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. you said you had no concerns about alleged behaviour, one of the civil servants whose complaint ended up in the court in five said to the journalist, if i had complained, it would have been swept under the carpet and i would have suffered my career. i never saw anyone in a senior position in the scottish government tackled the first minister and his behaviour. you reflected a moment ago about whether it might have been better had you been more aware about the concerns expressed about five ministerial officers. is the fact that civil servants in the scottish government have had concerns, and may indeed can currently have concerns, something that you will take more seriously in the aftermath of all

this? , , ., , , seriously in the aftermath of all this? , , .,, , w, this? yes, but i hope it is the case that i have — this? yes, but i hope it is the case that i have taken _ this? yes, but i hope it is the case that i have taken it _ this? yes, but i hope it is the case that i have taken it seriously - that i have taken it seriously previously. i made a comment and remarks about soul—searching on this and these are aspects that i have deeply thought about in the wake of this and i want to try and briefly, because i know time is marching on, but i want to try and unpack your question a little bit. i did not know, i know no there was an incident that alex salmond apologised to someone for back in 2013. i did not know that at the time. i did not know of any concerns about alex salmond's sexual behaviour back then. i alleged, i am not... . , , behaviour back then. i alleged, i am not... , not... please be careful with your words, not... please be careful with your words. first _ not... please be careful with your

words, first minister. _ not. .. please be careful with your words, first minister. i— not... please be careful with your words, first minister. i did - not... please be careful with your words, first minister. i did not i words, first minister. i did not hear concerns _ words, first minister. i did not hear concerns about _ words, first minister. i did not hear concerns about that - words, first minister. i did not hear concerns about that back| words, first minister. i did not - hear concerns about that back then. part of me wishes i had, if there had been concerns i'm not sure they would have been well founded, but i didn't. if you're asking me, and i think i refer to this briefly in my written submission, alex, like many people can be, and i'm not particularly singling him out other than that this is the basis of the question, he was a tough guy to work for. he could be very challenging to work for. if he was displeased with you, he would make that pretty obvious and there were times where i did challenge his behaviour in that respect, when i witnessed situations where i thought he had or was perhaps risking crossing a line. one of the things i have thought about is whether those of us who had worked very closely with alex for a very long time had become a bit in

your that kind of behaviour and i'm talking about that and not anything allegedly sexual and weather we had allegedly sexual and weather we had a higher threshold for that and perhaps people in government in 2007 had. is there something i think about and thought about? yes. do i want to have a situation where anybody inside government who feels that they are being unfairly treated by any minister on any basis and in any way feels that they have the confidence to come forward and that their concerns will be treated seriously? absolutely. and i will continue to try to do what i can to make sure that is the case. thanks. can i ask a — make sure that is the case. thanks. can i ask a basic _ make sure that is the case. thanks. can i ask a basic question? - make sure that is the case. thanks. can i ask a basic question? you - make sure that is the case. thanks. can i ask a basic question? you say| can i ask a basic question? you say in your written evidence, for example, that you recognised that organisations too often closed ranks around men accused of inappropriate behaviour and it can be to particularly difficult for courts historic allegations to be raised. you mentioned historic allegations a

number of times. can you be clear about what you mean by historic allegations? because in a pedantic meaning all allegations are something that can happen in the past. what do you mean by that? it’s past. what do you mean by that? it's often past. what do you mean by that? it�*s often the basic questions are often the hardest to answer. i am not entirely sure i'm going to give you “p entirely sure i'm going to give you up technical answer to this, because it's a good question that i possibly haven't thought about enough. i suppose what i mean, thinking about it, in the moment is that you have people, and in the context of sexual harassment allegations, it tends to be men rather than women, you have men in positions of authority or power or status over the people that are complaining, which makes it difficult for them to bring those complaints forward at the time, the person they are complaining about is in the position of power or status of authority and it can be only when they are no longer in that position

that somebody can feel able to come forward. i suppose, that somebody can feel able to come forward. isuppose, in that somebody can feel able to come forward. i suppose, in a general sense, and that's what i mean by historic. once the individual being complained of is not in the position that they were in and that was the inhibitor of the complaints coming forward. it probably has other potential meanings as well, but i think, in broad terms, that is what i mean. in think, in broad terms, that is what i mean. ., ., ., ., think, in broad terms, that is what imean. ., ., ., ., i mean. in relation to that, can i ask ou i mean. in relation to that, can i ask you the _ i mean. in relation to that, can i ask you the same _ i mean. in relation to that, can i ask you the same question - i mean. in relation to that, can i ask you the same question i - i mean. in relation to that, can i. ask you the same question i asked i mean. in relation to that, can i- ask you the same question i asked to alex salmond. do you think, as a matter of principle, there should be a procedure for investigative complaints of sexual harassment against former ministers in the scottish government?- scottish government? yes. unequivocally _ scottish government? yes. unequivocally and - scottish government? yes. i unequivocally and absolutely. otherwise, you don't have that ability. in politics perhaps more than any other walk of life, people in positions of political power are powerful people and therefore it presumably is difficult, more difficult, not impossible to bring

forward complaints. if that ability to hold somebody like me to account stops the moment you cease to be in a position of authority, then clearly that is closing off the ability for to be held to account should complaints come forward in the future. i think very clearly, and i think that is the way this is going, including this organisation and i think that is what i suppose i just fundamentally found difficult to grasp about alex's evidence on friday, but he seemed to be saying, i'll be —— might a little bit, the complaints against him shouldn't be investigated and shouldn't be capable of being investigated, because there should be more retrospective policy in place. i fundamentally disagree with that. yes, there is a fundamental disagreement between you because he said he did i do not think you can make that argument. i don't believe you could do with people 2010 when there is no argument to make it

legal. there is a fundamental disagreement between you and that. in the, in terms of the relationship that the deputy first minister had and the first minister had in fairness at work and the new procedure, as deputy first minister under fairness at work, you would have then passed a copy of the complaint or if the formal resolution had complete faith —— failed that... under the new procedures, you now as first minister has that responsibility, why did mr salmond as first minister not have the role you have now as first minister to put it another way, why did you have the role that the current deputy first minister has not? mr salmond tried to do that in terms of ministerial cord. i’m in terms of ministerial cord. i'm not sure i _ in terms of ministerial cord. i'm not sure i do. —

in terms of ministerial cord. i'm not sure i do, or _ in terms of ministerial cord. i'm not sure i do, or at _ in terms of ministerial cord. i“n not sure i do, or at least not one i can articulate you now. i don't recall why particularly it was the case that the deputy first minister was in that role under fairness at work, and again, i can appreciate that people will think how can that possibly be the case. in all my years as deputy first minister, i wasn't really consciously aware very often, if at all, about fairness at work or the fact that, i knew i had that role, but it wasn't something that role, but it wasn't something that crossed my desk. the discussions around the developers of the procedure were very much in this respect about trying to avoid, and remember this was in the week of #metoo and you read something about my evidence about the perception of organisations and people close ranks, this was a procedure that was current for ministers, ie petitions and therefore the first minister as

and therefore the first minister as a politician but totally of the same party should not be in the role of either deciding to investigate the complaint or doing investigations. that was the thinking behind the development of the procedure. i'm not sure without going back into the darkness of time and seeing if there i could a full explanation of why the furnace of work policy developed as a date. we the furnace of work policy developed as a date. ~ . , as a date. we advise during the deveiopment — as a date. we advise during the development of _ as a date. we advise during the development of procedure - as a date. we advise during the development of procedure that| development of procedure that respective element by former ministers was of doubtful legality? i do not recall being advised by that. no, idon't, idon't i do not recall being advised by that. no, i don't, i don't believe i was. i don't recall being advised of any concerns of the fundamental legality, i would have assumed and now no, obviously you have heard evidence of people for whom legal

advice was taken on an ongoing basis as the procedure was developed. paragraph 13 a procedure where the former minister was a member of the administration formed by a different political party, with us the case, the permanent secretary is giving the permanent secretary is giving the role of informing the party of the role of informing the party of the outcome of the investigation and any action taken. the end of this process seems to be a little bit strange because what is the leader of the political party to do with this information? if the foreign minister is not longer a member of the party. one of the criticisms of the party. one of the criticisms of the procedure since it ends on this rather strange circumstance where you are passing very sensitive insert information over to a leader of another political party. it may be that the... have you any concerns about the end point of this procedure?—

about the end point of this rocedure? ., , ,, , ., procedure? the thought processes at the time were — procedure? the thought processes at the time were about _ procedure? the thought processes at the time were about the _ procedure? the thought processes at the time were about the need - procedure? the thought processes at the time were about the need if - procedure? the thought processes at the time were about the need if a - the time were about the need if a complaint in the context of an hr process was upheld against somebody who was a former minister, then the party of which they had been a part should have an awareness of that in case they held positions of authority within the party. it would have been the party to decide what to do with that. that was the thought process there. given what we have been through in the last couple of years, i think all of these things are legitimate areas to probe and to question.— and to question. finally, given that new procedure _ and to question. finally, given that new procedure was _ and to question. finally, given that new procedure was to _ and to question. finally, given that new procedure was to be _ and to question. finally, given that new procedure was to be made - new procedure was to be made applicable to former ministers, of whom there must be dozens, i don't know, 40—50 since 1999, what efforts were made to inform them of the fact that they might be made subject of complaints under the procedure? we complaints under the procedure? - didn't and i think it was you that

as this line of questioning on friday that there had been a suggestion that we would inform, i think, formerfirst suggestion that we would inform, i think, former first ministers, suggestion that we would inform, i think, formerfirst ministers, i think, formerfirst ministers, i think a letter was drafted and the decision was taken and i don't have a very crystal clear recollection of this, i think of the time we decided that i would have been part of that, i think i decided that given this as an hr policy that it wasn't necessary and wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to go to external consultation beyond consultation that we had. that was and that led to the fact that we didn't do what you have suggested. i to the fact that we didn't do what you have suggested.— you have suggested. i think that draft letter _ you have suggested. i think that draft letter has _ you have suggested. i think that draft letter has not _ you have suggested. i think that draft letter has not been - you have suggested. i think that l draft letter has not been disclosed to the committee. i draft letter has not been disclosed to the committee.— to the committee. i requested it yesterday. _ to the committee. i requested it yesterday. i _ to the committee. i requested it yesterday, i have _ to the committee. i requested it yesterday, i have seen - to the committee. i requested it yesterday, i have seen no - to the committee. i requested it| yesterday, i have seen no reason to the committee. i requested it - yesterday, i have seen no reason why it wouldn't or shouldn't be and i am happy to undertake that that be done. , . .,

done. yes, the committee will discuss that _ done. yes, the committee will discuss that in _ done. yes, the committee will discuss that in a _ done. yes, the committee will discuss that in a private - done. yes, the committee will. discuss that in a private session. . discuss that in a private session. thank you, discuss that in a private session. . thank you, convener. you have mentioned that the process wasn't declared unlawful, but can you explain for people who don't understand the distinction between the process of being declared unlawful and the application of the process being declared unlawful, what that means. the process being declared unlawful, what that means.— process being declared unlawful, what that means. the procedure is still in place- _ what that means. the procedure is still in place. so _ what that means. the procedure is still in place. so if— what that means. the procedure is still in place. so if a _ what that means. the procedure is still in place. so if a complaint - still in place. so if a complaint about the current or former minister came in again, that procedure is still and can be still used. there were a number of initialjudicial review petitions, there were eight grounds of challenge, some of them about the application, but some of them about the fundamental lawfulness of the procedure itself. it was —— shouldn't of been retrospective and none of were tested in court because of what

happened with the judicial review, none of those concerns have been established one way or the other. the procedure itself has not been declared to be unlawful and could be used, although, as i said, we have laura dunlop doing some independent internal work on aspects of that. what went wrong here is that when there were complaints to be investigated and procedure effectively was activated in the appointment of the investigating officer, which is a part of the procedure, a mistake was made because as it turns out, i am summarising here the investigating officer had had private —— prior contact with those who are making complaints and it was how the procedure that we used and not in the fundamentals of the procedure. i know that it is difficult for people to grasp, but i hope i have explained it reasonably clearly.

last week, mr salmond seemed to wholly reject the idea that complaints against former ministers are legally possible. when he was sacked about whether in principle he supported it, he said, i don't think you can make that argument, it would be very difficult to make that argument and to make it legal or lawful. even although the cord insertion didn't know the procedure itself unlawful, was the inclusion of former ministers in your view unlawful or greater difficulty? ila. unlawful or greater difficulty? no. i think one — unlawful or greater difficulty? no. i think one of _ unlawful or greater difficulty? iir>. i think one of the civil servants you heard from, james hind made this point, by definition, the government created this procedure, it was signed off, legal advice was taken along the way so the government considers that the procedure is lawful. mr salmond challenged aspects of that, as i said earlier on, one of the reasons why there would have been a public interest in the judicial review going to a full

judicial conclusion with a judge could have decided, is that we could have got a definitive answer on that. we don't know what the outcome would be, but the government's position is that that aspect of the procedure is lawful and nobody has established to the contrary. mr salmond also questioned the idea of the complaints or complaints process against former ministers would even be necessary. i think he said it would be difficult to understand why coming out of the #metoo movement and discussions can in parliament on 31st october that anybody with think of it will be required in scottish parliament that there was a policy of former ministers. is he not making a four point?- of former ministers. is he not making a four point? from his persoeetive. _ making a four point? from his persoeetive. i'm _ making a four point? from his perspective, i'm sure - making a four point? from his perspective, i'm sure he - making a four point? from his perspective, i'm sure he is. i making a four point? from his i perspective, i'm sure he is. from making a four point? from his - perspective, i'm sure he is. from my perspective, , perspective, i'm sure he is. from my perspective,, in parliament that day if my memory is right on this, john

sweeney answer the question of the afternoon of cabinet meeting, he was sent saying that we had decided to review our policies. it wasn't a debate at all, but it wasn't a discussion of a new policy. this is a personal reflection on public debate at that time, i think it would have been very hard to draw conclusion at that time that historic complaints and the relative difficulty in investigating historic complaints wasn't a pretty central part of the me —— #metoo concerns, but it was. to come to a conclusion that nobody would have thought that that nobody would have thought that that was a legitimate or priority issue, i really struggle with. i struggle with somebody who would pay attention to that debate is a time. when asked about what has since become known as the edinburgh airport incident, mr salmond said that because of the atmosphere at

the time, around 2017, perhaps people are over reacting in a lot of ways. did you feel that people were over reacting to the #metoo movement in november 2017. i over reacting to the #metoo movement in november 2017.— in november 2017. i don't think --eole in november 2017. i don't think people really — in november 2017. i don't think people really overreacting, - in november 2017. i don't think people really overreacting, i i in november 2017. i don't think i people really overreacting, i don't think scottish government was overreacting, i don't think parliament overreacted in steps it talked. i think what three and a half years are over three years on, i suspect a more legitimate criticism is that the world has ultimately under reacted to some of the concerns that were raised there because i think unfortunately, i am not sure that women would necessarily say it's got enough a lot better. i don't think there was no reaction and i certainly don't think there was an overreaction part of the government. than? think there was an overreaction part of the government.— of the government. any sexual harassment — of the government. any sexual harassment procedure - of the government. any sexual harassment procedure against| of the government. any sexual i harassment procedure against the current orformer harassment procedure against the current or former ministers may of

course result in complaints being levelled at powerful people who have both the means and inclination to challenge those complaints in court. shouldn't the scottish government really have been ready for a judicial review challenge for the procedure? it appears from the evidence that civil servants treated the procedure like any other employment policy with legal checks being provided by employment lawyers. if you have thought that the handling of complaints under the procedure might end up in court, shouldn't the government have public lawyers scrutinised and have complaints handled under the procedure if they were challenged in judicial review? iliiuiitii procedure if they were challenged in judicial review?— judicial review? with hindsight, i think that is _ judicial review? with hindsight, i think that is a _ judicial review? with hindsight, i think that is a legitimate - judicial review? with hindsight, i. think that is a legitimate comment and reflection. none of us, certainly i wouldn't want to be sitting here with a culmination of everything that has happened over the past couple of years. so, yes,

we have to think with hindsight of all of these things and consider whether we should have done things differently. unfortunately, you don't have hindsight when you do these things and we couldn't have anticipated, maybe we should have done, but we didn't at that point anticipate what has unfolded since. it was an employment procedure, albeit with particular features that make it appear to be much more in the political sphere, i absolutely accept that, but it was an employment procedure and the going —— government took legal input as a developer procedure. i think, obviously again having looked back again at all of this, i wasn't aware of all the correspondence of the time, but i think the government was ready for a judicial review and until something came to light that hadn't been known and appreciated

earlier, the government was confident in its ability to defend the procedure and legal advice was published yesterday demonstrates that the note of prospects which i think was late september, like any piece of legal advice, will on the one hand and then on the other hand rank risks of successful challenges and that is in the nature of legal advice, but across all the grounds of challenge, the government was confident and as confident as you could be that legal action that it could be that legal action that it could succeed. we now that that changed and i won't go on just now because we were move into more detail later. because we were move into more detail later-— because we were move into more detail later. some have claimed to offer this procedure _ detail later. some have claimed to offer this procedure was _ detail later. some have claimed to offer this procedure was created . detail later. some have claimed to| offer this procedure was created to get alex salmond. i have an opinion on that and i suspect you may. it wasn't absolutely emphatically it wasn't absolutely emphatically it was not. again, this is stuff we might get into later on. alex salmond has been, and i have said

this many times, one of the closest people to me in my entire life and some people around this table know what i mean by that more than others. i would never have wanted to get alex salmond and i would never, ever have wanted any of this to happen. if i could have come at short of brushing complaints under the carpet, which would have been wrong, if i could turn the clock back and find legitimate ways that none of this could have happened, then i would. alex salmond has been for most of my life, since i was about 2021 years old, notjust a political colleague, a friend in my younger days, somebody i looked up to and revered, i had no motive, intention or desire to get alex salmond. fin intention or desire to get alex salmond. ., ., , ., salmond. on to the development of the procedure _ salmond. on to the development of the procedure itself. _ salmond. on to the development of the procedure itself. can _ salmond. on to the development of the procedure itself. can you - salmond. on to the development of the procedure itself. can you set i the procedure itself. can you set out what role you personally played. you have given some indication of

this, but what role personally you played in the creation of procedure, prior to signing it. played in the creation of procedure, priorto signing it. hot played in the creation of procedure, prior to signing it.— prior to signing it. not a day central one _ prior to signing it. not a day central one by _ prior to signing it. not a day central one by any _ prior to signing it. not a day central one by any stretch . prior to signing it. not a day| central one by any stretch of prior to signing it. not a day i central one by any stretch of the imagination, and again, i know people, which is most people, there are... not being as familiar as i am with the day—to—day workings of government, they may think i is that the case? but for any minister, or a first minister you're dealing with a multitude of things every day. they are ranked in order of priority and importance in the shifts and changes. something like this is kind of done almost an arms length, you have civil servants doing it, you will be kept up to date periodically when appropriate at key moments in something like this, you will be consulted if there is a particular policy issue that requires to be discussed or requires clear ministerial authority. i think earlier on i said that in the live element of this policy, i suppose i

identified three particular issues that fall into that category and i was consulted and had a part in the procedure at these stages. the most significant intervention was giving the expressed written authority for a procedure that included former ministers and current ministers. that at the time was more about the inclusion of current ministers because of the interaction with the ministerial code and it was current ministers that were added into the policy at a later stage, as you have heard from others, former ministers were actually included from the very initial draft. . , were actually included from the very initial draft. ., , , ,., initial draft. there has been some discussion about _ initial draft. there has been some discussion about the _ initial draft. there has been some discussion about the role - initial draft. there has been some discussion about the role that i initial draft. there has been some discussion about the role that the | discussion about the role that the first minister should have in the complaints handling process and mr salmond told this committee that he was surprised the first minister did not have a role in that part of the procedure. you have touched on this, but can you explain why in your view, first minister doesn't have

the same role in a procedure as they did in the original policy of mac three. we have gone through the fairness at work, the deputy first minister is more centrally involved when a complaint is lodged in the first minister. mr; when a complaint is lodged in the first minister.— first minister. my view on this is that i can't _ first minister. my view on this is that i can't not _ first minister. my view on this is that i can't notjust _ first minister. my view on this is that i can't notjust offer - first minister. my view on this is that i can't notjust offer an i that i can't notjust offer an abstract view, i can tell you that i thought it was important and again, this is in the context of how best to describe this? the world kind of having changed in the rounds of all of this because of #metoo. the old ways of doing these were what were in the spotlight and in being in some respects considered to be inadequate and wrong and they lead to too much reliance on informal resolution, they gave powerfulfolk too much opportunity to evade accountability or people closed ranks. i, and this was #metoo

driven, i thought that in a procedure that was there and had it been used at all, it would have been used for current or former politicians, it was best for first minister, f current politician to be as far removed from that is possible, so that there was no suggestion, you know, ironic given where we are, there was no suggestion that a first minister of the same party that somebody would complain about, could be trying to influence how the investigation was taking place, for political reasons, to protect their colleague or protect the party from reputational damage. #metoo seemed to make it more important that we didn't have those perceptions and those risks. that was the backdrop to some of these key decisions that were taken in the development of the procedure. finally, convenor, you mentioned the culture change, the culture change

that was taken around #metoo. the permanent secretary has told us in the past that culture change has been reflected in the uk civil service as well. was it something you sensed that was being acted upon or people had an enthusiasm for across the civil service in scotland? do people have to be told of the good thing to do? you scotland? do people have to be told of the good thing to do?— of the good thing to do? you have two experiences, _ of the good thing to do? you have two experiences, the _ of the good thing to do? you have two experiences, the civil- of the good thing to do? you have | two experiences, the civil servants will come if the cabinet a something is a priority, it's theirjob to get on and do that. it's not that they were, to describe the civil service is personally enthusiastic is to miss describe the role. they were acting on the instructions and request that the elected cabinet had given them. i think everybody at that time was, i don't know about all of you, i remember the #metoo stuff being really quite shocking, not in the sense that you had known that this kind stuff happened, but the fact that it was coming out into

the fact that it was coming out into the open and that people were being prepared to confront these things, it was big moment. , i'm sure that others will remember too, there was a watershed moment. there was a sense that we had to live up to that, we had to be prepared to meet the moment. three years on, some people think that that was an overreaction. i don't. ithink people think that that was an overreaction. i don't. i think it was right to try to do that. i regret the fact that because certain things weren't done the way they should have been done, we are sitting here and what i deeply regret is that then allows aspersions to be cast on the motives of what we're doing at the time, which i think were absolutely right and proper. which i think were absolutely right and --roer. . ~ which i think were absolutely right and proper-— jackie baillie. no questions in this

section. jackie baillie. no questions in this section- alex _ jackie baillie. no questions in this section. alex hamilton. _ jackie baillie. no questions in this section. alex hamilton. i - jackie baillie. no questions in this section. alex hamilton. i have i jackie baillie. no questions in this section. alex hamilton. i have no| section. alex hamilton. i have no questions — section. alex hamilton. i have no questions in _ section. alex hamilton. i have no questions in this _ section. alex hamilton. i have no questions in this section. - section. alex hamilton. i have no questions in this section. stuart l questions in this section. stuart mcmillan does _ questions in this section. stuart mcmillan does have _ questions in this section. stuart mcmillan does have questions l questions in this section. stuart| mcmillan does have questions in questions in this section. stuart i mcmillan does have questions in this session_ mcmillan does have questions in this session so— mcmillan does have questions in this session so could i ask mr mcmillan to leaders— session so could i ask mr mcmillan to leaders and the complaints handling session as well and take all of— handling session as well and take all of your— handling session as well and take all of your questions.— all of your questions. thank you, convener- _ all of your questions. thank you, convener. good _ all of your questions. thank you, convener. good morning, - all of your questions. thank you, convener. good morning, first . convener. good morning, first minister. first minister, priorto contacting the permanent secretary at the point where you thought the legal action against the scottish government was going to actually take place, did you have any involvement in the formal complaint handling process? ila. afterthe handling process? no. after the contact handling process? iir>. after the contact with the permanent secretary, or, sorry, involvement, did you have any involvement in the formal complaint handling process? i wasn't involved in the handling of the complaint of the investigation of the complaint.—

