering suspicion in my mind then i think i would legitimately be sitting here right now getting a lot of criticism. —— this sky thing. the criticism. -- this sky thing. the oli criticism. -- this sky thing. the policy was _ criticism. -- this sky thing. the policy was not _ criticism. -- this sky thing. the policy was not put _ criticism. —— this sky thing. the policy was not put in place at four alex salmond. i policy was not put in place at four alex salmond.— policy was not put in place at four alex salmond. i did not do that. nor did i allow any _ alex salmond. i did not do that. nor did i allow any influence _ alex salmond. i did not do that. nor did i allow any influence or - did i allow any influence or considerations about alex salmond to change what i did about that. just a auestion change what i did about that. just a question about _ change what i did about that. just a question about whether _ change what i did about that. just a question about whether they - change what i did about that. just a question about whether they should have been debated in parliament? i

think there would have been the answer at the time. now i don't know what would have happened had it been debated in parliament. to the best of my knowledge and recollection, and i will be collected on this if i am wrong, i don't think fairness at work was ever debated in parliament, these are hr policies and the procedure was fundamentally nhl policy and i don't think it would have been appropriate for it to be debated in parliament. similarly, you know, in a way that obviously parliament is legislating in terms of the situation of investigating former msps and that is because of the legislative underpinning of the standards process. the idea that you would have legislated for a government hr process or even debated us in parliament i think of something very or even debated it in parliament i think is very different.