the complaint of the investigation of the complaint. certainly another asect of of the complaint. certainly another aspect of this _ of the complaint. certainly another aspect of this has _ of the complaint. certainly another aspect of this has become - of the complaint. certainly another aspect of this has become that i of the complaint. certainly another. aspect of this has become that much of the focus of the committee has become about the question of meetings and recollections and conclusions of which are certainly not going to help what has happened in the past and present and future complainers and sexual harassment but what certainly will help is collecting of the... in the complaint handling process, also something you have touched upon earlier, and our evidence is highlighted that clear mistakes were made in the division of those responsibilities between those tasked with that role is communicating with complainants and also those tasked with the role of investigating complaints. do you accept that this went wrong? and, certainly, what can be done to avoid it? avoided going on in the future. i unreservedly accepts that things went wrong and i have given up apology today for that. irate

went wrong and i have given up apology today for that. we have been reviewin: , apology today for that. we have been reviewing. and _ apology today for that. we have been reviewing. and i _ apology today for that. we have been reviewing, and i know _ apology today for that. we have been reviewing, and i know that _ apology today for that. we have been reviewing, and i know that many i apology today for that. we have been | reviewing, and i know that many have refer to this and others have referred to it but you see is reviewing these aspects for the government right now. right now, i am not sure exactly when we are going to get her report. i think the deputy first minister has been corresponding all will correspond with the committee on that. so, that will be an opportunity, in addition to whatever this committee wants to reflection or suggest, that will be opportunity for us to consider why these things happened institutionally and what needs to be done to ensure that, should a situation like this occur again, it wouldn't happen in the future. same wouldn't happen in the future. some ofthe wouldn't happen in the future. some of the evidence _ wouldn't happen in the future. some of the evidence that _ wouldn't happen in the future. some of the evidence that we _ wouldn't happen in the future. some of the evidence that we have - wouldn't happen in the future. some of the evidence that we have heard as a committee has indicated the possibility of a presiding officer oran possibility of a presiding officer or an investigating officer being independent of government. is that

something that the scottish government would consider? irate something that the scottish government would consider? we will consider any — government would consider? we will consider any recommendations i government would consider? we will consider any recommendations that l consider any recommendations that the committee puts forward. it is not one that i have particularly given any consideration to to date but if it is a recommendation that we get of course we will consider it. i we get of course we will consider it. ., ., ., . we get of course we will consider it. i want to touch upon a question from early — it. i want to touch upon a question from early on- _ it. i want to touch upon a question from early on. we _ it. i want to touch upon a question from early on. we have _ it. i want to touch upon a question from early on. we have heard i it. i want to touch upon a question from early on. we have heard a i from early on. we have heard a concern that mr salmond itself was handled by him giving an informal apology, something that has been touched upon earlier, and that only years later did the person concerned feel able to make a formal complaint. this clearly makes it look like the former procedure is under the f a w process were not good enough. do you accept that? iii good enough. do you accept that? in relation to the specific, i am not sure i can for any particular conclusion because i wasn't involved in that at the time, i didn't know about it at the time and apology was made, so i have no direct knowledge

of exactly what went on then, what happened in terms of the apology of what the basis of the person involved was for accepting that as a resolution at the time. i, to be frank, i only know about that what i have since been told by alex salmond or heard more generally in the wider proceedings that have been under way, so i couldn't say categorically that that particular incident meant that that particular incident meant that there was a flow, a feeling in fairness at work. i think, generally, as i have already commented on, i think there is something to reflect on there, particularly about sexual harassment and the appropriateness of informal resolution over more formal action being taken. resolution over more formal action being taken-— being taken. could i remind all members _ being taken. could i remind all members pleased _ being taken. could i remind all members pleased to _ being taken. could i remind all members pleased to be - being taken. could i remind alll members pleased to be general being taken. could i remind all- members pleased to be general rather than specific in talking about

individual complaints etc. sorry, convener- _ individual complaints etc. sorry, convener. the _ individual complaints etc. sorry, convener. the permanent i individual complaints etc. sorry, i convener. the permanent secretary certainly told — convener. the permanent secretary certainly told this _ convener. the permanent secretary certainly told this committee i convener. the permanent secretary certainly told this committee that i certainly told this committee that the direct man will line manager at the direct man will line manager at the head of the uk civil service wanted permanent secretaries to ensure that procedures could tackle the challenges of meeting and the official report shows that msps of all parties spoke in favour of more being done to actually tackle the issue. do you feel that you've got a broad base of support for the idea of putting in place a new procedure is to tackle sexual harassment? i certainly wouldn't speak for other governments in terms of what we actually did. it is factual to say that the cabinet secretary at the time, sirjeremy heywood, but to the permanent secretary i think later that week the cabinet gave the commission to review processes, and that reflects the point i have made already. this was something all

organisations are doing, reviewing its processes. i, at the time, i cannot remember the exact date, i had a discussion with theresa may who was by minister at the time about this matter because she was concerned about it and was, you know, taking steps to review conservative party processes and obviously the uk government was looking at these matters as well but i wouldn't go from that to say the uk government somehow endorsed what we did. you've heard, which i wasn't aware of at the time but i'm aware of now and actually don't think is particularly significant that the cabinet office had commented not particularly about former ministers but some comment that it felt uncomfortable to have a policy relating to current or former ministers so i wouldn't claim their endorsement one way or another for what we did. i think what we did was done for the right reasons, i think we have a procedure that has not been declared unlawful and i'm not going to labour that point because it hasn't been tested in court, but a mistake was made in its

application and nobody can get away from that. in terms of endorsement, and, again, i know you have heard from trade unions, i think and i don't want to speak for them and i certainly don't want to misquote their evidence, i think there was a general agreement that looking at procedures and putting a procedure of this nature in place and applying it to former ministers was not an unreasonable thing to be doing. thank you. i'm going to move on to the ministerial code now, convener. mr mcmillan, can i stop you, can deduce _ mr mcmillan, can i stop you, can deduce a — mr mcmillan, can i stop you, can deduce a ministerial code? i would prefer— deduce a ministerial code? i would prefer to— deduce a ministerial code? i would prefer to leave that till after the break _ prefer to leave that till after the break if — prefer to leave that till after the break. if you have got anything further — break. if you have got anything further. ., break. if you have got anything further. no. jackie baillie. break. if you have got anything further.- jackie baillie.- break. if you have got anything further.- jackie baillie. further. no. jackie baillie. can i 'ust further. no. jackie baillie. can i just know _ further. no. jackie baillie. can i just know that _ further. no. jackie baillie. can i just know that the _ further. no. jackie baillie. can i just know that the procedure i further. no. jackie baillie. can i| just know that the procedure you discuss with some of my colleagues hasn't actually been used since it was last used by alex salmond and it has essentially been lying on the

shelves gathering dust so we have concerns that the procedure itself isn't robust enough given that it has not been used. can i explore with you the confidentiality of complainants, something that i think you and i will both care about and can i start with the issue that i raised with you along with willie rennie at fm to use last week. there were a series of meetings prior to the 29th of march between yourself, alex salmond's former chief of staff and a senior member of your team. —— willie rennie at maxi. at one of those meetings the complaints were revealed to... aberdeen. can i ask who authorised this meeting isthat was at the permanent secretary, . .. all simply freelancing? i was not claiming that the procedure had been used for complaints other than alex salmond but that does not change the fact that the procedure is still extant and has not been declared

unlawful. convener, iwant extant and has not been declared unlawful. convener, i want to answer this question as fully as i can but, like the rest of the committee, i am under legal constraints as to what i can say. in terms of meetings, i think i would not accept can say. in terms of meetings, i think i would not accethackie baillie's collectivisation of it. i certainly, you know, was not at the meeting that has been described, neither should i say were people who are seeking to attest to the content of that meeting. but i would say is that as i understand itjames hamilton who is conducting the independent investigation under the ministerial code has evidence from the people who were at that meeting. i wasn't, therefore i cannot give a direct account. what i can say is that the account i have been given has assured me or given me

assurances that what is alleged to have happened, that it didn't happen in the way that has been described, but, as i say, as i understand it, james hamilton has the accounts of those who were at the meeting. i understand the person who has been described as a senior government official is willing and has offered to give private evidence to the committee on this matter and that is for the committee to decide whether they want to take it, take it up. so, to describe this as a meeting that was authorised and that it happened in the way that jackie baillie has suggested it is not something i would accept. obviously, the constraints that i am under unfortunately mean that it is not possible for me to go much further than that. where i would go, though, it was i can speak to what i don't want to stranger territory i will come until later, but the discussion i had with alex salmond in the 2nd

of april in terms of the identity of complainants, he seemed very certain on friday that complainant has been named by somebody in government at a meeting he wasn't at that seemed less sure about whether the complainant had been named at a meeting he was out. alex salmond was open with me about the identity of one complainant because he knew he had been told about it and there was no suggestion that i can recall that anybody in the government had told him, he knew about identity of one complainant because he knew about the incident because he had apologised to the person concerned. the other complainant, and what i can't recall as if the name of the other complainant was shared openly on the 2nd of april in a way that there when i havejust on the 2nd of april in a way that there when i have just spoken about was, but he also knew the identity of that complainant and i remember him talking about how he had gone

through the scottish government flickr account to find out who had been with him on particular days, so the point i am making is that on the 2nd of april i don't recall any suggestion from alex salmond that he had been told about the name of a complainant via or in the way that is being suggested. what i do know is being suggested. what i do know is that he knew the identity of both complainants in one respect because he knew about the incident and in the other the speck through his own investigations.— investigations. thank you, first minister. investigations. thank you, first minister- i— investigations. thank you, first minister. iwill_ investigations. thank you, first minister. i will come _ investigations. thank you, first minister. i will come on - investigations. thank you, first l minister. i will come on exploring this on book and i take you back to my question which was the point at which complaints against alex salmond were revealed tojeff aberdeen. did you know that the meeting was taking place? hat aberdeen. did you know that the meeting was taking place? not the best of my recollection. _ meeting was taking place? not the best of my recollection. let - meeting was taking place? not the best of my recollection. let me i meeting was taking place? not the best of my recollection. let me be | best of my recollection. let me be clear, somebody in my team meeting, jeff aberdeen back then would not have been something that was particularly newsworthy. jeff aberdeen as a friend of most of us and was a former colleague. i agree

with ou, and was a former colleague. i agree with you. it — and was a former colleague. i agree with you, it wouldn't _ and was a former colleague. i agree with you, it wouldn't have _ and was a former colleague. i agree with you, it wouldn't have been i with you, it wouldn't have been newsworthy. fist with you, it wouldn't have been newsworthy-— with you, it wouldn't have been newsworthy. with you, it wouldn't have been newsworth . �* , ., �* newsworthy. at but i don't recall it beinu newsworthy. at but i don't recall it bein: the newsworthy. at but i don't recall it being the case _ newsworthy. at but i don't recall it being the case and _ newsworthy. at but i don't recall it being the case and could _ newsworthy. at but i don't recall it being the case and could i - newsworthy. at but i don't recall it being the case and could ijust i newsworthy. at but i don't recall it| being the case and could ijust also say for the record convener that based on and i wasn't a party to this discussion but based on what i have been told about it, i don't accept jackie baillie's collectivisation of it. ok, you miaht collectivisation of it. ok, you might not — collectivisation of it. ok, you might not accept _ collectivisation of it. ok, you might not accept my - collectivisation of it. ok, you - might not accept my characterisation of it butjeff aberdeen's conversation with kevin pringle and duncan hamilton qc is confirmed in written evidence of this committee. are you saying that they are not telling the truth? are you saying thatjeff aberdeen isn't telling the truth? i am are you saying that jeff aberdeen isn't telling the truth?— isn't telling the truth? i am not -aassin isn't telling the truth? i am not passing aspersions _ isn't telling the truth? i am not passing aspersions on - isn't telling the truth? i am not passing aspersions on the i isn't telling the truth? i am not i passing aspersions on the veracity of anybody because that is not what i am here to do. so i would say is that kevin and duncan also weren't at this discussion so this is doctor dot but they are corroborating something that geoff aberdeen said something that geoff aberdeen said so isjeff aberdeen's recollection

incorrect? i so is jeff aberdeen's recollection incorrect? ., �* ~ ., so is jeff aberdeen's recollection incorrect? ~ ., , , incorrect? i don't know because i don't know _ incorrect? i don't know because i don't know directly _ incorrect? i don't know because i don't know directly what - incorrect? i don't know because i don't know directly what jeff i don't know directly whatjeff aberdeen are saying about this. what i do know is that james aberdeen are saying about this. what i do know is thatjames hamilton has the accounts of the people who were at that meeting and therefore will be able to properly consider this. this committee, it is not for me to tell this committee how to do its work, obviously, buti tell this committee how to do its work, obviously, but i listen to the lord advocate yesterday and saw that there are things that this committee cannot publish and it is not prevented from considering and i understand... i understand that there has been evidence given to this committee that denies the allegation and i think there has been an offer of private evidence as well. ., ., , ., ., ., ., well. can i move you onto the name of a complainer— well. can i move you onto the name of a complainer being _ well. can i move you onto the name of a complainer being revealed i well. can i move you onto the name of a complainer being revealed to i well. can i move you onto the name| of a complainer being revealed to mr aberdeen and then him communicating that subsequently to mr salmond. i'm sure you will agree that that is an extraordinarily breach of confidentiality and in any other employment would be a stackable offence. so, can i ask you

authorised to seas senior member of your team to reveal that name of one of the complainants to jeff of the complainants tojeff aberdeen? was at you, of the complainants to jeff aberdeen? was at you, was at the permanent secretary, or were they freelancing? i'm not accepting that that happened so i'm clearly not accepting that that was authorised in a way that jackie baillie... i accept that this is a matter of contention and unfortunately there are legal constraints in terms of what we can discuss publicly at this committee, but that is not a complaints that in his considerationjames hamilton is under so i'm not going to sit here and just accept the premise of questions that have been put up for me where i dispute the premise of the question. bud me where i dispute the premise of the question-— the question. and the next thing i would say which _ the question. and the next thing i would say which i _ the question. and the next thing i would say which i don't _ the question. and the next thing i would say which i don't know i the question. and the next thing i would say which i don't know for l would say which i don't know for certain is based on what i said about alex salmond's knowledge about the identity of complainants and the basis of our knowledge when he spent on the 22nd of april, i did note in duncan hamilton's written submission

yesterday that he said something along the lines of this was communicated in the days after alex salmond's had had his letterfrom the government. certainly, in relation to one of the complainants, alex salmond was pretty clear he had found out through investigations of scottish government social media account but in relation to the other one which must�*ve been the case and this perhaps i'm just speculating on, must�*ve been the case when he got that letter because he knew about the incident because he had apologised to the person. so, my assumption would be that he would have known that without anybody having to tell him in terms of that complainant and i know from what he told me that he found out the identity of the other one through his own investigations. can i ask you, first minister, because you have worked with kevin pringle, you would count him as a friend. he is saying that he heard

this information. you have worked with duncan hamilton and he is a qc. he is attesting to the same information about a complainer is name being revealed by a senior member of your team. leaving aside that they weren't in the room, you trust what they say to you and have donein trust what they say to you and have done in the past. butjeff aberdeen who was in the room who you describe as a friend, are you saying that he is lying about this? i as a friend, are you saying that he is lying about this?— is lying about this? i am not here to make that— is lying about this? i am not here to make that accusation - is lying about this? i am not here to make that accusation of i is lying about this? i am not here i to make that accusation of anybody. what i'm saying is that kevin and duncan weren't part of that discussion, i wasn't part of that discussion, i wasn't part of that discussion, and the two people who were part of that discussion, i have heard accounts ofjeff�*s version, i have not heard that directly from jeff, and in terms of the other party to that discussion, they have a account of that. it is up to the committee to decide whether in

private it can hear directly from these people and james hamilton of course has the accounts of these people so there is a clear difference here. the point i am making is that because of the reasons i have set out in relation to one complainant where alex salmond knew about the incident because he had apologised to her, the knowledge of the identity of that complainant may well have been known and my assumption is that would have been known to alex salmond at that time because of these reasons for the particular version of this but i wasn't party to is not one that i know it is accepted by the person that was in that discussion. iii accepted by the person that was in that discussion.— that discussion. in response to willie rennie _ that discussion. in response to willie rennie at _ that discussion. in response to willie rennie at first _ that discussion. in response to | willie rennie at first minister's questions you said you had no knowledge of this at all. at what point did you speak your senior official about this.— point did you speak your senior official about this. when there was a suggestion _ official about this. when there was a suggestion made _

official about this. when there was a suggestion made about - official about this. when there was a suggestion made about this, i i a suggestion made about this, i can't remember the exact date, but... i can check that for you, if you want. i can't remember the date. so, it predated first minister's questions? i so, it predated first minister's questions?— so, it predated first minister's questions? ~ , ., ., ~ ., , questions? i think you can take as read that when _ questions? i think you can take as read that when i _ questions? i think you can take as read that when i said _ questions? i think you can take as read that when i said to _ questions? i think you can take as read that when i said to the i questions? i think you can take as read that when i said to the best l questions? i think you can take as| read that when i said to the best of my knowledge, let me reiterate, i wasn't at this discussion so i'm not keeping it from you. but wasn't at this discussion so i'm not keeping it from you.— keeping it from you. but you have soken to keeping it from you. but you have spoken to the _ keeping it from you. but you have spoken to the senior— keeping it from you. but you have spoken to the senior official. i keeping it from you. but you have spoken to the senior official. butl keeping it from you. but you have j spoken to the senior official. but i do not believe _ spoken to the senior official. but i do not believe based _ spoken to the senior official. but i do not believe based on _ spoken to the senior official. emit i do not believe based on what i was told that that account is accurate but that is based on not actually being party to this discussion and as i have said there are others who will in this committee could i'm sure speak privately even if it had to do so publicly to the individuals concerned. 50. to do so publicly to the individuals concerned. , ., to do so publicly to the individuals concerned-— concerned. so, 'ust so i am clear, he spoke _ concerned. so, 'ust so i am clear, he spoke to — concerned. so, just so i am clear, he spoke to the — concerned. so, just so i am clear, he spoke to the senior _ concerned. so, just so i am clear, he spoke to the senior official- he spoke to the senior official before first minister's questions last week and therefore the and she gave both to myself and to willie rennie wasn't necessarily strictly accurate. , ., �* ., .,

rennie wasn't necessarily strictly l accurate-— 0k. accurate. sorry, i don't follow. ok, it is very simple- — accurate. sorry, i don't follow. ok, it is very simple. we _ accurate. sorry, i don't follow. ok, it is very simple. we ask _ accurate. sorry, i don't follow. ok, it is very simple. we ask you i accurate. sorry, i don't follow. ok, it is very simple. we ask you about j it is very simple. we ask you about your knowledge about this and you said that there was absolutely nothing happened with revealing the name of a complainer and that it was out with your knowledge. that is clearly not the case if you have spoken to an official in advance of questioning last week. i spoken to an official in advance of questioning last week.— questioning last week. i thinki would have _ questioning last week. i thinki would have to _ questioning last week. i thinki would have to go _ questioning last week. i thinki would have to go back- questioning last week. i thinki would have to go back and i questioning last week. i think i i would have to go back and check questioning last week. i think i - would have to go back and check the record. to the best of my knowledge what was being alleged didn't happen was what i was seeking to convey. i'm sure we will all check the official record. can i ask in your discussion of the senior official, did you investigate this? was there any disciplinary process that was gone through to arrive that the conclusion?— gone through to arrive that the conclusion? . ., ., conclusion? the clear view of the erson conclusion? the clear view of the person who _ conclusion? the clear view of the person who is — conclusion? the clear view of the person who is being _ conclusion? the clear view of the person who is being accused - conclusion? the clear view of the person who is being accused of. conclusion? the clear view of the l person who is being accused of this is that this didn't happen and, you know, i am is that this didn't happen and, you know, iam not is that this didn't happen and, you know, i am not able to go into for the constraints that i am under,

thatis the constraints that i am under, that is the case and the reasons will why what may actually be the situation here, but others can do that and james hamilton is one of them and i say again i don't know whether any reason why the committee cannot at least privately speaks of the individuals concerned. i do not wor that the individuals concerned. i do not worry that a _ the individuals concerned. i do not worry that a senior— the individuals concerned. i do not worry that a senior member - the individuals concerned. i do not worry that a senior member of - the individuals concerned. i do not| worry that a senior member of your staff was freelancing in this way? i don't accept that characterisation. 0k. any move onto leak to the daily record because this again concerns the confidentiality of complainants. when did you become aware of the leak to the daily record? i when did you become aware of the leak to the daily record?— leak to the daily record? i became aware there _ leak to the daily record? i became aware there had _ leak to the daily record? i became aware there had been _ leak to the daily record? i became aware there had been a _ leak to the daily record? i became aware there had been a query - leak to the daily record? i became aware there had been a query to l leak to the daily record? i became l aware there had been a query to the scottish government funded daily record sometime in the afternoon of, from memory, the 20 3rd of august which is the day before the story than in the daily record. that is what became aware of it. i think

'ust m what became aware of it. i think just my understanding _ what became aware of it. i think just my understanding was - what became aware of it. i think| just my understanding was there what became aware of it. i think - just my understanding was there that are actually two stories. i think one of the 23rd and one of the 25th that actually had details of complainers. the first as i understand it and please correct me if i am wrong talk to my complaint against alex salmond but the second went into details of those complaints. where do you consider the leaks came from? mr salmond believes it was somebody within your team. the ico identified a small group of people, 23 people that would be broadly consistent with mr salmond's view so i'm curious to know where you think the lakes came from. i know where you think the lakes came from. ., �* ~' ., know where you think the lakes came from. ., �* ~ ., ., from. i don't know whether leaks came from- _ from. i don't know whether leaks came from- i _ from. i don't know whether leaks came from. i can _ from. i don't know whether leaks came from. i can tell _ from. i don't know whether leaks came from. i can tell you - from. i don't know whether leaks came from. i can tell you where l from. i don't know whether leaks - came from. i can tell you where they didn't come from. they didn't come from me, they didn't come from anybody acting on my authority are on my instruction or that my request and i am as certain as they can be

that they didn't come from anybody within my office. as you said, the second story had some considerable detail. i heard alex salmond say that that is detail that could only have come from the decision report. i was never sent a copy of the decision report. the other thing i would say about this is i have said all along and i will keep saying, i was of the view that i should not act in a way that try to sweet peas complaints under the carpet and therefore i would not have acted in a way that blocks any sort of public comment about the outcome of this had it been the case that that is what the government thought the government was trying to do. that was not to mean that i wanted to spin the public domain. since i first became aware of what alex salmond was facing the thought of it becoming public and the thought of

having to comment on it horrified me, absolutely horrified me, made me feel physically sick. i would have been personally believed, very relieved, if it was legitimate and it wasn't because i was thing to sweep it under the carpet, if it had never come out in the public domain. there was no part of me wanted proactively to see that getting to the public domain. i had nothing to gain from it and only a loss of pain and grief associated with it. fik. gain from it and only a loss of pain and grief associated with it. ok. my understanding _ and grief associated with it. ok. my understanding is _ and grief associated with it. ok. my understanding is your _ and grief associated with it. ok. my understanding is your office - and grief associated with it. ok. my understanding is your office will - understanding is your office will send a copy of the decision report and said the leak contained confidential information about the two women involved and i think we would both agree that that is a matter of very serious concern and regret. i have, however, been told that the daily record were given the story of the complaints about alex salmond in order to spike another story that they had about you. is that the mostly true? hat.

story that they had about you. is that the mostly true?— story that they had about you. is that the mostly true? not. that is not even something _ that the mostly true? not. that is not even something that - that the mostly true? not. that is not even something that i - that the mostly true? not. that is not even something that i had - that the mostly true? not. that is i not even something that i had heard before. can ijust say, your understanding that you started that question with, as i think you know is they are inaccurate. this i question with, as i think you know is they are inaccurate.— is they are inaccurate. as i don't know. is they are inaccurate. as i don't know- my _ is they are inaccurate. as i don't know. my office _ is they are inaccurate. as i don't know. my office was _ is they are inaccurate. as i don't know. my office was not - is they are inaccurate. as i don't know. my office was not sent. is they are inaccurate. as i don't know. my office was not sent a l is they are inaccurate. as i don't - know. my office was not sent a copy ofthat know. my office was not sent a copy of that decision _ know. my office was not sent a copy of that decision report. _ know. my office was not sent a copy of that decision report. my - of that decision report. my principal private secretary when he appeared a committee vote afterwards to confirm that because i think there had been some letter dell confusion between the latter that the permanent secretary wrote me that to tell me that the investigation had concluded and what was happening there but my office was happening there but my office was not and has not since been shared a copy of the decision report sojust to be shared a copy of the decision report so just to be clear about that i think the committee has been made very clear about that too. so, now you can tell me what the story was about me that i was trying to spike. i don't know, i was asking. i am intrigued- _ i don't know, i was asking. i am intrigued- i _ i don't know, i was asking. i am intrigued. i and _ i don't know, i was asking. i am intrigued. i and i _ i don't know, i was asking. i am

intrigued. i and i wouldn't - i don't know, i was asking. i am| intrigued. i and i wouldn't reveal that publicly _ intrigued. i and i wouldn't reveal that publicly without _ intrigued. i and i wouldn't reveal that publicly without checking i intrigued. i and i wouldn't reveal. that publicly without checking with you. that publicly without checking with ou. , , ~' that publicly without checking with ou. , , ~ ., that publicly without checking with ou., ~ ., ,, you. just think how implausible, that is a new — you. just think how implausible, that is a new part _ you. just think how implausible, that is a new part of— you. just think how implausible, that is a new part of the - you. just think how implausible, i that is a new part of the conspiracy that is a new part of the conspiracy that i'm hearing for the first time, but imagine how implausible that is. we have an investigation that starts with two complaints against alex salmond that the government is investigating, you know, throughout much of that year and we just managed to time the culmination to spike some unknown story about me, thatis spike some unknown story about me, that is an incredible coincidence which is why it didn't happen. indeed, it is an incredible coincidence but it gives you an opportunity to vote but that which is very helpful. find opportunity to vote but that which is very helpful-— opportunity to vote but that which | is very helpful._ -- is very helpful. and i 'ust have. -- an opportunity _ is very helpful. and i 'ust have. -- an opportunity to — is very helpful. and ijust have. -- an opportunity to rebut _ is very helpful. and ijust have. -- an opportunity to rebut that. - is very helpful. and ijust have. -- an opportunity to rebut that. can i i an opportunity to rebut that. can i take you back to the leak. wherever it came to it was clearly very concerning. why didn't you or anybody on your behalf about the matter to the police? firstly, i agree about hell concerning the lakers. it is one of the many aspects about this which deeply

troubles me —— firstly i agree about the leak being deeply concerning. when you put aside the issue you are dealing with it always troubles a politician when they don't know where the leak comes from but i don't know. if you had given me the chance of this whole sorry mess and never being in the public domain, legitimately, i would have bitten your hand orfor legitimately, i would have bitten your hand or for that. legitimately, i would have bitten your hand orfor that. i never wanted to be publicly commenting on allegations of this nature against alex salmond. there is no part of me wanting to be in that position. it is also the case that the government didn't benefit in any way from this. now, ik, iappreciate didn't benefit in any way from this. now, ik, i appreciate that is with the hindsight but it was this leak that has from day one allowed to cast the government is the aggressor and guilty party on this so i don't know whether leak came from, i emphatically know it did not come from me or anybody acting on my authority or instruction. in terms

of, obviously the investigation is within the scottish government and mr salmond raised the matter, reported the matter to the information commissioner's office, there was an investigation and then i think a review of that investigation by the information commissioners office including bye, forgive me if i'm not getting the terminology right, it is criminal investigation section and they did not find evidence that it had come from within the scottish government. my from within the scottish government. my recollection is that they did and it was a limited number of people that it could have come from, but i'm not going to argue the point that he. it i'm not going to argue the point that he. , ., h, ., that he. it is quite an important toint. that he. it is quite an important point- my _ that he. it is quite an important point. my question _ that he. it is quite an important point. my question was - that he. it is quite an important point. my question was why - that he. it is quite an important. point. my question was why wasn't that he. it is quite an important - point. my question was why wasn't it the tolicies point. my question was why wasn't it the policies l — point. my question was why wasn't it the policies i don't _ point. my question was why wasn't it the policies i don't know— point. my question was why wasn't it the policies i don't know the - the policies i don't know the answers that question. i’m the policies i don't know the answers that question. i'm happy to to awa answers that question. i'm happy to go away and — answers that question. i'm happy to go away and reflect _ answers that question. i'm happy to go away and reflect anything. - answers that question. i'm happy to go away and reflect anything. i - go away and reflect anything. i don't know if it was something we considered. it wasn't as far as i'm

aware reported to the police by the scottish government. can ijust say in terms of the ico investigation decision letter which is dated the 6th of march 2020 we are satisfied that there is no evidence to corroborate the complaint that an employee at the scottish government unlawfully obtained and disclose personal information relating to mr salmond and we are also satisfied that there is no evidence that the scottish government acted in breach of our stuff call five in relation to the processing of mr salmond was my data. —— breach of article five. mr salmond has pointed to and i think when the decision was being for reviewed at his request that somebody said they were sympathetic to the hypothesis that it could have come from within the scottish government but they had no evidence of that and they expressly said that there was also, it could also be said that there was a possibility that it came from other sources so to say that the information commissioner said it came from the scottish government i would put you,

miss bailey, is not true. can i scottish government i would put you, miss bailey, is not true.— miss bailey, is not true. can i ask ou miss bailey, is not true. can i ask you again. _ miss bailey, is not true. can i ask you again. first — miss bailey, is not true. can i ask you again, first minister, - miss bailey, is not true. can i ask you again, first minister, who - miss bailey, is not true. can i ask. you again, first minister, who else knew about this? who said details of the complaints that would have leaked that to the press? 50. the complaints that would have leaked that to the press? so, in terms of the — leaked that to the press? so, in terms of the numbers _ leaked that to the press? so, in terms of the numbers of- leaked that to the press? so, in terms of the numbers of people leaked that to the press? so, in i terms of the numbers of people or the identity of people within the scottish government there would have had access to the decision report i would have had to check and get lucky. i did not have access to the decision report, my looks, it office did not have access to the decision report and i think you have heard evidence that the matter was referred through the crown agent of the police but, as i understand it, the police but, as i understand it, the police but, as i understand it, the police did not take a copy of the police did not take a copy of the decision report. mr salmond and his lawyers obviously had a copy of the decision report. i say that simply is a statement of fact. i do not know whether leak came from and i cannot say that emphatically enough. i wish i didn't know where the leak came from. like everybody else i can hypothesise and speculate but i do not know. what i do know, emphatically, is that it did not

come from me or anybody acting on my my authority or instruction. will you asked the police to investigate now? it will you asked the police to investigate now?— will you asked the police to investigate now? it is not an indication — investigate now? it is not an indication that _ investigate now? it is not an indication that i _ investigate now? it is not an indication that i don't - investigate now? it is not an indication that i don't think | investigate now? it is not an | indication that i don't think it investigate now? it is not an i indication that i don't think it is serious, the way these things destination here, —— the -- the icc —— the ico review as part of its criminal review team looked at this and had they thought there was evidence they would then have referred it to the police of the crown office. the fact they have already done that and decided there wasn't evidence of that would simply lead me to believe there may not be much purpose in doing what you are

asking me to do because that process has already been undertaken. given that you have asked me, i'm not going to sit here and answer definitively right now but given you have asked me i will consider it and come back to you when i had the chance to do so. we come back to you when i had the chance to do so.— come back to you when i had the chance to do so. we are at the time we should take _ chance to do so. we are at the time we should take a _ chance to do so. we are at the time we should take a break _ chance to do so. we are at the time we should take a break but - chance to do so. we are at the time we should take a break but i - chance to do so. we are at the time we should take a break but i know. we should take a break but i know there _ we should take a break but i know there is_ we should take a break but i know there is a — we should take a break but i know there is a specific supplementary so quickly. _ there is a specific supplementary so quickly, please. there is a specific supplementary so quickly. please-— there is a specific supplementary so quickly, please. good morning, first minister could _ quickly, please. good morning, first minister could i _ quickly, please. good morning, first minister could i follow _ quickly, please. good morning, first minister could i follow up _ quickly, please. good morning, first minister could i follow up the - quickly, please. good morning, first minister could i follow up the line i minister could i follow up the line of questioning about the alleged release of a complainant which is an incredibly serious issue and would be an appalling breach of privacy. we have heard whatjeff aberdeen has had to say. let me just read you what was said in the submission. "i was also told the name of a complainant by mr aberdeen in early march 2018. i cannot recall the

precise date but it was very shortly after the 7th of march, the day mr salmond received his letter. it had been given to him by a senior government official. i can confirm i am aware of the identity of the government official who gave the name of the complainant to mr aberdeen. the fact that the government official shared this information with mr aberdeen was reported to me in a conference call. i had never heard of the name names but mr pringle had. so here we have a statement byjeff aberdeen corroborated by duncan hamilton and kevin pringle. you are a lawyer and you are well aware of the importance of collaboration. you have suggested that the senior official we are talking about a different version of events. who will corroborate the alternative version of events? it is

not for me — alternative version of events? it is not for me to _ alternative version of events? it is not for me to tell— alternative version of events? it 3 not for me to tell the committee how to do its work but you started your question to be there with the statement i think we have heard from jeff aberdeen. i am not aware that the committee has heard from jeff aberdeen and i apologise if that is the case. it is open to the committee to test that privately with either or both of them. james hamilton, i understand has accounts from both of them and will be able to make his assessment of that. my understanding, and i was not party to this discussion, is that did not happen. in a discussion where there are two people then clearly if you have a different counselling people have a different counselling people have to decide take into account of the whole picture which we are not able to do today, unfortunately,

because of the constraints upon us. what i would say, as i have said already, duncan and kevin were not party to that discussion. the bit of the evidence, and i am making assumptions here, but the bits of evidence from duncan you read out about how this is information after mr salmond received a letter after the 7th of march, my assumption based on what i know about this and what mr salmond shared with me is that by that point i cannot work out how mr salmond could not have known that from his own knowledge at that point. i think, that from his own knowledge at that point. ithink, and i stand that from his own knowledge at that point. i think, and i stand to be corrected,, geoff knew about the apology to this individual added time. so the fact there was a knowledge about the identity of this individual may well have been the case but i can only say what i have been advised that this conversation. i wasn't party to it, it would be

serious if the identity of a complainant was revealed. i absolutely accept that but that is not what i understand happens in the way being set out. as i say, it is open to the committee to take evidence, even if in private, both from the people who were party to that. i come back to another point and again, in my recollection is wrong about this in no doubt someone will say so but i do not recall alex salmond giving me any suggestion on the 2nd of april that he had known the 2nd of april that he had known the identity of a complainer because it had been told to him by someone in the scottish government. i repeat again, one of the complainers he knew about because he knew about the incident. if you are openly saying you apologise to someone for an alleged incident then clearly you know who they are. i don't know if he used the name of the second complainer but he had identified the

second complainer by going through the scottish government flickr accounts. so i'm trying to tell you what i know from my own recollection and own discussions. i have gone as far as i can in telling you my understanding of a discussion that i wasn't party to. understanding of a discussion that i wasn't party to-_ wasn't party to. thank you, first minister, but _ wasn't party to. thank you, first minister, but that _ wasn't party to. thank you, first minister, but that doesn't - wasn't party to. thank you, first minister, but that doesn't get i wasn't party to. thank you, first i minister, but that doesn't get away from the _ minister, but that doesn't get away from the fact that we have a statement here that two other individuals will cooperate. i have given— individuals will cooperate. i have given you — individuals will cooperate. i have given you the opportunity to cooperate the alternative series of events _ cooperate the alternative series of events that you put forward and there _ events that you put forward and there is — events that you put forward and there is no _ events that you put forward and there is no cooperation to that. why would _ there is no cooperation to that. why would geoff aberdein, a very senior person— would geoff aberdein, a very senior person in— would geoff aberdein, a very senior person in the history of the snp, now pursuing a career in financial services — now pursuing a career in financial services as— now pursuing a career in financial services as you are aware, why to give _ services as you are aware, why to give evidence that was untrue? | give evidence that was untrue? i have give evidence that was untrue? have not give evidence that was untrue? i have not heard or seen his evidence

and i'm very conscious of that. this will be a feature of much of our discussion today. you're talking about personal relationships that go back a long time. the people we're talking about, i have worked with and known and considered friends for and known and considered friends for a long time. i am not here to cast discussions about anybody? sincerity is here but clearly there are differing recollections and different accounts. i can speak more clearly about the conversations i was part of. i am telling you what my understanding is of a conversation i was not part of. in terms of, clearly, a couple of things, you know this because you are a lawyer, people who are told about something that happened in a conversation necessary part of that, it is hearsay evidence, in terms of who cooperates, you have to look at the bigger picture. i can think of why the name of a complainant may

have been known at that time, that does not mean it was revealed or identified in a way that has been said and i'm not going to repeat everything i have said that the 2nd of april but mr salmond knew the identity of those complainers in one case because he told me he had apologised to her, that is my recollection of how he knew that complainer and the other because he had done his own investigations to find out. t, . had done his own investigations to find out. ., ., ., , , find out. you are absolutely right, we do not have _ find out. you are absolutely right, we do not have evidence - find out. you are absolutely right, we do not have evidence in - find out. you are absolutely right, we do not have evidence in front l find out. you are absolutely right, | we do not have evidence in front of us of— we do not have evidence in front of us of geoff— we do not have evidence in front of us of geoff aberdein but we do from others _ us of geoff aberdein but we do from others both saying that he told them this version of events. whether they are not— this version of events. whether they are not telling us the truth or the senior— are not telling us the truth or the senior official you refer to is not telling _ senior official you refer to is not telling the — senior official you refer to is not telling the truth. i senior official you refer to is not telling the truth.— telling the truth. i don't think i can to telling the truth. i don't think i can go much — telling the truth. i don't think i can go much further— telling the truth. i don't think i can go much further than i i telling the truth. i don't think i i can go much further than i already have on this. i keep saying it is not for me to tell the committee how to do its work but it is open to the committee to speak to the two people who were party to this discussion in

private to try to get a sense of if there is a direct clash of recollection or a misunderstanding in what actually happened. mr fraser, could you be quick? i'm very aware of the timing. {line fraser, could you be quick? i'm very aware of the timing.— aware of the timing. one final question. _ aware of the timing. one final question, this _ aware of the timing. one final question, this is _ aware of the timing. one final question, this is clearly - aware of the timing. one final question, this is clearly a i aware of the timing. one final. question, this is clearly a serious matter. — question, this is clearly a serious matter, apart from anything else the release _ matter, apart from anything else the release of— matter, apart from anything else the release of a — matter, apart from anything else the release of a complainant name would be illegal, _ release of a complainant name would be illegal, it is a breach of privacy— be illegal, it is a breach of privacy and potentially criminal act for which _ privacy and potentially criminal act for which we have statements and witnesses — for which we have statements and witnesses that it has taken place. have _ witnesses that it has taken place. have you — witnesses that it has taken place. have you had this matter investigated in a scottish government?— investigated in a scottish government? , . ., , ., government? these are matters that are under investigation _ government? these are matters that are under investigation by _ government? these are matters that are under investigation by this - are under investigation by this committee. are under investigation by this committee-— are under investigation by this committee. �* . ~ committee. i'm talking about the tolice. committee. i'm talking about the police- are _ committee. i'm talking about the police. are they _ committee. i'm talking about the police. are they investigating i committee. i'm talking about the police. are they investigating it l police. are they investigating it and if— police. are they investigating it and if not — police. are they investigating it and if not why not? i�*m police. are they investigating it and if not why not?— police. are they investigating it and if not why not? i'm not aware of the tolice and if not why not? i'm not aware of the police investigating _ and if not why not? i'm not aware of the police investigating that. - and if not why not? i'm not aware of the police investigating that. i i and if not why not? i'm not aware of the police investigating that. i do i the police investigating that. i do not construct the police, contrary to some things that have been said.

do not have a responsibility to investigate complaints within the scottish— investigate complaints within the scottish government? a very serious allegation— scottish government? a very serious allegation has been made you about the releasing of a complainant's name _ the releasing of a complainant's name which is a criminal act. surely you as _ name which is a criminal act. surely you as head — name which is a criminal act. surely you as head of government should be taking _ you as head of government should be taking action on that. i am you as head of government should be taking action on that.— taking action on that. i am trying to respect _ taking action on that. i am trying to respect the — taking action on that. i am trying to respect the processes - taking action on that. i am trying to respect the processes that i taking action on that. i am trying i to respect the processes that are already under way on these things. this committee and acquiring to the ministerial code, these are matters being considered by both of those and rightly or wrongly, i am trying to rely these processes to run their course. the police do not need my authority to investigate any matter that they wish to investigate. you have assured _ that they wish to investigate. you have assured me _ that they wish to investigate. you have assured me this is a very short supplementary so please make it so. it is. a review of the decision by the criminat— it is. a review of the decision by the criminal investigation team which _ the criminal investigation team which was reported on the 20th of

may -- _ which was reported on the 20th of may —— 28th of may 2020. there remains — may —— 28th of may 2020. there remains a — may —— 28th of may 2020. there remains a possibility the leak came from elsewhere, the list of stakeholders that have access to the report _ stakeholders that have access to the report include the original complainant, the qc, first minister's principal private secretary, the crown office for school — secretary, the crown office for school service and relevant staff members — school service and relevant staff members of the sg. school service and relevant staff members of the 56. so it appears from _ members of the 56. so it appears from this— members of the 56. so it appears from this report that the private secretary — from this report that the private secretary of the first minister did have _ secretary of the first minister did have a _ secretary of the first minister did have a copy of this. i think you said _ have a copy of this. i think you said previously that your office did not have _ said previously that your office did not have a — said previously that your office did not have a copy. my understanding, and my private _ not have a copy. my understanding, and my private secretary _ not have a copy. my understanding, and my private secretary has - not have a copy. my understanding, | and my private secretary has written to the committee on this, that is a misapprehension from the eternal government investigation on this. my office did not get sent to decision report. if there is further clarification we can usefully provide and that we will do. but i did not get sent the decision report

and my office did not get sent the decision report.— decision report. finally, the leak ofthe decision report. finally, the leak of the name _ decision report. finally, the leak of the name of _ decision report. finally, the leak of the name of a _ decision report. finally, the leak of the name of a complainer- decision report. finally, the leak of the name of a complainer or | decision report. finally, the leaki of the name of a complainer or a decision— of the name of a complainer or a decision report, anyone in the scottish— decision report, anyone in the scottish government who did leak or make _ scottish government who did leak or make public such information that would _ make public such information that would he — make public such information that would he a — make public such information that would be a dismissal offence, fairly clearly? _ would be a dismissal offence, fairly clearly? i_ would be a dismissal offence, fairly clearl ? ., ., , , clearly? i would imagine so, yes. ok. clearly? i would imagine so, yes. 0k- thanks- _ clearly? i would imagine so, yes. ok. thanks. in _ clearly? i would imagine so, yes. ok. thanks. in line _ clearly? i would imagine so, yes. ok. thanks. in line with - clearly? i would imagine so, yes. ok. thanks. in line with the i ok. thanks. in line with the mitigations to allow us to meet safely in person today i will suspend this session for around 20 minutes. we will reconvene at 11:35am. can i remind members and everyone else to observe social distancing when leaving the committee room. studio: we will be back at holyrood when the questioning reconvenes. very stern questioning of nicola sturgeon and answers from her. she was questioned about what she knew and when of the government?

handling. and her motives behind her actions. she says it was absurd suggestion there was any sort of conspiracy against alex salmond. she says she is relieved to be finally facing the committee. for now we say goodbye if you're watching on bbc two. we will talk in more detail about that evidence from nicola sturgeon injust about that evidence from nicola sturgeon in just a few moments with our correspondent nick eardley who has been following that more than two hours of evidence this morning. forwarded to him as take you to downing street where the chancellor rishi sunak leftjust a little while ago to head to the commons to deliver his budget at 1230 pm today. he has a very busy day in prospect. he is making the final preparations to that. something that has come out todayis to that. something that has come out today is the extension in the amount

of money that can be paid forjust by tapping a card, up to £100. we are getting more detail all the time about what might be in the budget or will be in the budget. not much longer to wait now for it. 12:30pm he will be addressing parliament and he will be addressing parliament and he will be addressing parliament and he will also hold a news conference at 5pm at downing street. we'll be talking more with andy verity for just a few moments. first now, let's go back to holyrood. very detailed evidence we have been honing. nicola sturgeon says it was "absolutely right" that the scottish government investigated complaints made against her predecessor, former first minister alex salmond. the first minister is giving evidence to the holyrood inquiry investigating the government's handling of harassment complaints against him. she told msps that a serious mistake in the investigation resulted in two women being failed and taxpayer's money being lost, adding that she "deeply regretted" that. she's facing questions over her role in events — including when she first learned of the allegations he was facing.

scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon has started let's speak to our correspondent nick eardley — who's in edinburgh. very dense more than two hours of evidence there, nick. just start by telling us what stood out to you. it is interesting because this committee has a pretty wide remit to look at a lot of what has gone on over the past couple of years and we are only in the first section of the questioning which is about the scottish government harassment policy which was used against alex salmond and that he took to court and was found to be unlawful. there are a lot of negations against nicola sturgeon. most serious of which is that she broke the ministerial code. alex salmond said, are you sure that she had and if she had she would have to resign. one of the key allegations is that she didn't tell parliament to the truth when she found out about allegations

made against mr mr salmond working investigated. it's notjust a question of a few days, it is about whether miss sturgeon new about a government meeting with mr salmond, weather minute should have been taken, none of that happened. have a listen to nicola sturgeon explain her version of events.— her version of events. when he arrived at _ her version of events. when he arrived at my — her version of events. when he arrived at my house _ her version of events. when he arrived at my house he - her version of events. when he arrived at my house he was i her version of events. when he i arrived at my house he was insistent he speak— arrived at my house he was insistent he speak to — arrived at my house he was insistent he speak to me entirely privately. away— he speak to me entirely privately. away from — he speak to me entirely privately. away from his chief of staff who had accompanied him and my chief of staff to _ accompanied him and my chief of staff to stop that would have seemed unnecessary had it already been a shared _ unnecessary had it already been a shared understanding part of all of us. shared understanding part of all of us he _ shared understanding part of all of us. he then asked me to read a letter— us. he then asked me to read a letter he — us. he then asked me to read a letter he received from the permanent secretary. this letter sets out — permanent secretary. this letter sets out that complaints of sexual harassment had been made against him by two _ harassment had been made against him by two individuals. it made clear that these — by two individuals. it made clear that these events had been

investigated in 2017 and it set up the details of what he was alleged to have _ the details of what he was alleged to have done. reading this letter is a moment— to have done. reading this letter is a moment in my life that i will never— a moment in my life that i will never forget. although he denied the allegations, he gave me his accounts of one _ allegations, he gave me his accounts of one of— allegations, he gave me his accounts of one of the incidents which he said he — of one of the incidents which he said he had apologise for at the time _ said he had apologise 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 behaviour— in my view, deeply inappropriate behaviour on his part of perhaps another— behaviour on his part of 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 accounts, jeff and duncan _ and outlining his accounts, jeff 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 if i had known everything — seem unnecessary if i had known everything in advance. a conversation i had three days earlier— conversation i had three days earlier with geoff aberdein and another— earlier with geoff aberdein and another individual, i have not seen geoff— another individual, i have not seen geoff aberdein's own account of that allegation— geoff aberdein's own account of that allegation but i obscene know the account _ allegation but i obscene know the account that mr salmond is given of

the meeting that he also said on friday— the meeting that he also said on friday he — the meeting that he also said on friday he would not give a read out of it _ friday he would not give a read out of it let _ friday he would not give a read out of it let me — friday he would not give a read out 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 of geoff's recollection. geoff— sincerity of geoff's recollection. geoff aberdein is someone who i remain— geoff aberdein is someone who i remain fond of but it is clear that my recollection is different and i do not _ my recollection is different and i do not attach the same importance to the discussion as he has. the conversation was for me to meet with alec as— conversation was for me to meet with alec as soon— conversation was for me to meet with alec as soon as possible which i did agree _ alec as soon as possible which i did agree to _ alec as soon as possible which i did agree to do — alec as soon as possible which i did agree to do as soon as possible. geoff— agree to do as soon as possible. geoff did — agree to do as soon as possible. geoff did indicate that a harassment type issue _ geoff did indicate that a harassment type issue had arisen but i understand that he did so in general terms _ understand that he did so in general terms. since an approach by sky news in 2017, _ terms. since an approach by sky news in 2017, i_ terms. since an approach by sky news in 2017, i had — terms. since an approach by sky news in 2017, i had harboured a lingering suspicion _ in 2017, i had harboured a lingering suspicion that allegations towards mr salmon might rear their head. —— mr salmon might rear their head. —— mr salmond — mr salmon might rear their head. —— mr salmond. as a friend, i was

concerned _ mr salmond. as a friend, i was concerned about his state of mind. it was _ concerned about his state of mind. it was these factors that led me to agree _ it was these factors that led me to agree to _ it was these factors that led me to agree to meet him and these factors that placed a meeting in the 2nd of april firmly on the personal and party— april firmly on the personal and party space. not unreasonably, some people _ party space. not unreasonably, some people have asked howl party space. not unreasonably, some people have asked how i could have forgotten _ people have asked how i could have forgotten the question on the 29th of march _ forgotten the question on the 29th of march and i certainly wish my memory— of march and i certainly wish my memory of— of march and i certainly wish my memory of it was more vivid but as i have _ memory of it was more vivid but as i have stated — memory of it was more vivid but as i have stated it was the detail of the complaint — have stated it was the detail of the complaint under the procedure that i was given— complaint under the procedure that i was given on the 2nd of april that were _ was given on the 2nd of april that were significant and indeed shocking. that was a moment in which any suspicions i had our general awareness — any suspicions i had our general awareness there was a problem became actual— awareness there was a problem became actual detailed knowledge. so that is miss sturgeon's version of events. she will be grilled on some of that later this afternoon. this whole committee is split up into sections so that part about whether she broke the ministerial code is still to come a bit later. there is also an allegation that has

been made by alex salmond, one of the most extraordinary in his evidence, that there was a malicious campaign by people close to miss sturgeon, including her husband and chief of staff, to get mr salmond, to try and remove him from public life and potentially to even send him to jail. she denies that completely, says there was no evidence and gave this response when asked about it. i evidence and gave this response when asked about it.— asked about it. i feel i must rebut the absurd _ asked about it. i feel i must rebut the absurd suggestion _ asked about it. i feel i must rebut the absurd suggestion that - asked about it. i feel i must rebut| the absurd suggestion that anyone acted _ the absurd suggestion that anyone acted with malice or as part as a plot against alex salmond. that claim _ plot against alex salmond. that claim is — plot against alex salmond. that claim is not based on any fact. what happened _ claim is not based on any fact. what happened is— claim is not based on any fact. what happened is this and it is simple. a number— happened is this and it is simple. a numberof— happened is this and it is simple. a number of women made serious complaints about alex salmond's behaviour. the government, despite the mistake it undoubtedly made, tried to _ the mistake it undoubtedly made, tried to do — the mistake it undoubtedly made, tried to do the right thing. as first — tried to do the right thing. as first minister i refuse to follow the age—old pattern of allowing a powerful — the age—old pattern of allowing a powerful man to use his status and connections to get what he wants.

the police — connections to get what he wants. the police conducted an independent criminal— the police conducted an independent criminal investigation. the crown office, _ criminal investigation. the crown office, as — criminal investigation. the crown 0ffice, as it— criminal investigation. the crown office, as it does in prosecutions every— office, as it does in prosecutions every day— office, as it does in prosecutions every day of the week, considered the evidence and decided there was a case to— the evidence and decided there was a case to answer. a court and the jury did their— case to answer. a court and the jury did theirjobs — case to answer. a court and the 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, relieved _ 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 this situation are lost. human elements of this situation are lost alec— human elements of this situation are lost. alec spoke on friday about what _ lost. alec spoke on friday about what a _ lost. alec spoke on friday about what a nightmare the last couple of years _ what a nightmare the last couple of years have — what a nightmare the last couple of years have been for him. i have thought— years have been for him. 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 fora 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 that he recognised how difficult this has been for— he recognised how difficult this has been for others too. first and foremost— been for others too. first and foremost for women they believe his behaviour— foremost for women they believe his behaviour was inappropriate but also for those _ behaviour was inappropriate but also for those of us who have worked with him and _ for those of us who have worked with him and considered him a friend and now stand _ him and considered him a friend and now stand accused of unfairly plotting — now stand accused of unfairly plotting against him. he was accused by a jury— plotting against him. he was accused by a jury of— plotting against him. he was accused by a jury of criminal conduct, that is beyond — by a jury of criminal conduct, that is beyond question, but i knowjust what _ is beyond question, but i knowjust what he _ is beyond question, but i knowjust what he knows mick —— told me that his behaviour was not appropriate. there _ his behaviour was not appropriate. there was— his behaviour was not appropriate. there was not a single word of regret, — there was not a single word of regret, reflection or simple acknowledgement of that. i can only hope that— acknowledgement of that. i can only hope that in private the reality might — hope that in private the reality might be — hope that in private the reality might be different. today is about my actions. i have never claimed in this art— my actions. i have never claimed in this art anything else to be infallible. i have searched my soul

and all— infallible. i have searched my soul and all of— infallible. i have searched my soul and all of this many times over. it may very— and all of this many times over. it may very well be that i didn't get everything right. that is for others toiudge _ 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 faced, i believe — situations i have ever faced, i believe i_ situations i have ever faced, i believe i acted properly and appropriately and that overall i made — appropriately and that overall i made the bestjudgments i could. for anyone _ made the bestjudgments i could. for anyone with _ made the bestjudgments i could. for anyone with an open mind that there is what _ anyone with an open mind that there is what i _ anyone with an open mind that there is what i will — anyone with an open mind that there is what i will seek to demonstrate today~ _ it is worth pointing out at this point that this committee isn't looking into alex salmond's behaviour, that is appointing made last week but it is clearly trying to frame some of the decisions that were made back in 2018 around the #metoo movement, saying she was trying to do the best by women who had complained about mr salmond to the scottish government. she also apologised to them saying that clearly this policy has failed them.

so that background of #metoo was all part of, as you say, the complicated picture of evidence that was being put about all of the factors that were being weighed up at that time. absolutely. so far a lot of what we have heard is focused on how the scottish government came up with its new harassment policy as nicola sturgeon was talking about the context for that. it was not long after allegations had been made for the first time about harvey weinstein, there were allegations made at westminster, there was a global conversation going on about the way that these policies work. the scottish government made big changes to its policies. they clearly failed in this case and miss sturgeon has admitted. she spoke to herself about whether this was a policy to get alex salmond, that isn't an accusation he made last

week and this was her response. that is one of the — week and this was her response. that is one of the suggestions, that this policy— is one of the suggestions, that this policy was — is one of the suggestions, that this policy was somehow a bespoke alex salmond _ policy was somehow a bespoke alex salmond policy and even in the days when _ salmond policy and even in the days when we _ salmond policy and even in the days when we were besties, alex salmond has a _ when we were besties, alex salmond has a tendency to see most things being _ has a tendency to see most things being about him, and i hope he takes out in— being about him, and i hope he takes out inthe— being about him, and i hope he takes out in the spirit it is intended, but it— out in the spirit it is intended, but it wasn't, no, it wasn't. i think— but it wasn't, no, it wasn't. i think to _ but it wasn't, no, it wasn't. i think to see _ but it wasn't, no, it wasn't. i think to see it in that way, really ignores — think to see it in that way, really ignores what was happening globally at that— ignores what was happening globally at that time. this was about the #metoo — at that time. this was about the #metoo revelations. you asked about does this— #metoo revelations. you asked about does this guy thing then influence my views — does this guy thing then influence my views on it? no. i think the danger— my views on it? no. i think the danger lips— my views on it? no. i think the danger lips i can't say there —— i can't say there was no subconscious thing in my mind about that but— subconscious thing in my mind about that but the — subconscious thing in my mind about that but the danger then was that

had i_ that but the danger then was that had i started to influence the development of this policy in a way that somehow protected him. if i had taken _ that somehow protected him. if i had taken my— that somehow protected him. if i had taken my red pen or black pen as it isiust_ taken my red pen or black pen as it isiust now— taken my red pen or black pen as it isjust now and down like that taken my red pen or black pen as it is just now and down like that with former— is just now and down like that with former ministers because i had this sky think— former ministers because i had this sky think that had put her lingering thing _ sky think that had put her lingering thing in _ sky think that had put her lingering thing in my mind, i think i'll be getting— thing in my mind, i think i'll be getting a— thing in my mind, i think i'll be getting a lot of criticism. i did not do — getting a lot of criticism. i did not do that. the policy was not put in place _ not do that. the policy was not put in place because of alex salmond but nor did _ in place because of alex salmond but nor did i_ in place because of alex salmond but nor did i allow any considerations of alex _ nor did i allow any considerations of alex salmond allow to affect decisions on that. the questioning carries on in _ decisions on that. the questioning carries on in seven _ decisions on that. the questioning carries on in seven minutes - decisions on that. the questioning carries on in seven minutes and i decisions on that. the questioning l carries on in seven minutes and will go on to for some time. how big is this for nicola sturgeon? it is hute. this for nicola sturgeon? it is huge- the — this for nicola sturgeon? it is huge. the pressure _ this for nicola sturgeon? it 3 huge. the pressure she was under in the last couple of weeks are considerable. the records here for her to resign, saying that the

evidence given by other people to this committee directly contradicts what miss sturgeon said. we had a bit of that before the break when she was asked whether the name of a complainant was given by mr salmond to someone from the scottish government. mr salmond said that was the case and others said that was the case and others said that was the case. she has denied that. a few things to watch out for this afternoon, in particular when it comes to the ministerial code because that is the most dangerous part of this whole process for the first minister, she has been accused of repeatedly breaking rule said ministers have to follow. she has been accused of misleading parliament. there will be a lot more programming of exactly what her version of events is and if it is possible to match that up with some other evidence we have heard over the last few weeks in which she met mr salmond in her house. she

this is something she denied in parliament. they are nine weeks away from the holyrood election and the fact that the first minister of scotland, the snp leader, is under such intense questioning and is facing calls to resign, it is quite extraordinary.— facing calls to resign, it is quite extraordina . ., ~ , ., t extraordinary. thank you, nick. we will to extraordinary. thank you, nick. we will go back — extraordinary. thank you, nick. we will go back to _ extraordinary. thank you, nick. we will go back to holyrood _ extraordinary. thank you, nick. we will go back to holyrood in - extraordinary. thank you, nick. we will go back to holyrood in five i will go back to holyrood in five minutes. the chancellor rishi sunak will deliver his budget this lunchtime, with a promise to continue to support businesses through what he's described as "the challenging months ahead." the measures include extending the furlough scheme until the end of september and more support for the self—employed. but he'll also warn that once the coronavirus crisis is over, action will be needed to fix the public finances. here's our political correspondent helen catt. this is the budget. it will certainly be a budget like no other. so much has changed beyond recognition since this time last year, even if the red book looks the same.

hi, everybody, i'm david, head chef. the pandemic forced david to swap the restaurant kitchen in nottinghamshire where he is head chef for his own, where he has been teaching families to cook cheaply. he is one of the millions who have been furloughed. it's been tough. i'd say, without it, people wouldn't, i definitely wouldn't have been able to pay my bills. and then there is potential for losing your house and getting in a lot of trouble, and mentally, as well, it would be very, very tough. in today's budget, the furlough scheme will be extended until the end of september. grants for the self—employed will be extended as well and 600,000 more people may be eligible to claim them. and it's expected the £20 increase in universal credit will stay for six months. that will all add many more billions to the almost 300 billion the government has already spent on the pandemic. and as this treasury video suggests, it won't stop there. with many entertainment venues set to stay shut until at least may, the budget will allocate £408 million to museums, theatres and galleries, and 300 million to help sport recover.

there will be £25 million for grassroots football, and nearly three million for a bid to host the 2030 world cup. there will also be a £150 million fund to help communities take over struggling local pubs. to fund its schemes to keep the economy afloat, and pay for the pandemic, the government has borrowed a lot, more than ever outside of wartime. rishi sunak has promised he will be honest about plans to fix the public finances. the chancellor has also been considering increasing the tax that companies pay on their profits, corporation tax, and levying a one—off windfall tax on firms like supermarkets that have done particularly well. for now, the focus is on recovery. but there will be a bill to be paid eventually. we will find out later how far this budget will go towards telling us how. helen catt, bbc news, westminster. the chancellor is set to double the contactless payment limit to £100.

the current legal single contactless payment limit is £45. rishi sunak said that as the uk economy opens up again, increasing the limit will make it easier for people to pay fortheirshopping, providing a welcome boost to retail. andy verity is with me. lets talk more about what we can expect. in the past few days we have had a lot of stuff about what is going to be in the budget. there is always that thing of the rabbit coming out of the hat.- always that thing of the rabbit coming out of the hat. yeah. time was when members _ coming out of the hat. yeah. time was when members of— coming out of the hat. yeah. time was when members of parliament | was when members of parliament would get quite indignant at the chancellor leaked details of the budget before announcing it to parliament. in fact, budget before announcing it to parliament. infact, chancellors have resigned over that in the past. i can't remember a budget that had more leaks, elite gear budget in my whole time covering economics.

basically so much has been preannounced, including the pre—announcement, would he extend furlough and if so, for how long? we now know the answer that he will extended until the end of september. the hope is that that gets less and less expensive because fewer and fewer people will need to rely on it as the economy reopens. i think they put a price on its of about £10 billion for extending it for five months. which when you think it is cost about £54 billion so far, isn't such a high price to pay for the economic security it will give to all those people who are on furlough. all those people who are on furlough-— all those people who are on furlouth. , . ~ ., , furlough. lets take a little bit, that is him _ furlough. lets take a little bit, that is him leaving _ furlough. lets take a little bit, that is him leaving downing i furlough. lets take a little bit, i that is him leaving downing street earlier, going to the commons to deliver the budget in about an hour. a team photo released this morning, i was told it was arty, it is, isn't it? i'm not sure who was holding the camera and wear, but there he has with his team, with the chief secretary of the treasury, the

executive he has got a busy day, notjust posing for the picture, but obviously he was briefing this morning the cabinet, those final preparations, he will be delivering the budget. unusually, he will be answering the questions after the budget to the press as well. yes. answering the questions after the budget to the press as well. yes, it is an unusual _ budget to the press as well. yes, it is an unusual context, _ budget to the press as well. yes, it is an unusual context, an _ budget to the press as well. yes, it is an unusual context, an upbeat i is an unusual context, an upbeat mood in the country because of the success of the vaccine programme and because coronavirus test are falling, but economically right now we are any big hole. the bank of england has picked that the first quarter this year the economy is going to shrink by four or 5%. now, that in normal times would be a calamity. even in the financial crisis, the worst shrinkage of the economy was only about 2.2%, so that is twice as big, that is the kind of hole we are in right now. of course, the hope is that we climb out of it as the economy reopens. that does

seem very likely that the economy will grow after restrictions are lifted. ithink it is will grow after restrictions are lifted. i think it is predicted that over the whole year it will have grown by about 5% by the time we get to the end of 2021. you have these big questions about the amount to support the government is giving the economy. ok, we know it is going to extend its life support, but what is going to do to get the economic pushing back on its feet? do we need some drugs to treat the economic patient, is aware. a stimulus, like in the us where they are spending trillions of dollars... we in the uk have no plans of anything like that scale. we are relying entirely on consumers spending what they have saved over the pandemic. right now we are going — saved over the pandemic. right now we are going back— saved over the pandemic. right now we are going back to _ saved over the pandemic. right now we are going back to holyrood i saved over the pandemic. right now we are going back to holyrood for. we are going back to holyrood for the questioning of nicola sturgeon, first minister. so good morning,

first minister. so good morning, first minister. so good morning, first minister. thank you for coming to see us today. i like to continue the theme of discussion around confidentiality around complainers. i have a couple of very specific questions around the way you phrase things, because i think that words matter. i was very struck that in your opening statement to describe the revelation of the investigation you use the phrase i think you always have done since these allegations came to light, and that is that alex salmond informed me of the investigation on the 2nd of april. the accept there is a difference between having knowledge of a specific complaint and investigation and having awareness that someone might have come forward with the concern? yes. with that in mind, with the concern? yes. with that in mind. can — with the concern? yes. with that in mind. can ask _ with the concern? yes. with that in mind, can ask when _ with the concern? yes with that in mind, can ask when you first with the concern? ij:3 with that in mind, can ask when you first became aware that a civil servant may have come forward in 2017 with the concern about historic behaviour on the part of alex salmond, not a formal complaint or investigation? when did you have awareness of that as a reality that someone had come forward? �* ., , ., forward? so, i... i'm not trying to tla with forward? so, i... i'm not trying to play with words — forward? so, i... i'm not trying to play with words here. _ forward? so, i... i'm not trying to play with words here. i'm - forward? so, i... i'm not trying to

play with words here. i'm going i forward? so, i... i'm not trying to| play with words here. i'm going to try and answer your questions as directly as i can. based on my recollection of conversations that i had. we'll come onto the of march. |, had. we'll come onto the of march. i, partly from the november sky greedy, which we may or may not come unto, and then my conversation with jeff aberdeen, i had no awareness that there was an issue with concerns about alex salmond, and that they may be in the form of a complaint, but it wasn't until i had read the permanent secretary's letter on the 2nd of april that i knew beyond any doubt that any general concerns or suspicions i had actually became detailed and actual knowledge of the fact there were two complaints, they were by civil servants, being investigated under that procedure and what the nature of the complaints was. it that procedure and what the nature of the complaints was.— of the complaints was. it was 'ust about s of the complaints was. it was 'ust about so news i of the complaints was. it was 'ust about sky news and i of the complaints was. it was 'ust about sky news and the i of the complaints was. it was just about sky news and the airport, l of the complaints was. it was just i about sky news and the airport, that wouldn't have been a complaint in a

government, so to be crystal clear, you did have awareness that there might be a concern raised within the civil service about mr salmond in and around that time? 50. civil service about mr salmond in and around that time?— civil service about mr salmond in and around that time? so, from the 29th of march. _ and around that time? so, from the 29th of march, and _ and around that time? so, from the 29th of march, and i _ and around that time? so, from the 29th of march, and i think - and around that time? so, from the 29th of march, and i think this i and around that time? so, from the 29th of march, and i think this is i and around that time? so, from the 29th of march, and i think this is a i 29th of march, and i think this is a distinction from the second of... the 4th of november, i think that really was, i had, and we will come onto this, it is a precision for me, my recollection of the conversation with jeff is my recollection of the conversation withjeff is not my recollection of the conversation with jeff is not as my recollection of the conversation withjeff is not as vivid as i wish it was, which i think perhaps tells its own story, but i came out of that and went into the 2nd of april meeting... i that and went into the 2nd of april meetint . .. that and went into the 2nd of april meeting- - -— that and went into the 2nd of april meetint... . ., ' meeting... i will ask about the 29th of march meeting. .. i will ask about the 29th of march later— meeting... i will ask about the 29th of march later on. _ meeting... i will ask about the 29th of march later on. i'm _ meeting... i will ask about the 29th of march later on. i'm trying - meeting... i will ask about the 29th of march later on. i'm trying to i of march later on. i'm trying to answer your— of march later on. i'm trying to answer your question. - of march later on. i'm trying to answer your question. of i of march later on. i'm trying to i answer your question. of course. what i'm saying _ answer your question. of course. what i'm saying to _ answer your question. of course. what i'm saying to you _ answer your question. of course. what i'm saying to you is, - answer your question. of course. what i'm saying to you is, head i answer your question. of course. | what i'm saying to you is, head of the 2nd of april, i had an awareness there was a complaint, no doubt i had suspicions of what the nature of that might be, but that is what it

was, generalawareness, that might be, but that is what it was, general awareness, a suspicion that no doubt i had all sorts of theories for in my head, but it was reading the permanent secretary's later that he should be on the 2nd of april that gave me the knowledge and the detail behind that knowledge of all the things i have spoken about. ., ., , about. forgive me for interrupting that. no, about. forgive me for interrupting that. no. not— about. forgive me for interrupting that. no, not because _ about. forgive me for interrupting that. no, not because back- about. forgive me for interrupting that. no, not because back to i about. forgive me for interrupting| that. no, not because back to that the section between knowledge of a complaint and awareness that something may be going on. final question on this page, did you have awareness before the 29th of march that there might be complaints or concerns are emerging within the civil service? hat concerns are emerging within the civil service?— civil service? not specifically but atain, civil service? not specifically but again. this _ civil service? not specifically but again, this relates, _ civil service? not specifically but again, this relates, and - civil service? not specifically but again, this relates, and i- civil service? not specifically but again, this relates, and i know i civil service? not specifically but i again, this relates, and i know you have... i think are some of this from the permanent secretary, so, the 4th of november sky greedy, that i spoke directly to alex salmond about on more than one occasion over about on more than one occasion over a couple of days left me for a variety of reasons that i can go into or not as you wish, with just a sense of unease, i can put any more

strongly than that. one of the reasons that led to that, ten, was that i been made aware, for the chronology, the sky greedy coming on a saturday night, i spoke to them on the sunday, was made aware the monday that him and or his lawyers have been phoning people within the civil service, and i spoke to him again about that. and i can't put this any more firmly than i'm about to put it put to you, and i am sorry about that, they wait that was raised with me just lead to a sense of unease that him phoning or these phone calls, whether they were from him or his lawyer, had stirred something, kind of poked a hornet�*s nest, so i didn't have knowledge of specific complaints, it wasn't something i thought about every day, it wasn't something i lay awake by night worrying about at that point, but i had a lingering suspicion there may be something in the ether,

in the undergrowth that could surface. ., .. in the undergrowth that could surface. ., ~ , ., in the undergrowth that could surface. . ~' , ., ~' surface. ok, thank you. i think the reason i ask— surface. ok, thank you. i think the reason i ask about _ surface. ok, thank you. i think the reason i ask about your _ surface. ok, thank you. i think the reason i ask about your phrasing i surface. ok, thank you. i think the reason i ask about your phrasing is because, when all this broke in the media, you give several calculated and selective answers to people on national television like andrew marr and had to reverse those positions when searching information came to light. can you see why people might feel misled by your description of these events? 50. feel misled by your description of these events?— feel misled by your description of these events? so, looking at theirs as... i these events? so, looking at theirs as- -- l was — these events? so, looking at theirs as- -- l was going — these events? so, looking at theirs as... i was going to _ these events? so, looking at theirs as... i was going to say _ as... i was going to say dispassionately, the but that is not the right word, because that's not something it is possible for me to do, but yes, i can, and to try and explain things, again as openly as i can, firstly, this is all stuffed up mike and i don't want to labour this, because it is not of any interest of the committee and is not me appealing for special treatment here, the stock is deeply personal for me, and it is really quite hard to talk about and at times, if i appeared as if cagey about it, that

is one of the reasons. one of the other reasons, each talk to interviews with andrew marr and sophie reg, i don't think this is true of the sophie red one if it is the one i'm thinking of, but certainly the andrew marr won at the time he first asked me about this, at that time i was also very conscious of the ongoing investigation, i was really, really worry that anything i said about this at any time would cause headlines, news, commentary. iwas always trying to avoid doing that, so if i appeared as if i was not being as kind of open and discursive info, that was another of the reasons. the other point about this guy thing and why i didn't, because i think it is a point glen campbell has made as well —— about the sky thing. when the process became public, that it didn't refer to that. although that had left me with lingering suspicions, at that point that study had never run, it had

never surfaced. as far as i knew, there is nothing to it, although i did have some concerns that there might be something to. so i had nothing to base that on beyond what i am telling you here. so, yes, nothing to base that on beyond what iam telling you here. so, yes, i nothing to base that on beyond what i am telling you here. so, yes, i do understand why people might see that. and i would just say to people that. and i would just say to people that there are a lot of factors here. not least, i have seen commentary to the effect that i always seem really uncomfortable when i speak about this. i am really comfortable when i speak about this. we are talking here about serious allegations that have led to the breakdown in a relationship with somebody that was really important to me on all sorts of levels. so i do feel uncomfortable when i speak about this at a human level, but i'm not here to talk about that, i'm here to answer questions as first minister and i here to answer questions as first ministerand i am here to answer questions as first minister and i am trying to do that. i appreciate that, first minister, but you understand this comes to the very heart of what we are considering. your knowledge of these events really matters, and the fact that you had to reverse your position of what you knew and when

on andrew marr has let people were some considerable doubt. i will move out... ., some considerable doubt. i will move out... . ., ., out... can i, the other point about andrew marr. _ out... can i, the other point about andrew man. i — out... can i, the other point about andrew marr, i appreciate - out... can i, the other point about| andrew marr, i appreciate watching this may not see this, i think when andrew marr, he will be loving the fact he is featuring so heavily in this discussion right now, when he came back to ask me this, i think i made the point that i felt two issues were being completed. i thought the question i was answering the first time was around the scottish government complaints, whereas what i had had previous knowledge of what is the sky greedy, a different thing, so something is one of the other reasons here is that different things have been completed when they are actually separate. completed when they are actually se tarate. ., ~' completed when they are actually se tarate. ., ~ ., ., separate. ok. i would like to move now to the — separate. ok. i would like to move now to the issue _ separate. ok. i would like to move now to the issue that _ separate. ok. i would like to move now to the issue that murdo - separate. ok. i would like to movei now to the issue that murdo fraser and jackie baillie were discussing with you before, about the confidentiality of complainers, and we have incorporated the assertion that a name of a complainer was given tojeff aberdeen. if true, that this an egregious breach of confidentiality, and you thought

jackie will see that you don't accept. you confirm that you spoke to the senior official who is accused of this when you learnt of it. is that the reach of your investigation into this issue? that investigation into this issue? git the moment, i investigation into this issue? git the moment, lam investigation into this issue? git the moment, i am trying to respect the moment, i am trying to respect the other investigator processes under way here. i know that... i can't speakfor geoff under way here. i know that... i can't speak for geoff aberdein but i knowjames hamilton has an account of this, and it is up for the committee to decide what it does. jackie baillie suggested earlier on i had somehow contradicted myself today against what i said last week at first minister because my question is, i have the official report here and i did not, what is it but i did not have knowledge of this allegation. what it said was that to the best of my knowledge the allegation wasn't true. i can read the official report should anybody want me to. the official report should anybody want me to-_ want me to. with respect, james hamilton is _ want me to. with respect, james hamilton is really _ want me to. with respect, james hamilton is really investigating i hamilton is really investigating your actions, hamilton is really investigating youractions, not hamilton is really investigating your actions, not those around you, but he might have adjustment to make a note as well, we will discover that. nevertheless, it is an offence

to breach confidentiality in that way, so would you be surprised at the senior official you asked about this is the reach of your investigation denied it? i’m this is the reach of your investigation denied it? i'm not sure, convenor, _ investigation denied it? i'm not sure, convenor, i— investigation denied it? i'm not sure, convenor, i can _ investigation denied it? i'm not sure, convenor, i can see i investigation denied it? i'm not sure, convenor, i can see much investigation denied it? i'm not i sure, convenor, i can see much more biggest than i already have an appetite to be as expansive as it possibly can within constraints. what i do know is we're talking about breaches of confidentiality and gdp are and actually i think theseissues and gdp are and actually i think these issues are even more fundamental than that. i have set out why i am not sitting here accepting as fact that that happened, because i think there is an alternative explanation of that. in talking about confidentiality, the person who told me the identity of certainly one complainant and certainly give me the impression he knew the identity of the other, and i can't remember if it'll be the

name, was alex salmond. final tuestion name, was alex salmond. final question on _ name, was alex salmond. final question on this _ name, was alex salmond. final question on this bit _ name, was alex salmond. final question on this bit and - name, was alex salmond. final question on this bit and then i will move on, i promise, convener, to other aspects of confidentiality. this regulation, if it happened, it clearly not geoff aberdein for six. we understand to be sure to inform us of servant he is very close with, clearly reeling from this —— a former civil servant. clearly reeling from this —— a former civilservant. i clearly reeling from this —— a former civil servant. i understand you have not attempted to contact any of them? i you have not attempted to contact any of them?— you have not attempted to contact an of them? . �* ., , ., any of them? i haven't attempted to contact geoff — any of them? i haven't attempted to contact geoff aberdein _ any of them? i haven't attempted to contact geoff aberdein about - any of them? i haven't attempted to contact geoff aberdein about this, i contact geoff aberdein about this, because i think if i had, and i were sitting here saying that right there in front of this committee, i would probably be getting criticised for... i don't have it in front of me, convener, but the initial letter i got from this committee asking for written evidence i think it worst of the effect that i shouldn't be comparing stories with other witnesses. i have tried to respect the processes of this committee. i fully understand your position there, first minister. the reason i

am labouring this point, an idea say the reason that mr fraser and mrs bailey are labouring this point, if this is true, this metering to be one of the biggest failures of the complainers at the heart of this, that the name was passed to the emissaries of the man they were accusing, and itjust feels like you have just taken the work of the person who is accused are not investigated at... i won't proceed any more on the matter. i investigated at. .. i won't proceed any more on the matter.- investigated at... i won't proceed any more on the matter. i don't want an bod to any more on the matter. i don't want anybody to think _ any more on the matter. i don't want anybody to think that _ any more on the matter. i don't want anybody to think that i _ any more on the matter. i don't want anybody to think that i don't - any more on the matter. i don't want anybody to think that i don't treat i anybody to think that i don't treat this seriously, but i say again, you have said things there to me about geoff aberdein's account, though certainly to the best of my recollection, i have not heard. i have not seen his account. it is open to this committee to have geoff aberdein any other individual we were actually parting to this discussion in front of them at least privately, and i can only say so much about a conversation i was not party to. what i do know is that alex salmond himself gave me, or

shared openly at the meeting on the 2nd of april, the identity of at least one and possibly two of the complainers, and to the best of my recollection, did not give me any indication that day that he had got the identity of a complainer from somebody with the description that you are using. somebody with the description that you are using-— you are using. thank you. i would like to move _ you are using. thank you. i would like to move now— you are using. thank you. i would like to move now to _ you are using. thank you. i would like to move now to the _ you are using. thank you. i would like to move now to the lake - you are using. thank you. i would like to move now to the lake to i you are using. thank you. i would l like to move now to the lake to the daily record, i won't cover that in another cell because i thinkjackie baillie is a not very well, but i find it curious that the day before the leak to the daily record the government was about the press release the fact of the investigation, only stopped by legal action from mr salmond. was that press release prepared with your consent? , press release prepared with your consent? . ., ., ., , ., consent? soap, the chronology of this was that _ consent? soap, the chronology of this was that i _ consent? soap, the chronology of this was that i was _ consent? soap, the chronology of this was that i was written - consent? soap, the chronology of this was that i was written to - consent? soap, the chronology of this was that i was written to by l this was that i was written to by the permanent secretary, i can't remember whether the committee has got that letter. i don't see why it wouldn't have. on the 22nd of august. i think i have a lighter summer here but i will go through it from memory right now, telling me

that the investigation had concluded —— | that the investigation had concluded —— i have the letter here. that certain things have been upheld, that a decision had been taken to refer three matches to the police. by refer three matches to the police. by the time that permanent secretary wrote to me that referral had taken place. that letter on the 22nd of august told me that there was further consideration about putting into the public domain some very limited information. but that decision had been taken. so it was not my press release, it was not a press release i was preparing. as i understand it, ithink press release i was preparing. as i understand it, i think are listed at the time, but i certainly understand it now, the reason for that was that the government also had a requirement at that time to answer a freedom of information request, and the question was, i can remember the exact phraseology of it, it would have required that information. on the day of the com if i'm getting my dh rate, the 23rd of august, when i think the permanent secretary

decided that a limited amount of information would be put in the public domain —— getting my dates right, alex and's lawyers threatened action and the government decided not to... the query from the daily record came in later, i understand the government made alex salmond's lawyers aware of the query from the daily record, and it is not for me to say, alex salmond at that point clearly decided not to take action against the daily record. that is my knowledge of the chronology of that. that is very helpful, thank you. very refreshing on this, where the complainers asked if they were happy for the press release to go out or that limited amount of public information to go out? it that limited amount of public information to go out? it wasn't me as a decision-maker _ information to go out? it wasn't me as a decision-maker this _ information to go out? it wasn't me as a decision-maker this process. l as a decision—maker this process. where you aware? i’m as a decision-maker this process. where you aware?— as a decision-maker this process. where you aware? i'm going to check this, i where you aware? i'm going to check this. i think — where you aware? i'm going to check this. i think they _ where you aware? i'm going to check this, i think they had _ where you aware? i'm going to check this, i think they had certainly - this, i think they had certainly been told that limited information was going to go out. what i can recall and i would need to check is whether there had been asked their opinion orjust advised of it. my

mac final saw questions. the police had expressly advised... the mac final saw questions. the police had expressly advised. . ._ had expressly advised... the police had expressly advised... the police had exoressly _ had expressly advised... the police had expressly advised _ had expressly advised... the police had expressly advised against - had expressly advised against releasing information of this kind. can you see that taken together, these two things, the press release and the leak look like a determined attempt to splash this information, in order to endowment alex salmond, irrespective of what that might mean for the complainers. —— irrespective of what that might mean forthe complainers. —— in irrespective of what that might mean for the complainers. —— in order to damage alex salmond. i for the complainers. -- in order to damage alex salmond.— for the complainers. -- in order to damage alex salmond. i think if you want to see — damage alex salmond. i think if you want to see it _ damage alex salmond. i think if you want to see it that _ damage alex salmond. i think if you want to see it that way _ damage alex salmond. i think if you want to see it that way you - damage alex salmond. i think if you want to see it that way you could - want to see it that way you could stop i am now commenting on things that i was not involved in the central decision—making around at the time. as i understand it, what tip the balance in favour of putting in some limited information to the public domain with the freedom of information request that had to be answered. and that was the basis for that consideration. what i would say, and i have said before, and i can't speakfor say, and i have said before, and i can't speak for anybody other than myself here, i did not want ever to

be any situation where i was standing in front of a camera talking about allegations of this nature against alex salmond. i had no desire for this to be in the public domain. i certainly would not have tried to illegitimately block it, because that would not been appropriate, but you know, ithink it, because that would not been appropriate, but you know, i think i did know that because of the threatened interdict, a plan press release couldn't go because they're being interdicted action direction, i recall feeling relieved about that because it meant i wasn't suddenly facing this thing coming into the public domain. i never wanted any of this to happen, and i certainly wouldn't have had any desire to see this forced into the public domain. forgive me, first minister, i wasn't suggesting was necessarily you had the desire to push that permission out. my final question, you will be glad to hear, convenor, around this time, the report of the investigation was also passed by the permanent secretary the crown agent

against the wishes of the complainers at the heart of this. was that the right thing to do? i think, on balance, yes, it was the right thing to do. when the permanent secretary wrote to me on the 22nd of august, that referral, it wasn't just that the decision had been made, the referral had been made by that point. one of the things i find myself doing, and i will answer specifically in relation to this, in terms of all of the charges that are being levelled at me or the government generally, is to almost pose the counterfactual. had we done the opposite, by week, i'm talking genetically here... had the permanent secretary setting with allegations, complains that she had gone through a process and thought had substance to them, and on the face of it involved criminality, alleged criminality, not passed that to the police and that had later come out, i think the questions we would be getting posed would bejust as serious but from the opposite perspective.

as serious but from the opposite perspeetive-_ as serious but from the opposite --ersective. ., ., ., , perspective. that would have been criminality against _ perspective. that would have been criminality against people - perspective. that would have been criminality against people who - perspective. that would have been | criminality against people who have agency and the capacity to make decisions about what they want of what has happened to them, and these women expressively said they didn't want criminal involvement. i think government hasn't done much i read some stuff and i will have it on here but i'm not going to start looking through it, there is some guidance that talks about a need to refer something to the police even when people don't want that to happen. the scottish government has a duty, and argues that in not a technical sense, although it may be extra in a technical sense, if it thinks criminal acts have been committed, to do something about that, i would think. i don't know how strongly the opposition was expressed by the two complaints. but i think, on balance, these things often come down to judgment. much of what we are discussing here today, much of what we will discuss here today, the things we have been criticised for, i am being criticised for, i am being criticised for, i am being criticised for, perfectly

legitimate, i understand why people are doing that, but had i done the opposite i would also be getting criticised. and that is perhaps just a reflection of the invidious, almost impossible situation this place a lot of people end. —— people in. to place a lot of people end. -- people in. ., , ., ., in. to build on some of the questions _ in. to build on some of the questions earlier— in. to build on some of the questions earlier on - in. to build on some of the questions earlier on some | in. to build on some of the i questions earlier on some of in. to build on some of the - questions earlier on some of the questions — questions earlier on some of the questions as they are by mr cole hamilton. — questions as they are by mr cole hamilton, you've described as the circumstances around the press release — circumstances around the press release and indeed mr salmond described the house, in his views, remarkable — described the house, in his views, remarkable the fact that the permanent secretary had planned to make _ permanent secretary had planned to make a _ permanent secretary had planned to make a press statement on the 23rd of august. _ make a press statement on the 23rd of august, announcing the outcome of the complaint against him. did the permanent secretary or anyone else in the _ permanent secretary or anyone else in the government subsequently seem to give _ in the government subsequently seem to give a _ in the government subsequently seem to give a formal explanation of the order— to give a formal explanation of the order of— to give a formal explanation of the order of events and the reasons behind — order of events and the reasons behind them?—

behind them? budget me? the permanent _ behind them? budget me? the permanent secretary, - behind them? budget me? the permanent secretary, i - behind them? budget me? the permanent secretary, i can - behind them? budget me? the l permanent secretary, i can figure behind them? budget me? the - permanent secretary, i can figure it out people want me to quote from it, —— to me? the is true of pressuring two —— the r , what i've understood since then and what i understand since, deciding on balance ofjudgment, there is an outstanding freedom of information request had to be answered. i think it was asking the question, have complaints or concerns being raised about alex salmond's behaviour? that was the judgment that was made. again, i play the counterfactual. where are we sitting here a couple of years on and this had all come to light that there'd been a government investigation that nobody had known about, that it upheld complaints against alex salmond and to any draw, people control their own judgments on which course was right or wrong, judgments on which course was right orwrong, but judgments on which course was right or wrong, but i bet my bottom dollar, i'd probably be sitting here

right now answering questions about why because it appropriate to just keep it private. these are really difficult situations, really difficult situations, really difficultjudgments, the government, difficult judgments, the government, me, difficultjudgments, the government, me, the rest of us, to beget all of thejudgments me, the rest of us, to beget all of the judgments ratepossibly not, me, the rest of us, to beget all of thejudgments ratepossibly not, that is for others tojudge. thejudgments ratepossibly not, that is for others to judge. —— do we get all of thesejudgments is for others to judge. —— do we get all of these judgments right? is for others to judge. —— do we get all of thesejudgments right? . i have tried to see it from alex salmond's point of view. given his position, given what he has gone through, subjectively i am not surprised he takes a different view on some of these keyjudgments. that is understandable. but it doesn't necessarily make him right and the government wrong. and that is just the fact of the matter. if i government wrong. and that is 'ust the fact of the maneui the fact of the matter. if i can turn to one — the fact of the matter. if i can turn to one of _ the fact of the matter. if i can turn to one of the _ the fact of the matter. if i can turn to one of the other- the fact of the matter. if i can i turn to one of the other issues, the fact of the matter. if i can - turn to one of the other issues, in that case, — turn to one of the other issues, in that case, where mr salmond took a different— that case, where mr salmond took a different view speaking to where you take a _ different view speaking to where you take a different view. it is a matter— take a different view. it is a matter of— take a different view. it is a matter of that mr salmond was of the

view that— matter of that mr salmond was of the view that you should intervene to advocate — view that you should intervene to advocate the use of arbitration and the complaints against him. i asked him about— the complaints against him. i asked him about that last week, about whether— him about that last week, about whether arbitration for a public law matter— whether arbitration for a public law matter related to sexual harassment, in this— matter related to sexual harassment, in this case, _ matter related to sexual harassment, in this case, would not have been inappropriate. that was something he refuted~ _ inappropriate. that was something he refuted. should the scottish government look to arbitration, in your view? — government look to arbitration, in yourview? or do government look to arbitration, in your view? or do you continue to take _ your view? or do you continue to take the — your view? or do you continue to take the view that your government was right— take the view that your government was right not to go that line? so, alex salmond _ was right not to go that line? (so, alex salmond wanted me was right not to go that line? so, alex salmond wanted me to intervene on two points, on two issues. firstly, before we got to the point of arbitration, he wanted me to intervene to effectively persuade the permanent secretary to agree to a process of mediation. arbitrary and that would have been mediation between him and the complainers. it was later that he started to seek a process of arbitration of the

procedure. isuppose process of arbitration of the procedure. i suppose the government considered, in terms of the process that was under way at the time, these things were considered, they came to the view is that these weren't appropriate things. i, you know, i think, weren't appropriate things. i, you know, ithink, if weren't appropriate things. i, you know, i think, if you want my view now, i think mediation, particularly as i understand the complainers didn't want that. any situation like this, it would not have been an appropriate thing to force into process that didn't end and of itself can allow for that. and arbitration of a public procedure where the issues were very much kind of public law issues is that i am not an expert on this, but it is not immediately obvious to me that arbitration would have been the right thing to do, or necessarily a quicker or cheaper or more effective way of dealing with these things, but these were things the government looked at in the course of the investigation to stop the issues for me are not so much whether i think mediation or arbitration should or should not happen. the issue for me

was that appropriate for me to intervene in the process to try and bring either about, and i don't think it was, given the nature of this process and my lack of role in it at that stage. again, posing the counterfactual, had i done so, i think i would be facing serious criticism on that score as well. in fact, when this first came to light, i think from the questioning of me in the chamber, that is what people thought they were about to start to level at me, and i don't think the treatment of me would have been particularly favoured, don't think anybody would be sitting round here patting me on the back today about such intervene and influence the course of that procedure. the final point i would make, i am not questioning that alex salmond thought that both mediation and arbitration might in their own terms have been appropriate, but i also had the strong impression that, in terms of both of them, they were devices to stop these complaints coming to the point of decision, and

therefore had intervened to try and bring them about, i would have felt that i was effectively colluding with him to try to thwart the direction and the natural course of an investigation. and i think that would have been a heaney is an egregious breach of my position. i appreciate the distinction you make between arbitration and mediation. it became clear last week that mr salmond did not believe that the original complaints of the procedure were made in bad faith but rather he indicated that in his view various people were trying to manufacture allegations against him after that point. he cites a variety of e—mails sent out to past and present members of staff, particularly to women around this time, he believes that they were a fishing exercise rather than offers of support. what is your

understanding of all that and those communications? the understanding of all that and those communications?— understanding of all that and those communications? ., , ,, ., ., communications? the ones i know have been raised are — communications? the ones i know have been raised are the _ communications? the ones i know have been raised are the one _ communications? the ones i know have been raised are the one sent _ communications? the ones i know have been raised are the one sent by - communications? the ones i know have been raised are the one sent by the - been raised are the one sent by the snp. on two occasions, one at the time of #metoo, we developed not a new procedure but a different route for people to raise complaints, an independent route. a lawyer was there that people could go and speak to if they didn't want to go through the more internal route. we sent that out in in all member e—mail around about the end of october. i think that also went to staff on some communication of that went to staff. secondly, after the situation with alex had become public, communications went to all members and members of staff, particular members of staff. that was a duty of care move at a time when you have high—profile situations like this, i

think most organisations should and our rights to perform that duty of care rule, not a phishing exercise but if you have any concerns, this is how you go about raising them. i really struggle to see from a objective perspective, and i appreciate alex can't be objective in this, but from any objective perspective i think that is notjust a reasonable thing to do but are perfectly appropriate think of the snp to have done. beyond that, i am really dismayed to hear suggestions that people were concocting or making up allegations. a number of women came forward and they came forward of their own free will. did they support each other along the way? some of them ever evidently did. to try and suggest that is something it is not is seriously

wrong. to this day, i don't know the identity of every single complainer in the criminal trial. some of those whose identities i do know i don't know them well. to the best of my knowledge they don't all know each other well. the idea that this was some concoction or plot is just not based in any semblance of fact or any semblance of credible evidence. on the issue of the governments legal advice in the actual process, what role does external counsel and... . ., and... can i intervene here. can you leave that — and... can i intervene here. can you leave that to — and... can i intervene here. can you leave that to the _ and... can i intervene here. can you leave that to the judicial _ and... can i intervene here. can you leave that to the judicial review - leave that to the judicial review section. — leave that to the judicial review section, please? ithink leave that to the judicial review section, please? i think it would make _ section, please? i think it would make the — section, please? i think it would make the splitting up of chronological decisions more sensible. ., ., ., ,

sensible. can i ask more generally then that the _ sensible. can i ask more generally then that the evidence _ sensible. can i ask more generally then that the evidence behind - sensible. can i ask more generally| then that the evidence behind your position, and i asked mr salmond this question, the evidence he can find to back up his position. so mr salmond for example has implied there are many documents that are either being led in the criminal trial and are not released to this committee which back up his position. do you have a view on all of that and is on why they have or haven't been released, the conclusions he draws from these? it is fair to say that i do. i heard him say last week that the first minister says i am going to produce evidence, it is not permitted to produce evidence, i've already been through two court cases. i was not suggesting that he has to evidence his innocence of criminality. that was done in a court and that is beyond question. if you are going to

put forward a suggestion there is some kind of plot, a concerted malicious campaign, as he described it, i do think there is a need to evidence at times i have not heard evidence at times i have not heard evidence of that. there has been references repeatedly to material that was handed over to his defence as part of the criminal trial. by definition, that is material that must have been seen by the police, by the crown, i'm understanding were applications to have that included in the criminal trial but the court decided it wasn't relevant. if this material shows what mr salmond once asked to believe it shows then someone in the court might have seen that too. i think the fact they didn't, people might want to draw some conclusions from that. in terms from messages that have been quoted, yes, i have tried to find out where they are from, who they are to, what

is the context is. in every single one that i've managed to get to a point where i can have a view myself they are completely the opposite of what he suggests. they're taken out of context, misrepresented, twisted, what they show in terms of what i have seen are people supporting each other, people talking to each other, yeah, a bit of gossip about what was going on. remember, this was a massive thing for the snp, particularly for people who had worked with him. and also people cooperating with police enquiries. the snp and individuals in the snp were being asked to cooperate with police enquiries. some of what is being misrepresented as trying to find your concoct evidence is people cooperating with the police at their request. i have seen nothing that comes within i million request. i have seen nothing that comes withini million miles of

backing up that central assertion that alex was making that there were some kind of coordinated attempt that for whatever motive, the motive seems to be on shifting sands as well, i have seen nothing that comes within i well, i have seen nothing that comes withini million miles of demonstrating that. if withini million miles of demonstrating that. iii within 1 million miles of demonstrating that. within 1 million miles of demonstratin: that. demonstrating that. ifi can rewind a little, demonstrating that. ifi can rewind a little. you _ demonstrating that. ifi can rewind a little, you alluded _ demonstrating that. ifi can rewind a little, you alluded to _ demonstrating that. ifi can rewind a little, you alluded to earlier- demonstrating that. ifi can rewind a little, you alluded to earlier on i a little, you alluded to earlier on but one of the first things we looked at as a committee was workplace culture. we obviously heard evidence from that from the former permanent secretary of the scottish government who offered opinions about the workplace culture and offered comments about the first minister's place in that. it is anything you want to say about the issues that he raised alluded to? no, the point i agreed with alex on friday is that this enquiry is not internal, it is to me and the

government and accept that, but i would make the point it is impossible it is impossible to consider all these things without straying into the allegations made against him. i am not here, other two are about and explain my own actions, to cast aspersions on alex salmond. i would love to get a point where i don't have to think about alex vindman's alleged behaviour ever again. alex vindman's alleged behaviour everagain. he alex vindman's alleged behaviour ever again. he was a tough guy to work with. i didn't experience that very much. maybe the nature of our relationship. he was a really tough guy to work with. sometimes that was justified, sometimes it wasn't. sometimes i would tell him he has gone over the score. and as i said earlier on, those of us who work with him for so long perhaps became a bit inuit to that so we didn't see it when it was, i didn't appreciate it when it was, i didn't appreciate

it from the perspective of other peoples. these are reflections that aren't particularly about me. we have a short _ aren't particularly about me. we have a short supplementary question related _ have a short supplementary question related |t— have a short supplementary question related. . have a short supplementary question related. , ., ., related. it is to the text and whatsapp — related. it is to the text and whatsapp messages. - related. it is to the text and whatsapp messages. can . related. it is to the text and whatsapp messages. can i | related. it is to the text and i whatsapp messages. can i ask related. it is to the text and - whatsapp messages. can i ask you about those we discussed with mr salmond. i'm excluding messages the committee have seen that we regarded as not relevant to our enquiry but i am thinking of the messages we are left to see this afternoon. messages between peter moral, chief executive of the snp, the chief operating officer and ian mccann, the compliance officer. given you're also the leader of the snp, did you have to see this messages? i also the leader of the snp, did you have to see this messages?- have to see this messages? i have made enquiries — have to see this messages? i have made enquiries about _ have to see this messages? i have made enquiries about the - have to see this messages? i have i made enquiries about the messages have to see this messages? i have made enquiries about the messages to satisfy myself. they're not my messages. if you take the ones between sue and peter, the ones that have been quoted and the ones i have seen, they are just not as

presented. peter has given his own account of his messages. if the committee gets to see the full version of one of the messages of pressuring the police has been taken from, i think you see a very different impression of that. these are messages of people who are cooperating with these enquiries, supporting each other. that message have just spoken about, if i'm getting my dates right here, was the day after he had been charged. just pause in this for a moment, this man who we had helped get elected twice as first minister, people like me consider him a really close personal friend. he had just been charged with a number of serious sexual offences, i defy anyone in a position to not be upset and a bit

angry and that's perhaps come across in their communications. the idea that that suggest some kind of plot or conspiracy actually quite offensive given the years of loyalty that the people who have been accused of that had shown to alex vindman. he quoted for messages on friday that i have taken steps to satisfy myself they are not untoward. two of that show to alex salmond. —— of that show to alex salmond. there was one message where he said something like, where is it, "tell me the evidence and i will get it for them." what that is is somebody who has made a complaint and made hours with the police... can i

who has made a complaint and made hours with the police. . ._ hours with the police... can i stop ou hours with the police... can i stop you there. — hours with the police... can i stop you there, first _ hours with the police... can i stop you there, first minister? - hours with the police... can i stop you there, first minister? our - you there, first minister? our committee is going to see some messages later on that we requested of the _ messages later on that we requested of the crown office and i don't think— of the crown office and i don't think it — of the crown office and i don't think it is _ of the crown office and i don't think it is appropriate to be taking a view— think it is appropriate to be taking a view on — think it is appropriate to be taking a view on them before we have read the contents. my a view on them before we have read the contents-— the contents. my apologies, i was t in: to the contents. my apologies, i was trying to answer— the contents. my apologies, i was trying to answer the _ the contents. my apologies, i was trying to answer the question. - trying to answer the question. suffice to say that these messages, the committee would draw its own conclusions, i have not seen all of these messages. but these were people supporting each other and cooperating with police enquiries. seenin cooperating with police enquiries. seen in context i think any other person would draw that conclusion. yeah, the committee will draw its own conclusions. i�*m yeah, the committee will draw its own conclusions.— own conclusions. i'm not asking about the _ own conclusions. i'm not asking about the messages _ own conclusions. i'm not asking about the messages but - own conclusions. i'm not asking about the messages but i - own conclusions. i'm not asking about the messages but i am i own conclusions. i'm not asking - about the messages but i am asking if you have seen them and if you are reassured by them? i don't know all of the messages he is referring to.

i have seen or had an account of the ones he has quoted and yes, i am satisfied that they are not what he is suggesting in terms of the motive. . ., , is suggesting in terms of the motive. , ., is suggesting in terms of the motive. , ,, ., , motive. sorry to pressure on this but i am asking _ motive. sorry to pressure on this but i am asking if _ motive. sorry to pressure on this but i am asking if you _ motive. sorry to pressure on this but i am asking if you have - motive. sorry to pressure on thisj but i am asking if you have asked motive. sorry to pressure on this i but i am asking if you have asked to see them all as leader of the snp? i don't know what all is. i don't know what all means in this context. i’ii what all means in this context. i'll leave what all means in this context. i�*ll leave it there. what all means in this context. i'll leave it there. two _ what all means in this context. i'll leave it there. two more - what all means in this context. i'll leave it there. two more requestl what all means in this context. i'll. leave it there. two more request in this particular _ leave it there. two more request in this particular sections _ leave it there. two more request in this particular sections on - this particular sections on complaint handling. this particular sections on comlaint handlina. �* ., ., complaint handling. before i get to my substantive _ complaint handling. before i get to my substantive point, _ complaint handling. before i get to my substantive point, it _ complaint handling. before i get to my substantive point, it would - complaint handling. before i get to my substantive point, it would be i my substantive point, it would be good to clarify some timescales here. we know that fairness to work took 18 months to develop, this procedure took three months. can you confirm when the claimants, complainants, finally decided they would officially complain. this

complainants, finally decided they would officially complain.- would officially complain. this is stuff i only _ would officially complain. this is stuff i only know _ would officially complain. this is stuff i only know in _ would officially complain. this is stuff i only know in the - would officially complain. this is stuff i only know in the way - would officially complain. this is stuff i only know in the way you | stuff i only know in the way you know because i am telling you this with hindsight. as i now understand it the official complaints were made in january it the official complaints were made injanuary although it the official complaints were made in january although there it the official complaints were made injanuary although there had been some informal contact in the latter part of the previous year. can some informal contact in the latter part of the previous year.— part of the previous year. can you tell me when _ part of the previous year. can you tell me when the _ part of the previous year. can you tell me when the procedure - part of the previous year. can you tell me when the procedure was i tell me when the procedure was published on the scottish government website? it published on the scottish government website? . . . . . website? it was published in february of _ website? it was published in february of 2018. _ website? it was published in february of 2018. i - website? it was published in february of 2018. i want - website? it was published in february of 2018. i want to i website? it was published in i february of 2018. i want to say website? it was published in - february of 2018. i want to say the eighth but i'm not 100% sure egg is precisely the eighth but it was in february. there was —— we are also doing some ministerial codes and the

decision had been making to publish it altogether. 50 decision had been making to publish it altogether-— it altogether. so when was the oli it altogether. so when was the policy signed _ it altogether. so when was the policy signed off? _ it altogether. so when was the policy signed off? the - it altogether. so when was the policy signed off? the 20th . it altogether. so when was the policy signed off? the 20th of| policy signed off? the 20th of december- — policy signed off? the 20th of december. that _ policy signed off? the 20th of december. that is _ policy signed off? the 20th of december. that is being - policy signed off? the 20th of - december. that is being disputed by the first minister... _ december. that is being disputed by the first minister... i— december. that is being disputed by the first minister... i am _ december. that is being disputed by the first minister... i am the - december. that is being disputed by the first minister... i am the first i the first minister... i am the first minister. the first minister... i am the first minister- by _ the first minister... i am the first minister. by the _ the first minister... i am the first minister. by the former _ the first minister... i am the first minister. by the former first - minister. by the former first minister. by the former first minister in — minister. by the former first minister in his _ minister. by the former first minister in his last _ minister. by the former first - minister in his last submissions. does he disputed date on the sign up of the policy? it is does he disputed date on the sign up of the policy?— of the policy? it is the three months of _ of the policy? it is the three months of development, i of the policy? it is the three months of development, it| of the policy? it is the three i months of development, it started of the policy? it is the three - months of development, it started in december, january and then published immediately in february. but the complainants made their complaints injanuary before he is alleging the complaint procedure was signed off. again, in this context it might feel a bit unusual and maybe i am jumping and running to defend the former first minister... he disputes a lot

of this and maybe i'm wrong but he doesn't dispute that it was signed off in february. it was signed off on the 20th of december. there were no changes to it made after that. it was published in february. was that ideal? no, it wasn't but the reason for that was that there was other related work under way. of course, as we know, one of the issues around as we know, one of the issues around a judicial review and one of the concerns here was that it was in operation before it had been published in the way you are talking about. flan published in the way you are talking about. . , ., published in the way you are talking about. ., , ., , about. can you tell us when the complainants — about. can you tell us when the complainants first _ about. can you tell us when the complainants first came - about. can you tell us when the l complainants first came forward? about. can you tell us when the i complainants first came forward? i can find estates because these are dates that i only became aware of

afterwards. i think they were around november 2017 in terms of concerns first being raised but then formal complaints were injanuary first being raised but then formal complaints were in january 2018. first being raised but then formal complaints were injanuary 2018. i merely see there is a discrepancy then about how long it took to develop this process from beginning to end. i don't understand what you mean about discrepancy. it to end. i don't understand what you mean about discrepancy.— to end. i don't understand what you mean about discrepancy. it was three months in the — mean about discrepancy. it was three months in the making _ mean about discrepancy. it was three months in the making so _ mean about discrepancy. it was three months in the making so if— mean about discrepancy. it was three months in the making so if they i mean about discrepancy. it was three months in the making so if they only| months in the making so if they only came forward in november, december, that will take you to the end of january before the procedure was signed. january before the procedure was siined. �* . , january before the procedure was siined. �* ., , ., ., january before the procedure was siined. �* ., ., , �* signed. i'm really am not sure i'm following- — signed. i'm really am not sure i'm following. the _ signed. i'm really am not sure i'm following. the procedure - signed. i'm really am not sure i'm following. the procedure was i signed. i'm really am not sure i'm following. the procedure was in i following. the procedure was in place from the 20th of december. it wasn't published until february but the procedure was emplaced and clearly being used. the dates the complaints came forward is very related but it is a separate issue. the procedure was signed off on the 20th of december. i know that because i did it.—

20th of december. i know that because i did it. right, but the complaints— because i did it. right, but the complaints only _ because i did it. right, but the complaints only came - because i did it. right, but the complaints only came forward | because i did it. right, but the i complaints only came forward in november. what happened in october? if it is a three month period from beginning to end is... mr; if it is a three month period from beginning to end is... my apologies but not following. _ beginning to end is... my apologies but not following. i _ beginning to end is... my apologies but not following. i will _ beginning to end is... my apologies but not following. i willjust - beginning to end is... my apologies but not following. i willjust leave i but not following. i will 'ust leave that but others i but not following. i will 'ust leave that but others can i but not following. i willjust leave that but others can check - but not following. i willjust leave that but others can check things. | that but others can check things. complainants came forward from this three—month policy... i do complainants came forward from this three-month policy...— three-month policy... i do not understand — three-month policy... i do not understand this _ three-month policy... i do not understand this three-monthl three-month policy... i do not i understand this three-month policy. understand this three—month policy. hold on, first minister. could you io hold on, first minister. could you go to— hold on, first minister. could you go to the — hold on, first minister. could you go to the beginning of your query again _ go to the beginning of your query aaain. ~ ., ~' go to the beginning of your query aaain. ~ ., ,, , ., ., again. when did the work start to the beginning _ again. when did the work start to the beginning of— again. when did the work start to the beginning of the _ again. when did the work start to the beginning of the process? i again. when did the work start to i the beginning of the process? that was on the 31st _ the beginning of the process? that was on the 31st of _ the beginning of the process? that was on the 31st of october. you've heard evidence from james hind about the first draft of the policy he was involved in was the 7th of november. so the work in the procedure started in the early november stage and

concluded with the procedure being signed off on the 20th of december. the dates of the complaints are separate from the development of the procedure. i know the two things are obviously in practice connectives but the procedure was developed and signed off in that timescale and on parallel tracks the emergence of complaints. parallel tracks the emergence of complaints-— parallel tracks the emergence of comlaints. �* ., ., ., complaints. ok. i'm going to leave that there because _ complaints. ok. i'm going to leave that there because i _ complaints. ok. i'm going to leave that there because i don't - complaints. ok. i'm going to leave that there because i don't think i complaints. ok. i'm going to leave that there because i don't think we will get too much further with that, first minister. i will get too much further with that, first minister.— first minister. i don't think i'm aioin to first minister. i don't think i'm going to get — first minister. i don't think i'm going to get much _ first minister. i don't think i'm going to get much further i first minister. i don't think i'm going to get much further withj first minister. i don't think i'm i going to get much further with it, thatis going to get much further with it, that is for sure. i going to get much further with it, that is for sure.— that is for sure. i will turn now to the issue that _ that is for sure. i will turn now to the issue that we _ that is for sure. i will turn now to the issue that we know _ that is for sure. i will turn now to the issue that we know the i the issue that we know the complainant did not want to report the complaints to the police but it was on the basis of reports and the permanent secretary's decision. we have a submission from police scotland from january and it makes clear that during the handling

process, the scottish government officials made contact with the police, the initial contact was in the 5th of december via e—mail. on the 5th of december via e—mail. on the 6th of december 2017 there was an in—person meeting. between the 30th of january 2018 and the 3rd of august 2018, there were another six meetings. the purpose was to seek advice on the scottish government approach to the sexual harassment procedures and to the scottish governments obligations in response to allegations. police scotland telesis and please bear with me because it is very important. police scotland provided advice at the meeting in december 2017, advising

that where criminality was suspected and individuals, that is the complainants, should be directed to support and advocacy services to enable them, the complainants, to make informed decisions about whether or not to report matters to the police. so it is very firmly in these individuals' hands. then it says, "this advice was reiterated on several occasions with an ongoing contact between 2017 and august 2018. a number of hypothetical questions were posed during e—mail telephone contact around the criminaljustice process. police scotland advised, without specifics, not appropriate responses could be

given and no further arrests could be made. it was further emphasised that individuals should be directed to the relevant support services. it appeared the hypothetical questions were predicated on a set of circumstances and the scottish government response in those circumstances rather than the generic procedure. it was highlighted at scottish government staff were not trained to undertake such investigations or to engage with victims. despite this, first minister, the scottish government officials continued with this investigation. why? i officials continued with this investigation. why?- officials continued with this investigation. why? officials continued with this investiiation. wh ? ~' ., investigation. why? i know you will find this answer— investigation. why? i know you will find this answer unsatisfactory i investigation. why? i know you will find this answer unsatisfactory and | find this answer unsatisfactory and i understand that but i cannot answer that question directly because i wasn't involved in the handling of the investigation. i

have read the letter from police scotland. i wasn't aware at the time with the contacts with police and i'm not aware of the details. clearly there are aspects to all of this that aspects need to consider and this committee i hope will be part of that committee of consideration. i'm trying today to be as open as possible of the committee as i can. there is a limit to the degree in which i can comment on things that ijust to the degree in which i can comment on things that i just wasn't to the degree in which i can comment on things that ijust wasn't party to end at the time didn't acknowledge because that is asking me to get inside other people's heads which is not always a good idea and to second—guess decisions other people were taking at the time. i'm trying to biz help format as i can but there are limits on my ability to do that. so as i can but there are limits on my ability to do that.— ability to do that. so is it your position. _ ability to do that. so is it your position, first _ ability to do that. so is it your position, first minister, i ability to do that. so is it your position, first minister, that l ability to do that. so is it your. position, first minister, that you knew nothing about this police advice and at scottish government

officials had been told that the staff were not trained to undertake such investigations or engage with victims? was i kept from you by the civil servants, the scottish government officials? if so, who were they? i government officials? if so, who were they?— were they? i am mindful of the convenors _ were they? i am mindful of the convenors stricture _ were they? i am mindful of the convenors stricture earlier i were they? i am mindful of the convenors stricture earlier on i were they? i am mindful of the i convenors stricture earlier on which i probably breached in a number of ways by naming civil servants. i was not aware at the time of these interactions with the police and the detail and content of these interactions with the police. this is an investigation that i had no role in. i wasn't involved in the handling of the investigation. now, you may well be raising issues that we have to reflect on, i'm not

suggesting otherwise, but if your question is why did a civil servant being told this by the police decide to do something else? i can't sit here and answer that question because i do not know the thought processes and decision—making that lay behind that. can processes and decision-making that lay behind that-— lay behind that. can i ask you, knowin: lay behind that. can i ask you, knowing that, _ lay behind that. can i ask you, knowing that, was _ lay behind that. can i ask you, knowing that, was it _ lay behind that. can i ask you, i knowing that, was it appropriate for the scottish government officials to go ahead and carry out this investigation?— go ahead and carry out this investigation? go ahead and carry out this investiiation? . , . ., investigation? that is a matter the committee will _ investigation? that is a matter the committee will once _ investigation? that is a matter the committee will once sensei i investigation? that is a matter the committee will once sensei on i investigation? that is a matter the committee will once sensei on top| investigation? that is a matter the | committee will once sensei on top i think it was appropriate. in fact, i think it was appropriate. in fact, i think to not have done this would have been inappropriate. when complaints came forward, that they were not taken seriously. we now know that in the course of the investigation those conducting had

got things wrong and what we particularly know is that the appointment with the investigating officer in the contact they had had, was that the focus of the concession of the judicial review. i'm was that the focus of the concession of thejudicial review. i'm not sitting here saying there is nothing else the civil service got wrong in the conduct of that investigation. that is part of what this committee is here to say. i cannot equally sit here definitively right now and say any particular action that any particular civil servants took was inappropriate. the context of this was a government trying, in the light of #metoo everything we have been through already, to properly investigate complaints that have come forward. we know it made mistakes but i cannot sit here and things i was not involved in at the time and second—guess the reason why every selection was not taken. first

minister, every selection was not taken. first minister. they _ every selection was not taken. f “in minister, they ignored the fact, they once trained and they shouldn't have been dealing with victims' complaints. that advice was crystal clear. they ignored that. you said they made mistakes. well, they won't —— they weren't trained to do it. further to that, the complainant had the right to take this for themselves. having spoken to people who were trained to speak to them, this was taken completely out of their hands. do you understand why you wouldn't have had this dilemma should they report to the police despite them not wanting to because it was quite clear that the scottish government officials should never have been anywhere near this

investigation? at that point it should have ceased and the complainers should be referred to, supporting advocacy, and the choice would therefore be with them. i think for the benefit of quality, there _ i think for the benefit of quality, there is— i think for the benefit of quality, there is two different things here. would _ there is two different things here. would you — there is two different things here. would you like the first minister give some clarity? fla. would you like the first minister give some clarity?— would you like the first minister give some clarity? no, i would like some myself. _ give some clarity? no, i would like some myself, thank— give some clarity? no, i would like some myself, thank you. - give some clarity? no, i would like some myself, thank you. i- give some clarity? no, i would like some myself, thank you. i think i give some clarity? no, i would like i some myself, thank you. i think what we are _ some myself, thank you. i think what we are talking about here is two different — we are talking about here is two different things. i think the first things— different things. i think the first things about the development of the policym _ things about the development of the oli . things about the development of the policy... yes. the first things about the _ policy... yes. the first things about the development i policy... fees the first things about the development of policy... iezs the first things about the development of the policy, and advice _ about the development of the policy, and advice that was asked for and given— and advice that was asked for and given by— and advice that was asked for and given by the police about the development of the policy, and then the implementation of that policy. which _ the implementation of that policy. which was about whether there should be independently trained people involved in such serious cases. i think. _ involved in such serious cases. i think, deputy convener, you then got

on to— think, deputy convener, you then got on to whether it was appropriate for the matter. — on to whether it was appropriate for the matter, once investigated, to be passed _ the matter, once investigated, to be passed on— the matter, once investigated, to be passed on to the police. i appreciate that. it was... i tell you why? sat won no, these were made... why are you shutting down? i am not shutting it down, i'm trying to get— am not shutting it down, i'm trying to get some — am not shutting it down, i'm trying to get some clarity for myself. if you let _ to get some clarity for myself. if you let me — to get some clarity for myself. if you let me finish... what i picked up you let me finish... what i picked up beyond — you let me finish... what i picked up beyond the development of the policy— up beyond the development of the policy was that there was an issue about— policy was that there was an issue about whether it was appropriate for civil service — about whether it was appropriate for civil service therefore to have passed — civil service therefore to have passed the complaints on to the police _ passed the complaints on to the police for— passed the complaints on to the police for a police investigation. right? — police for a police investigation. right? well, if that wasn't the case and there _ right? well, if that wasn't the case and there was no confusion in your mind, _ and there was no confusion in your mind. to _ and there was no confusion in your mind, to convener, about that, can i then— mind, to convener, about that, can i then supplement your question with that as _ then supplement your question with that as well, while were on the subject— that as well, while were on the subject of— that as well, while were on the subject of the police? i appreciate

ourt ini subject of the police? i appreciate your trying to _ subject of the police? i appreciate your trying to be _ subject of the police? i appreciate your trying to be helpful, - subject of the police? i appreciate your trying to be helpful, but i subject of the police? i appreciate your trying to be helpful, but it i your trying to be helpful, but it confuses the issue. the issue was the investigation officer's role, and when they approach the police, the scottish government officials, it was to look at how the procedure would be developed, and then they give some hypothetical questions, and from that the police began to suspect that this wasn't just a procedure, they had something in mind. and they were told quite clearly that they were trained and they shouldn't be talking to the complainants about the, if criminality was suspected. and therefore, therefore, they should have gone to advocacy services and the complainants should have had the ability to complain for themselves. you appear to be totally unaware of that, first minister. does that mean that, first minister. does that mean that the officials didn't report this to you?—

that the officials didn't report this to ou? ., , �* ,., this to you? no, they didn't report this to you? no, they didn't report this to you? no, they didn't report this to me — this to you? no, they didn't report this to me because _ this to you? no, they didn't report this to me because they _ this to you? no, they didn't report this to me because they were i this to me because they were conducting an investigation that i was not meant to be a party to. i have to confess, and i take responsibility for this myself, i am a little bit confused about what exactly you are trying to get from here, so i will do my best, and if i am doing it wrong and we willjump in and tell me. there was advice taken by the police as i understand, that both on the development of the policy and then they were going to the police, i think, taking advice that perhaps is more about the application of that policy. was that i was right and appropriate? that they always follow the right advice there? that is what i cannot sit here and say categorically, because thatis here and say categorically, because that is something the committee is looking at. what i do know is that these complaints made complaints to these complaints made complaints to the scottish government, so i do, i think i would push back on the idea that the scottish government should not have tried in any way to

investigate them. there is perhaps a question about the appropriate moment, and was the right moment chosen to refer to the police? and thatis chosen to refer to the police? and that is something that the committee may want to say something about. and there is a question of whether that referral to the plea should have happened. given that, and as i said earlier, i don't know how strong the views were on this on the part of the complainants, that they didn't want that to stop now, i do think on some occasions their duties on authorities to report suspected criminality, even if others don't want them to do that. on what they complainants wanted, what might have been a better way for the complainers, i don't know if the committee has taken views, can note have to be done privately, from complainers themselves. there is then a police enquiry will presumably people had to decide the extent to which they wanted to make

complaints to the police that would be investigated in that way. i can't speak for complainers,, be investigated in that way. i can't speakfor complainers,, and again, speak for complainers,, and again, not speakfor complainers,, and again, not a criticism of the committee, i think one of the genuine worries i have here, that the voices of complainers would be silence, and i know this is not what anyone in this committee wanted to do. i keep seeing it is not for me to tell you how to do the work and it is certainly not but if you want and what the complainers that, then perhaps speak to them, would be a better way than trying to get me to second guess their views and what that should have meant for how the government did things. let that should have meant for how the government did things.— government did things. let me reiterate that _ government did things. let me reiterate that the _ government did things. let me reiterate that the first - government did things. let me| reiterate that the first approach government did things. let me i reiterate that the first approach to the police was before it had been signed out, and that was in the beginning of december, fifth and 6th of december, with various meetings thereafter. it was made clear at that point that it wouldn't be

appropriate for the investigation officer that carried out the investigation and, for the people who spoke to the claimants, for them to carry out the role that, at that point, beginning in december, the new bit something, if they had concerns, they should have been... the complainers should have been referred to the appropriate people who were trained and could properly give them the advice to decide if they wanted to go forward with the complaints. and while this whole process is about the complainers, they were denied that opportunity and that decision was taken out of their hands because of the scottish government's handling of the complaint. that goes to the very essence, first minister, of our remit, and it goes to what we have to look at to make sure that this

never, ever happens again, because as things stand, there is absolutely no possibility, i think on everyone's mind, that anyone would want to come forward with a complaint as a result of how this was handled.— was handled. so, in many ways i don't disagree _ was handled. so, in many ways i don't disagree with _ was handled. so, in many ways i don't disagree with a _ was handled. so, in many ways i don't disagree with a lot - was handled. so, in many ways i don't disagree with a lot of i was handled. so, in many ways i don't disagree with a lot of what | don't disagree with a lot of what you said there, and, you know, people can take this in whatever way they want, i hope the committee does not take it as a criticism because it is not intended in that way, the fact that everything you have said in your last resynthesis is true, in these me to think it is quite extraordinary that the complainers are complainers and two voices have not been heard publicly or in the —— not been heard publicly or in the —— not publicly but in the process of this enquiry. i think the most important people in all this are not me, in terms parliament deletes which we of course it is, not alex salmond, it is complainers who were

let down. i'm happy to have the committee, if reflecting on this, things i can provide more, i'm happy to supplement and writings that i don't have the police later in front of me, which is why i am acting on memory here, i think some of what you quoted to me there was police advice given effectively in the abstract about a policy, and about what to do in particular hypothetical situations. the issue, then, of when you had a real situation, that the civil servants follow that advice or not? as a separate issue. it is an issue the committee way will have views on. i think i've probably gone as far as i'm able to bow to my understanding of the questions on the understanding of what lies behind them, but i'm happy if it would be helpful to the committee to try and follow—up and rating. i

helpful to the committee to try and follow-up and rating.— follow-up and rating. i think| would be _ follow-up and rating. i think| would be very _ follow-up and rating. i think| would be very helpful - follow-up and rating. i think| would be very helpful to i follow-up and rating. i think i | would be very helpful to know exactly whom met with police and to know who ignored this and to point it again, first minister, the police formed the view that the hypothetical questions were predicated on a set of circumstances, rather than a generic procedure, and it was made quite clear to them in the circumstances, these people carrying out this development, in speaking with the complainers and ignoring their wishes, that they were not trained to do so and they should have been referred to advocacy services. i am not sittin: referred to advocacy services. i am not sitting here — referred to advocacy services. i am not sitting here arguing against what you are courting to meet there, i am simply saying that i think this needs proper consideration of which this committee as part, in terms of the abstract and hypothetical and whether that advice was properly applied when the hypothetical became actual complaints. if the committee wants to put in writing some

particular points of clarity or further information, i will do my best answer that.— further information, i will do my best answer that. that would be very much appreciated _ best answer that. that would be very much appreciated because _ best answer that. that would be very much appreciated because it - best answer that. that would be very much appreciated because it is i much appreciated because it is absolutely essential to make sure this never ever happens, and this kind of advice is never ever ignored again by scottish government officials. i'm sure, first minister, you wouldn't want to be party to that happening within a government that happening within a government that you need. you that happening within a government that you need-— that you need. you will get nobody aiareein that you need. you will get nobody agreeing with _ that you need. you will get nobody agreeing with you _ that you need. you will get nobody agreeing with you more _ that you need. you will get nobody agreeing with you more strongly i that you need. you will get nobody i agreeing with you more strongly than me, that i never want a situation like this to happen again, and i would like to think on placing this wouldn't have to come forward again, but we don't make mistakes here. equally, i don't want to have a situation where because of the experience of bess there is a reluctance on the part of government to properly investigate complaints or a relaxing on the part of complainers to come forward. that is contribute difficult thing to make sure we get right and i remain hopeful that the committee will be part of the process, but i do think

complainers' voices you part of the process, but i do think complainers' voices ...— complainers' voices you have missed a — complainers' voices you have missed a vital— complainers' voices you have missed a vital part _ complainers' voices you have missed a vital part we _ complainers' voices you have missed a vital part we have i complainers' voices you have l missed a vital part we have spent happen— missed a vital part we have spent happen on— missed a vital part we have spent happen on one question... can we have _ happen on one question... can we have the _ happen on one question... can we have the last short word on this. | have the last short word on this. i think have the last short word on this. think you have the last short word on this. i think you can raise a question about whether the complaint should have been referred to the place earlier in the process, i am not sure about just handing them over for advocacy and effectively not doing the complaint... i don't know whether that would have been right in this situation, but i'm not sure i'm helping the situation here. i'm not sure i am helping bring clarity to the situation. when i absently agrees that the centrality of complainers' wishes and voices can't be ignored and the determination to learn from the mistakes that were made here is absolutely on my part and the scottish government's part,

but you know, always a different path you can take, on everything, and i suspect if we had on this, we may not be sitting here as such but we would be sitting here in a different perspective. knowing that the did different perspective. knowing that they did come _ different perspective. knowing that they did come forward _ different perspective. knowing that they did come forward they - different perspective. knowing that they did come forward they would i different perspective. knowing that i they did come forward they would be dealt with properly and refer to the proper services... that would give them... . . them... can i intervene here? can i sa , i them... can i intervene here? can i say. i asked — them... can i intervene here? can i say. i asked the _ them... can i intervene here? can i say, i asked the first _ them... can i intervene here? can i say, i asked the first minister- them... can i intervene here? can i say, i asked the first minister to i say, i asked the first minister to have _ say, i asked the first minister to have the — say, i asked the first minister to have the last word, we have been half an— have the last word, we have been half an hour— have the last word, we have been half an hour on one question and i think. _ half an hour on one question and i think. i_ half an hour on one question and i think. i think— half an hour on one question and i think, i think we really must move on now _ think, i think we really must move on now so. — think, i think we really must move on now. so, before mr whiteman winds up on now. so, before mr whiteman winds up for— on now. so, before mr whiteman winds up for those _ on now. so, before mr whiteman winds up for those on this particular section. — up for those on this particular section. i_ up for those on this particular section, i have very quick supplementary is and please make them _ supplementary is and please make them very— supplementary is and please make them very quick. first supplementary is and please make them very quick-— them very quick. first minister, a lot of this has _ them very quick. first minister, a lot of this has been _ them very quick. first minister, a lot of this has been covered i them very quick. first minister, a lot of this has been covered in i lot of this has been covered in earlier evidence sessions with senior civil servants, but the

guidance on sexual harassment states that if complainers do not want to tell the police, you should still encourage them to do so, you might still need to report it, but should always tell the person affected if you are going to do this. now, i have in my earlier questioning of civil servants been quite keen to find out the appropriateness and qualifications of many of those involved in hr procedures. it took a long time to tease out those who are qualified and those who weren't. i think, in this situation, the scottish government seem to have been acting within clear employment guidance within reporting this matter to the police, so i'm not asking it in cells now, but do think this is a paragraph in the

procedure, and i think in our reporting, in a report i would like to make a point about asking whether enough qualified hr specialists are involved in scottish government. i think that is a fair question, i can't answer it today in terms of how many civil servants in the scottish government are hr qualified versus how many should be, but i think it is a powerfully fair and legitimate question. the acas guidance i think you have quoted there what i was searching for a wee while ago and i think procedure is, itself it talks about the possibility of complaints being referred to the police. i appreciate the view that because the complainers said it was a preference that that shouldn't happen, should not happened. equally, take the view that there is, as the acas guidance sets out, a wider interest that has to be considered.—

to be considered. kindly, mr mcmillan — to be considered. kindly, mr mcmillan has _ to be considered. kindly, mr mcmillan has said _ to be considered. kindly, mr mcmillan has said that i to be considered. kindly, mr mcmillan has said that his i to be considered. kindly, mr- mcmillan has said that his question was already answered, so andy whiteman, please. i was already answered, so andy whiteman, please.— whiteman, please. i loathe to continue the _ whiteman, please. i loathe to continue the pierce _ whiteman, please. i loathe to i continue the pierce conversation, but the letter and evidence from police scotland, which i have in front of me —— the previous conversation, that the advised that where criminality was suspected, individuals should be directed, and going on to say that the scottish government staff were not trained to undertake such investigations. on my reading that is the policing scottish government staff are not trained to undertake investigations into potential criminality. i think you would probably agree that is not theirjob. a reasonable expedition may be the scottish government staff did not believe at the outset of the that there was fact potential criminality, that was only later. i think it is important for the record to set out that the police was my concerns were correctly. to conclude

on the handling of complaints, i think i'm the last word on handling of complaints the stream, and your written evidence to the committee page eight, you said english ship to the meeting on the 2nd of april, i quote —— you said about the meeting on the 2nd of april, i quote, "i have no role on the process and would not seek to enter green energy" —— would not seek to intervene and it". mr hamilton was there when nicola said that and set it to me any private meeting as well that she was anxious to assist — from the official record on friday. in written evidence submitted yesterday duncan hamilton qc states that his recollection was that, and i quote, "we discussed mediation. my clear recollection is that her words where, if it comes to it, i will

intervene." your own written evidence they should make clear to mr salmond you had no role not seek to intervene. mr hamilton's recollection is that your words were if it comes to, i will intervene. can you explain that contradiction? i certainly will attempt to. i believe i did make it clear i would not intervene. i also know, and i will maybe expand on this in a minute, that i was perhaps trying to, he will abreast put the spice late a long—standing friend and colleague down gently and maybe i did it to gently and she left with an impression that i did not intend to give him. i think i was clear, and certainly intended to be clear. if you look at the statements that are being made, and i don't recall the particular words, but i'm not quibbling with the sentiments behind

them, necessarily, becausel quibbling with the sentiments behind them, necessarily, because i can't recall enough to do that, but if it comes to it i will intervene, if it comes to it i will intervene, if it comes to it i will intervene, if it comes to war? i saw, i think of any written submission from mr salmon, i will intervene if an appropriate time he said on friday said things like, you know, the permanent secretary is to come to me first. in the procedure the permanent secretary only tells me at the end. of that says to me that i was possibly couching i am not intervening in terms of a given, given the relationship between us, not respond. had no intention, and crucially i did not intervene in the process. and that is the case. during this discussion on the 2nd of april, to be blunt about it, my head was spinning, i was experiencing a maelstrom of emotions, i had been

told something pretty shocking by alex salmond, and they were probably, not probably, they were a number of things in my head, a very strong, instinctive view that i couldn't and shouldn't intervene to stop the kind of dealing with a friend and perhaps that leads to some of that. and i was thinking about the ministerial code, should i be reporting any aspect of this? that is the kind of... these discussions, and everybody knows this, these discussions don't take place in an antiseptic sterile of of human emotion environment, but i did not intend to intervene, and i did not intend to intervene, and i did not intervene, and while i notice more complex than this, i think, in terms of his anger towards me, i think that is the root of it was mr salmond. . «a , think that is the root of it was mr salmond. ., , ., , .,

salmond. thanks, my final question relates to all _ salmond. thanks, my final question relates to all of _ salmond. thanks, my final question relates to all of this _ salmond. thanks, my final question relates to all of this becoming i salmond. thanks, my final question relates to all of this becoming very l relates to all of this becoming very public. on august the 23rd. in the review of the criminal investigation, teams looking at the leak and information, and that review report, at 4.2, says the leak came a few hours after this watch, not by their intention to publish a press release, and very shortly after leaving the creative notice of their intention to apply for internet, the effect of the leak was to defeat the court action because the information was by then in the public domain. the goes on to say i've also considered the statement of chi super statement redacted —— cheap super intendant redacted. the statement confirms that the meeting on the 21st of august 2018, which we talked about yesterday with the carnation, the chief constable,

detective chi super intendant encouraging present, the piece were offered but refused to take it furthermore —— the police. concerns were voiced about the scottish government making a public statement about the outcome of their investigations. where are you aware of the concerns that had been voiced by the detective chief superintendent at that meeting? idol superintendent at that meeting? not at that time, no. as i said at that time, i was told by the permanent secretary, by the time i was told about referral to police, the referral has already happened, and i didn't know at that time what the police's reaction to it was what the police's reaction to it was what the police had said or what they were doing. police had said or what they were doini. ., ., doing. you were never told even after that event _ doing. you were never told even after that event what _ doing. you were never told even after that event what the i doing. you were never told even i after that event what the concerns had been that the detective chief superintendent had raised about making a public statement? but; superintendent had raised about making a public statement? buy after the event do — making a public statement? buy after the event do you _ making a public statement? buy after the event do you mean _ making a public statement? buy after the event do you mean in _ making a public statement? buy after the event do you mean in the - making a public statement? buy after the event do you mean in the days i the event do you mean in the days around that event? the element up to now. do you have any knowledge of what those concerns were? i know

what those concerns were? i know what is now being said, i have read what is now being said, i have read what you have said. i don't think from the best of my recollection i was aware of that the time. i have not had detailed discussions about what the views of the police where in that respect. we what the views of the police where in that respect.— what the views of the police where in that respect. we don't know what the concerns — in that respect. we don't know what the concerns were _ in that respect. we don't know what the concerns were at _ in that respect. we don't know what the concerns were at this _ in that respect. we don't know what the concerns were at this meeting. l the concerns were at this meeting. in detail, i don't know either. irate in detail, i don't know either. we don't know _ in detail, i don't know either. , don't know the concerns of express, we are going to try and find out. but you don't know either? iiio. we are going to try and find out. but you don't know either? no, i think i've assumed, _ but you don't know either? no, i think i've assumed, and - but you don't know either? no, i think i've assumed, and trying i but you don't know either? no, i j think i've assumed, and trying to make sure i'm being... i kind of assumed they didn't one public release because it may get in the way of an investigation. but release because it may get in the way of an investigation.— release because it may get in the way of an investigation. but 'ust a presumption. i way of an investigation. but 'ust a presumption. you i way of an investigation. but 'ust a presumption, you don't i way of an investigation. butjust a presumption, you don't know? i i way of an investigation. butjust a i presumption, you don't know? i don't think| can presumption, you don't know? i don't think i can be — presumption, you don't know? i don't think i can be 10094. _ presumption, you don't know? i don't think i can be 100% sure _ presumption, you don't know? i don't think i can be 100% sure it _ presumption, you don't know? i don't think i can be 10096 sure it has i think i can be100% sure it has never been said to me, i think it is a presumption, the realms of presumption rather than actual knowledge. element you don't know and we don't know what those

concerns were, of the detective chief superintendent voice at the meeting where? at this moment, you don't know. we don't know either. nobody in this room knows anything about_ nobody in this room knows anything about that, — nobody in this room knows anything about that, then. we will now move on to— about that, then. we will now move on to the _ about that, then. we will now move on to the judicial review section, and murdo — on to the judicial review section, and murdo fraser.— and murdo fraser. thank you, convenient. _ and murdo fraser. thank you, convenient. if _ and murdo fraser. thank you, convenient. if you'll _ and murdo fraser. thank you, convenient. if you'll indulge . and murdo fraser. thank you, | convenient. if you'll indulge me and murdo fraser. thank you, - convenient. if you'll indulge me on a number of questions in this area —— convener. can i start, first minister, and ask you, what was your role in relation to the judicial review, to what extent was their ministerial oversight of decisions being taken? i ministerial oversight of decisions being taken?— being taken? i was named as an interested _ being taken? i was named as an interested party _ being taken? i was named as an interested party in _ being taken? i was named as an interested party in a _ being taken? i was named as an interested party in a petition - interested party in a petition against scottish ministers, of which l, against scottish ministers, of which i, as you know, it is a collective designation, so i was involved in

discussions about prospects of success and the changing fortunes, or changing perceptions of those prospects of success, as we went through. my involvement was greater at particularjunctures. it wasn't something i was being briefed about or talking about every single day. it wasn't something... so, i remember having discussions with the scottish government legal department around the time the petition was going through the process of ultimately being served in the scottish government. initial views on prospects of success, i knew that there were discussions and i think early september and into mid september about preliminary issues that i was kind of aware of the views that were being taken by... by preliminary issues, i mean where we going to oppose permission to proceed? things like, time bar, or

any part of this time—barred? there was a preliminary issue about the designation, weather should have been against the permanent secretary orjust been against the permanent secretary or just scottish been against the permanent secretary orjust scottish ministers? i know the committee heard from mr salmond, about whether there was a case persisting at that stage, so i was aware of all the in early days. and so they know that you have no scene of prospects, which i think was late september, and saw initial pleadings. initial government answers to the pleading. it was that kind of... i have been, is a minister, i have had, not lots, i hasten to add, but some big, high—profilejudicial hasten to add, but some big, high—profile judicial reviews against the scottish government, minimum pricing being one of them. it was not an unusual degree of involvement or oversight. obviously, given he was taking the scottish government to court made it slightly

unusual. —— kevin who was taken —— kevin who was taking the scottish government to court. the next key point would have been into december and ultimately the period aware we decided to concede. that and ultimately the period aware we decided to concede.— and ultimately the period aware we decided to concede. that is helpful. all move on — decided to concede. that is helpful. all move on to _ decided to concede. that is helpful. all move on to explore _ decided to concede. that is helpful. all move on to explore some - decided to concede. that is helpful. all move on to explore some of - decided to concede. that is helpful. all move on to explore some of the | all move on to explore some of the data with you if i can put it sounds like you were quite well briefed all the way through the process. can i ask you, your chief of staff is also involved and attended a number of meetings to represent you and feed back information to you? wright again, if i'm getting the detail of this strong i was done correctly, i think she attended three meetings with counsel... she would have seen the stuff coming across my desk, that is not unusual. you will understand this, mr fraser, i am a lawyer by background, but as

a natural interest in some of the stuff that goes beyond the ministerial interest, it can be a bit weird, but that is. she was involved to the extent that, she will be involved in a lot of things, to make sure that she is feeling anything i need to be aware of and representing my interest. i was named on the petition, so that was not unusual. she didn't have an involvement that was in any way unusualfor involvement that was in any way unusual for a involvement that was in any way unusualfor a chief involvement that was in any way unusual for a chief of staff. thank ou. i'd unusual for a chief of staff. thank yon i'd like _ unusual for a chief of staff. thank yon i'd like to — unusual for a chief of staff. thank you. i'd like to take _ unusual for a chief of staff. thank you. i'd like to take you _ unusual for a chief of staff. thank you. i'd like to take you to - unusual for a chief of staff. thank you. i'd like to take you to somel unusual for a chief of staff. thank. you. i'd like to take you to some of the legal advice we attain. i think it is purchaser you will recognise the committee's frustration, trying to get hold of the legal advice for months. there have been two votes in parliament, the government has not acceded to. it is only with the threat of a vote of no—confidence in the deputy first minister that finally did we see some aspects of the legal we don't know for sure that for what we have seen so far as the entirety of the legal advice, but it is all we have to go on for now. perhaps you can tell us if there are parts that are missing

from what we have seen. you referred earlier in questions, in response to questions asked by margaret mitchell and alister allan, but the note on prospects that was prepared by external counsel on the 27th of september, and you said, if i heard you rightly, you said that council were confident, and that was a term you use, council were confident about the case the scottish government had. having a look at the joint know by senior and junior counsel, they say this in paragraph six... we think there is a real risk the court may be persuaded by the petitioner's case, in respect of the challenge, based on procedural unfairness, and they going to say, we consider the defence to be purple is datable, it would be wrong to pretend we do not see vulnerability

in this regard. i wouldn't categorise that as confident. i wouldn't categorise the —— i would categorise that as a nervous judgment on the prospects. 50. categorise that as a nervous judgment on the prospects. so, i wouldn't in _ judgment on the prospects. so, i wouldn't in any _ judgment on the prospects. so, i wouldn't in any kind _ judgment on the prospects. so, i wouldn't in any kind of— judgment on the prospects. so, i wouldn't in any kind of proper legal sense, and other people may take a different view of the i don't think, and i've not come back and checked. i don't think in all of the legal action and judicial review action i had ministerial review action i had ministerial review or oversight during my years in government, i don't think i've ever seen an opinion that says 100% this is a cast—iron case, there is no risk of losing this. you get the risks ranked in order. this would be, this know of prospects would be at the more optimistic and that i have seen. it highlights what we consider to be the greatest vulnerability, turned out not to be the greatest vulnerability, but says

we should stress that we do see an answer to this point. that is actually the kind of thing, any legal opinion that does give you confidence if you are having a potential vulnerability pointed out. i mentioned a moment ago, and i have not come back and looked at all the opinion and all the legal advice and minimum pricing and so on, so i am speaking from recollection here, but in the early days of minimum pricing, and it is a subject i care deeply about, was a very associate with, losing it in court would have been, post great questions for me as well as being really regrettable from a public health policy perspective, but in the early days of minimum pricing, i think if you were to apply anything like the texture applying to the snows of prospects, we would never have done it. particularly in those early days —— no to prospects. the views on our prospects of success were not confident, but we you can view this was an important public health policy, we could argue it, and

therefore it was worth doing because of the importance of it. that is the nature of this. in the context of all the legal opinions i've seen in different court case, there actually is probably at the more optimistic end of the spectrum. iam not i am not going to argue that. i think it is reasonable for the scottish government to defend what was the case. let's jump to the 31st of october because we have nothing between that and the 31st of october. there is an urgent note on that day from senior counsel and this has emerged because what has happened that has been disclosed at that point the officer... if you read paragraphs nine and ten of that

opinion, senior is clear this presents a real problem. he goes on to say it would be wrong for him to say that the revelation is anything other than an extremely concerning one. he goes on to say in paragraph 13 he is so concerned by this he has had to contact the advocate to express his concerns about the content potential repercussions. then there is a paragraph about the choice would have to be made about whether the case can be continued or whether the case can be continued or whether it should be conceded. is it fair to say that on the 31st october the cases in real trouble? i fair to say that on the 31st october the cases in real trouble?- the cases in realtrouble? i don't think| the cases in realtrouble? i don't think i would _ the cases in realtrouble? i don't think i would use _ the cases in realtrouble? i don't think i would use that _ the cases in realtrouble? i don't think i would use that phrase. i the cases in realtrouble? i don't . think i would use that phrase. other people might use that phrase. again, this turned out to be more unusual and much more problematic then we

realised. again, in my experience, it is not unheard of during a process of litigation to have lawyers see issues crop up that has caused real concern. that is not unheard—of or unusual. this note says, "all the things you see", but it clearly identifies further work that has to be done. after that opinion was submitted by rory dunlop, there was a consultation with councillors two days later and i wasn't personally at that. as a result of those discussions come at that point the discussion was around the interpretation of section ten of the interpretation of section ten of the procedure and the differing interpretations we thought that was open to. the conclusion from that was that it wasn't not a point that we shouldn't be contained about not

that it wasn't a point of vulnerability or that we can do success but that it was a point that was arguable and defensible and that the government thought that argument could be made, therefore the decision was taken to continue. actually, right up until 11th of december, views of the law offices across a position including on the issue of the appointment of the investigating officer, there was a state of case and arguments that could be made. so i know we are saying this in the context of a judicial review which is very high—profile and sensitive and obviously has turned out to be incredibly so big in terms of the process of litigation, this kind of thing in general is not in my experience hugely unusual. the problems are identified and assessments are made whether they are fatal problems or ones that can

be overcome. you heard this from the lord advocate right up to the point where it became understated war, there are wider issues that we were weighing up. you have to be certain that you have a state civil case. the degree of confidence that was there that the argument could be put, there was a wider interest and i think it was legitimate. there were eight grounds of challenge that had been made to the procedure and to his application and therefore the government wanted impossible hear from a court whether those challenges were well founded or not. so that we could have confidence hopefully that whatever might�*ve happens the alex salmond case whatever turned out to have happened there, we had a procedure that was lawfully based and sound. that was still wider legitimate interest of government had known of this. it is government had known of this. it is a -| we government had known of this. tit 3 a pity we couldn't put government had known of this. tit 1 a pity we couldn't put these questions to the lord advocate

yesterday because we didn't have them until 6pm last night. the information provided to us jump from the 31st october to the sixth december. there must have been more conversations during that period. will they be made available to us? i will they be made available to us? i am happy to look at what is able to be made available and what is there to be made available but my understanding and recollection of that period from the end of october through to the beginning of december is that it was a process of adjustment in both directions. i don't have the exact date in front of me but i think at some point during that period alex salmond's lawyers introduce a new kind of challenge based on this and that then triggered a review based on that that led to the early december notes. i wasn't a litigation lawyer so i don't know this from the perspective of a lawyer but these

periods in litigation where there is adjustment in pleadings is part of the litigation process. we adjustment in pleadings is part of the litigation process.— adjustment in pleadings is part of the litigation process. we know you attended a meeting _ the litigation process. we know you attended a meeting on _ the litigation process. we know you attended a meeting on the - the litigation process. we know you attended a meeting on the 13th - the litigation process. we know you attended a meeting on the 13th of l attended a meeting on the 13th of november with counsel. it was at that meeting and what was discussed? i was there, senior and junior counsel were at it, the permanent secretary was at it, my chief of staff was at it. that was a meeting i requested of what i think was the proper thing i was doing, testing myself whether as a result of what had come to light and the result of the 31st of october position, we actually did have a state of all pieces still and that is why i requested a meeting and came out of it satisfied that we had a state of all case, that we thought notjust

in some theoretical abstract way but based on actual consideration of what the government had intended around section ten that we could argue the interpretation that we thought should be attached to it. of course, what happened later than december was things emerged not about the interpretation of section ten but about the extent of the actual contacts between the ir and the complainers which change that judgment. that gave rise to suggestions that the government had not been as open about this as it should have been but did give that in prussian. ——impression. i don't think that was a decision meeting. this was part of the process of me saying, and maybe it

is me giving the high profile of this, what i normally meet with counsel and a judicial review? probably not. it was basically me getting an assurance because this note, the 31st of october notes, which isn't as it is presented if you read it, it does kind of race concern so i want to make sure we were in some way prolonging a judicial review that was dead on the water and i was satisfied with at that meeting that wasn't the case. we had a stateful case are confident we could put forward as arguments. just to quote you again from paragraph ia of rory dunlop's opinions of 31st of october. he says that a swift decision would have to be taken whether that issue is disclosed and then resisted or

conceded. so who took that decision? i was at that meeting. one of the officers, i think the solicitor general was present at that meeting. there was a case that continued to be state of all and there was a perfectly credible and arguable interpretation that could be on section ten. we interpretation that could be on section ten-— section ten. we 'umped out of december_ section ten. we jumped out of december which _ section ten. we jumped out of december which is _ section ten. we jumped out of december which is the - section ten. we jumped out of december which is the next i section ten. we jumped out of. december which is the next date section ten. we jumped out of- december which is the next date for which we have documentation. on the 6th of december, the situation deteriorated even more dramatically. the joint node by senior and deteriorated even more dramatically. thejoint node by senior and junior counsel says this in paragraph four, "we are nowjointly of the view counsel says this in paragraph four, "we are now jointly of the view that these grounds of challenge will likely not to succeed. and at their

conclusion in paragraph 31, "the option is to concede the position is in many ways less attractive, the expenses will be far higher and the trumpeting far louder if the case proceeds to a judgment. there is a real prospect of damaging. their own view is that the least worst option would be to concede the position. why didn't the scottish government at that point take counsel's advice? i will come on the point about counsel. i will not comment on the trumpeting comment. people make their own judgments trumpeting comment. people make their ownjudgments on trumpeting comment. people make their own judgments on that. more likely than not the terminology that has been used publicly and this was always attributed to the 31st of october but it was actually the 6th of december. in terms of law

officers, on the 11th of december, again i wasn't at this, but there was a meeting involving law officers and the of law officers, in terms of the ministerial quote, my duty is to make sure i am abiding by what the law officers say. on the 11th of december law officers expressed the opinion that there was no question or need to drop the case. the lord advocate was clear that even if prospects were not certain it is important the case is heard. senior counsel made clear that his notes was not intended to convey that we had estate case, contested most of the arguments including the appointment of the io the arguments including the appointment of the i0 and that we had credible arguments to make. that was the view expressed by law

officers. the charge that has been made against me is that i wilfully allowed a judicial review to proceed against the legal advice and therefore broke the ministerial code. with respect, as you now know, i was acting in accordance with the view of the law officer. not acting against the view of the law officers. they come to these views taking account of external counsel? opinion and the wider interests. so the other comments you have clear that we should not concede with stress on the benefit we would accrue from an additional fining, that it was right to have a procedure and to have this procedure. that speaks to the public interest i was talking about. we thought we had a state bookcase and it was clear that counsel was not

arguing at that stage that we didn't have a state bookcase. we thought we had credible arguments to make and we were also taking account of that wider interest in getting a determination on the many grounds of challenge that alex salmond had made to both the procedure and its application. the reason i raise this issueis application. the reason i raise this issue is and the reason they are relevant is that we are dealing here with public funds.— with public funds. when the concession _ with public funds. when the concession finally _ with public funds. when the concession finally came - with public funds. when the concession finally came the | with public funds. when the - concession finally came the award of expenses was done at the highest level available to the courts. those expenses are only awarded when the defence has been conducted either unreasonably or incompetently. that is a really serious charge delay against the scottish government and the law officers in terms of their conduct protecting the case. the point i would put to you is it was very clear by the six of december if not before that the risk of proceeding with this action is very

high and you are risking public funds in continuing with the action. i think every time a government defends legal action it is risking public funds because there is never a guarantee you will be successful. i don't want to keep going back to this point but if i had taken diverse approach —— the risk averse approach, we would have thrown in the towel before we started. sometimes in order to establish why the points you can't do that if your case is on in terms of the issue of expenses, come i will come back to it in a second, but in terms of taxpayer's money i feel very sorry for that and i expressly said that earlier on. we

had a procedure here that was not just been challenged in terms of its application to alex salmond. it was application to alex salmond. it was a procedure been challenged in its fundamentals. in terms of wider public interest, including if we should have complaints about requiring this procedure to be activated, where we are on solid ground using it? that is not insignificance, i would argue. i am not an expert and i would not pretend to be on the reason for awarding of expenses on certain levels. my understanding is that much of what went really wrong in the case catastrophically which does lead to your characterisation was in the later stage when it became clear that i believe, not intentionally, that i believe, not intentionally, that there was information and material that had hitherto been disclosed and that change wasn't

just very, very bad in terms of the duty of candour which is litigants but it was also the change of judgment about whether there was a state bookcase or not.— state bookcase or not. thank you for that. i do understand _ state bookcase or not. thank you for that. i do understand the _ state bookcase or not. thank you for that. i do understand the argument. that. i do understand the argument that. i do understand the argument that it was reasonable to use prospects were receding but the scottish government did not only subject this to the judgment of the court because the court reached no view on the basis of policy, it was a concession on one ground. the court never actually determined the issue mr salmond raised. you highlight what happened later in december, on the 19th of december we have this astonishing note from senior and junior counsel. i have never seen anything quite like it in terms of what it says about the conduct of the case. the council refers to the regrettable way in

which the document was unfolded, the extreme professional embarrassment they have faced in court and they say the behaviour cited for the commission hearing will expect as torrid time in the witness box. they say that certain revelations are inexplicable. there are acute difficulties to ways they have played the case. i mean, this is catastrophic, is it not? it played the case. i mean, this is catastrophic, is it not?- catastrophic, is it not? it was catastrophic— catastrophic, is it not? it was catastrophic and _ catastrophic, is it not? it was catastrophic and that - catastrophic, is it not? it was catastrophic and that is - catastrophic, is it not? it was catastrophic and that is what | catastrophic, is it not? it was i catastrophic and that is what led to the concessions. you're right. we did not get to the point we wanted to get to. the point i am making is that up until that point we thought that up until that point we thought that was a state of war credible and arguable position to be in. that completely changed that. the reason she set out there that fundamentally changed the position in the court

case. had i at that point said, "we are steaming ahead anyway," then i would be sitting here with some justification for the charges made against me but that is not the case because up until i read out the position as late of the 8th of december, it was the opinion of law officers that we had a state bookcase with credible arguments and for that reason as well as for wider public interest we should continue. what you have described there was dreadful, catastrophic, that is the heart of what went wrong in a judicial review and then it went wrong and what went wrong in the application of procedure. i would defend our decision—making throughout this judicial review including up to that when it was right to decision then followed that we would concede the case. i will not defend what led to that might because i actually share your views of it. ~ ., , because i actually share your views of it. ., , ., because i actually share your views ofit. ., , ., , .,

because i actually share your views ofit. ~ ., , ., , ., ., because i actually share your views of it. ~ ., , ., , ., ., of it. who is to blame for it then? ultimately — of it. who is to blame for it then? ultimately i'm _ of it. who is to blame for it then? ultimately i'm of _ of it. who is to blame for it then? ultimately i'm of the _ of it. who is to blame for it then? ultimately i'm of the scottish i ultimately i'm of the scottish government and i am not going to sit here and start to chuck blame about another directions. i was not involved in the investigation, i was not aware of the error at the time but i am the head of scottish government and that is why i have apologised for it today. i think i apologised for it today. i think i apologised on the day the case was considered in parliament. part of what we're doing in all of this, this committee being part of that but the other review i have spoken about is trying to learn those lessons ourselves. i about is trying to learn those lessons ourselves.— about is trying to learn those lessons ourselves. i have one more cuestion. lessons ourselves. i have one more question- the _ lessons ourselves. i have one more question. the former _ lessons ourselves. i have one more question. the former first - lessons ourselves. i have one more question. the former first minister| question. the former first minister in his evidence claims that the scottish government only conceded the case when senior and junior counsel threatened to resign. is that true? counselthreatened to resign. is that true? . , ., counselthreatened to resign. is thattrue? . , ., ,

that true? that is not my understanding _ that true? that is not my understanding of - that true? that is not my understanding of the i that true? that is not my i understanding of the position. that true? that is not my - understanding of the position. this note came and i remember speaking, i think in london on that day, or the day after, but the day that was going badly wrong, i was speaking to mrs may at the time in london. i think there was in the process over the next period when we reviewed. the government even has to go through proper process of review, the piece of advice from sarah davidson which the committee has seen before now and that then led over not the happiest christmas and new year period i have ever spent, i have to say, to the concession of

the judicial review. have to say, to the concession of thejudicial review. do i think have to say, to the concession of the judicial review. do i think that is all deeply and horrendously regrettable? yes. what is regrettable? yes. what is regrettable is the error that then progressively came to light that got us to that point. i actually think the handling of thejudicial us to that point. i actually think the handling of the judicial review was legally sound. you can argue and people can take different views about whether they would have taken certain things but the decisions taken in thejudicial certain things but the decisions taken in the judicial review in certain things but the decisions taken in thejudicial review in my view are legally sound and taken in line with law officers which as far as i'm concerned as far as my responsibilities further ministerial code, was a test i would need to pass. code, was a test i would need to ass. �* ., ., , ., pass. but did the 'unior and senior counsel pass. but did the junior and senior counsel threatened _ pass. but did the junior and senior counsel threatened to _ pass. but did the junior and senior counsel threatened to resign? i pass. but did the junior and senior counselthreatened to resign? ii pass. but did the junior and senior| counselthreatened to resign? i am not aware of _ counselthreatened to resign? i am not aware of them _ counsel threatened to resign? i am not aware of them threatening to

resign that i know, i know this as a former lawyer, but a lawyer will not carry on with the stated case, sorry with an unstatable case, and i will not argue a unstatable case. if they were told to carry on i'm sure they would have withdrawn from acting i'm sure they would have made that clear. but the way that is putting forward, as are saying, "no, we're going to carry on," and then forcing us into that position saying, "ok, we will resign." the government didn't ignored this. it was a process of review that had to be done and you know from the back of the sarah davidson advice that came over christmas and the holiday. haw. over christmas and the holiday. now, i have a supplementary _

over christmas and the holiday. now, i have a supplementary to _ over christmas and the holiday. now, i have a supplementary to what mr fraser— i have a supplementary to what mr fraser was — i have a supplementary to what mr fraser was saying. i i have a supplementary to what mr fraser was saying.— fraser was saying. i 'ust like to come in on the i fraser was saying. i just like to come in on the advice - fraser was saying. i just like to come in on the advice received | fraser was saying. i just like to i come in on the advice received by senior counsel on 31st of december. first minister, you have compared anotherjudicial review first minister, you have compared another judicial review that first minister, you have compared anotherjudicial review that had shaky grounds for a minimum unit pricing. the difference between these two judicial reviews is that one is about public health and the other at its heart is for vulnerable human beings. i'm struck that when he was laid out the option senior counsel said that with an advantage of concession was that he makes the interesting suggestion that the procedure could be reset, safeguards put in place and allow a renewed investigation of the complaints. can i ask, at the crossroads, was the views of the complainers sought to inform your decision? i views of the complainers sought to inform your decision?— inform your decision? i don't think so, to be frank, _

inform your decision? i don't think so, to be frank, but _ inform your decision? i don't think so, to be frank, but i _ inform your decision? i don't think so, to be frank, but i would i inform your decision? i don't think so, to be frank, but i would want i inform your decision? i don't think. so, to be frank, but i would want to double—check whether that was done in any way. it certainly wasn't something i did personally. you know, if there is an argument that it should have been done then i guess that can be made. in using the comparison with minimum price, one of the things i think it's quite hard with this when you are talking about litigation and legal state of all cases, you kind of strip the human impact out of things and i'm not intending to do that. i'm trying to describe not the process of litigation but i'm trying to describe the factors and tests that ministers have to apply and consider when we are taking decisions in the conduct. there are comparisons even though the circumstances are completely different. so i don't think the complainers would have been ask to review at that stage but

i can come back to you and that more definitely. certainly, i don't want to overstate this but i think in my mind it would definitely have been the case that whatever you did was have an impact on complainers so defending this, at a time when we thought we could argue this with credible arguments that it might have been better for credible arguments that it might have been betterfor complainers to reveal that we had done this properly rather than put them through that whole process again. these are judgments. they are not black—and—white. the these are judgments. they are not black-and-white._ these are judgments. they are not black-and-white. the reason i ask is that the failure _ black-and-white. the reason i ask is that the failure of _ black-and-white. the reason i ask is that the failure of the _ black-and-white. the reason i ask is that the failure of the judicial - that the failure of the judicial review is one of the reasons do to the date these complaints have not been properly adjudicated. you say that every decision you took in that process would have affected the complainers. did you consult them at any point? i complainers. did you consult them at an oint? ., ., , any point? i have not spoken directly to — any point? i have not spoken directly to them. _ any point? i have not spoken directly to them. your i any point? i have not spoken - directly to them. your governments? you have heard _ directly to them. your governments? you have heard evidence _

directly to them. your governments? you have heard evidence about i directly to them. your governments? you have heard evidence about point| you have heard evidence about point to which the complainers were consulted, included by the permanent secretary. in consulted, included by the permanent secreta . ... consulted, included by the permanent secreta . .., ., secretary. in the context of the 'udicial secretary. in the context of the judicial review _ secretary. in the context of the judicial review and _ secretary. in the context of the judicial review and the - secretary. in the context of the | judicial review and the decisions you took? i judicial review and the decisions ou took? ., ., ., . a you took? i would want to check that. i you took? i would want to check that- i am _ you took? i would want to check that. i am not _ you took? i would want to check that. i am not sure _ you took? i would want to check that. i am not sure if— you took? i would want to check that. i am not sure if the - you took? i would want to checkj that. i am not sure if the answer you took? i would want to check i that. i am not sure if the answer to that. i am not sure if the answer to that. my apologies.— that. i am not sure if the answer to that. my apologies. we're almost at 1:30 so i that. my apologies. we're almost at 1:30 so | think— that. my apologies. we're almost at 1:30 so | think this _ that. my apologies. we're almost at 1:30 so i think this is _ that. my apologies. we're almost at 1:30 so i think this is an _ 1:30 so i think this is an appropriate place to break in line with agreed mitigations allowing us to meet— with agreed mitigations allowing us to meet safely in person today. i suspend — to meet safely in person today. i suspend this session and i think we should _ suspend this session and i think we should reconvene at tpm. i would remind _ should reconvene at tpm. i would remind members and everyone else to observe _ remind members and everyone else to observe social distancing. —— reconvene _ observe social distancing. —— reconvene at 2pm. observe social distancing. -- reconvene at 2pm.— observe social distancing. -- reconvene at 2pm. nicola sturgeon facin: ve reconvene at 2pm. nicola sturgeon facing very detailed _ reconvene at 2pm. nicola sturgeon facing very detailed questioning i facing very detailed questioning there about the scottish's governments handling of the enquiry

into allegations made against alex salmond. at the outset she said she was relieved to be facing this committee, she said it may be that she did not get everything right but believe she acted appropriately and properly in one of the most invidious political personal situations i have everfaced. talking about the allegations from alex salmond that there was a concerted campaign against him she said it was an absurd suggestion that anyone acted with malice against alex salmond. she said, "i have seen nothing that comes within 1 million miles of backing up alex salmond's central claim that there was a coordinated conspiracy against him." lots of data being talked about there, i said it was detailed. in particular she was asked about a meeting she had with alex salmond in april 2018 in which he said he told her about the allegations of sexual assault made against him. this is what she had to say.— assault made against him. this is what she had to say. when he arrived at my house — what she had to say. when he arrived at my house he _ what she had to say. when he arrived at my house he was _ what she had to say. when he arrived

at my house he was insistent - what she had to say. when he arrived at my house he was insistent he i at my house he was insistent he speak to me privately, away from his former chief of staff geoff aberdein and duncan hamilton and my chief of staff who was with me. that would have seemed unnecessary had their ed already been a shared understanding on the part of all of us. he then asked me to read a letter he had received from the permanent secretary. this letter sets out the fact that complaints of sexual harassment had been made against him by two individuals. he made clear these were being investigated under these were being investigated under the procedure been adopted in 2017. he set out the details of what he was alleged to have done. reading this letter is a moment in my life that i will never forget. although he denied the allegations he gave me his account of one of the incidents which he said he had apologised for the time. what he described constituted in my view deeply inappropriate behaviour on his part and that is perhaps another reason

why that moment is embedded so strongly in my mind. at the time he showed me the letter and outlined his accounts, geoff and duncan were doing the same with my chief of staff. again, this would seem unnecessary should he and i knew everything in advance. a few days earlier, a conversation i had with geoff aberdein, i have not seen his own account of that conversation but i obviously know the accounts mr salmond is given of the meeting but he also said on friday he had not been given... let me say upfront i have no wish to question geoff aberdein's recollection, i am extremely fond of him but it is clear that i have a different recollection and i do not attach the same significance to that discussion that he has. the purpose of the conversation seemed to be able to persuade me to meet with alex as soon as possible which i did agree to do in a conversation. geoff did indicate that a harassment type

issue had arisen but my recollection issue had arisen but my recollection is that he did so in general terms since an approach from sky news in november 2017 and i mention this in my written evidence, i had harboured a lingering suspicion that such issues in relation to mr salmond might rear their head. so hearing of a potential issue would not have beenin a potential issue would not have been in itself a massive shock. what i recall most strongly about the conversation is how worried geoff seem to be about alex's while current state of mind and that he might resign his party membership. for this reason i agree to meet him and that this whiteness was firmly on the personal and party space. not unreasonably, some people have asked how i could have forgotten the conversation and i wish my memory was more vivid but as i have stated it was a detail of the complaints under the procedure that i was given

on the 7th of april that was significant and indeed shocking. that is the moment at which any suspicion i had a general awareness there was a problem became actual and detailed knowledge. it is also worth saying that even the 29th of march everything i learned, my actions would have not necessarily been different. given what i was told about the distress alex was in and how it was suggested to me he might be intended to handle matter it is likely i would still have agreed to meet him as a friend and that his party leader. my my decision not to record the meeting on second april wasn't about the classification i gave it, not about being a party rather than a government meeting, it was about not wanting to compromise the independence or confidentiality of the process under way. all of which begs the question of why i would have gone to great lengths to conceal a conversation that had taken place a mere three days

earlier. ., , ., , ., earlier. some of the testimony from ri . ht at the earlier. some of the testimony from right at the start. _ earlier. some of the testimony from right at the start. she _ earlier. some of the testimony from right at the start. she was _ earlier. some of the testimony from right at the start. she was given i right at the start. she was given evidence for four hours —— right at the start. she was given evidence forfour hours —— giving evidence forfour hours —— giving evidence forfour hours. evidence forfour hours —— giving evidence for four hours. let's go to nick ardley. what would your assessment be of things at this stage after four hours of grilling? by stage after four hours of grilling? by and large, nicola sturgeon has tried to give a long and detailed defence of her government's actions. yes, she apologised to the woman she admitted had been failed by the harassment process back in 2018, but other than that we have heard from miss sturgeon quite a long account of why she thinks the government took the right decision, so she has rubbished those claims from alex salmond that there was some sort of plot against him in 2018. you just heard her they are explaining when different meetings took place, really important, because that is one of the ways in which she is accused of breaking the ministerial code, something she would have

because of course have to resign for, her opponents say, it was proved to be true. now, there are a number of elements to the story. it is a really complicated web and there are so many allegations and denials going on there. one other thing i want to flag up is, she was talking earlier about the claim from mr salmond that the name of one of the complainants was leaked to him through one of his aides. now, mr jenna said she doesn't think that happened, but if you want a sign of how big the row between nicola sturgeon and alex salmond is, while she was giving evidence, mr simon's team put out a quote from a spokesperson saying he has made an official complaint to the civil service saying that that is not true and that that name was leaked to him and that that name was leaked to him and that that name was leaked to him and that he wants it officially investigated. there are still quite a lot of this to go, nicola sturgeon has to face probably her toughest

question, whether she broke the ministerial code, but how many twists and turns in the story of a scene in the last few weeks? and who would bet against more? it scene in the last few weeks? and who would bet against more?— would bet against more? it resumes at two o'clock _ would bet against more? it resumes at two o'clock at _ would bet against more? it resumes at two o'clock at holyrood. - would bet against more? it resumes at two o'clock at holyrood. we i will take a pause and catch up with the weather. a great and murky starts to the day, this picture was taken by one of our weather watchers. you can see the extent of the low cloud around. for some of us, showers and the forecast for the remainder of the day. some of the showers in the south will be quite heavy. and potentially thundery as well. over the next few days, a fair amount of cloud and only isolated showers. high pressure largely in charge of things. we have this little system you're bringing showers as we head into the evening hours. a weak cold front moving in against northern parts of the uk. afternoon temperatures up to about 1a

afternoon temperatures up to about ia degrees in the south. mild, cold or there. a—5. heavy showers rattling through parts of south wales, southern england for the midlands, east anglia is emitted into the evening hours. some will be quite heavy and potentially thundery. further north, culled from living in, bringing if you light showers across northern parts of scotland too. for most of us, and of cloud and temptress largely above freezing. like when similar to today. a little snow over the highest ground of scotland. light and patchy here. further south, scotland. light and patchy here. furthersouth, most scotland. light and patchy here. further south, most places looking largely dry, if you break the the cloud, particularly for the likes of western scotland, north—west england later in the day. temperatures certainly quite a lot colder, around

about 5—7 for most of us, perhaps a living in the far south—west. heading on into friday, high—pressure still very much in charge of the weather. a largely dry day, with light wind. if fair amount of cloud through the day, it will bubble up and spread out, turning things fairly murky later on, and some early mist and fog patches once again. temperatures around 6—8 for most of us. some brighter skies, especially across parts of scotland. as we look further ahead in to that we can, does remain largely dry and settled. we could start to see something more unsettled later on sunday in the north west. the chancellor, rishi sunak, has been outlining the government spending plans in the budget, stressing he's opimistic about britain's recovery. mr sunak said he'd pledged to do whatever it takes to protectjobs

and keep businesses afloat, and that he intended to continue doing so. government borrowing has reached a record £270 billion because of the pandemic, and the chancellor said that once the uk was on the way to recovery, he would need to begin fixing the public finances. let's take a look at some of the key points. he confirmed the furlough scheme — which pays 80% of employees wages — will be extended until september. a further 600,000 self—employed people will be eligible for help as access to grants is widened. the minimum wage will be increased to £8.91 an hourfrom april. the universal credit top—up of £20—per—week will continue for a further six months. the 5% reduced rate of vat for tourism and hospitality will be extended for six months to the end of september. the 100% business rates holiday in england will continue from april untiljune. and the chancellor has announced that he will raise corporation tax from i9% to 25% by 2023. let's listen to the chancellor setting out his plans to help

protect jobs. let me turn straightaway to the first part of this budget�*s plan to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the british people through the remaining phase of this crisis. first, the furlough scheme will be extended until the end of september, and for employees, there will be no change to the terms. they will continue to receive 80% of their salary for error not worked until the scheme ends. as businesses reopen, we will ask them to contribute alongside the taxpayer to the cost of paying their employees. nothing will change untiljuly, when we will ask for a small contribution ofjust10% and 20% in august and september. the government is proud of the furlough, one of the most

generous schemes in the world, effectively protecting millions of people's jobs and incomes. effectively protecting millions of people'sjobs and incomes. second, support for the self—employed will also continue until september, with also continue until september, with a fourth ground covering the period february to april, 25th and final grant from may onwards. the fourth gram will provide three months of support at 80% of average trading profits. forthe support at 80% of average trading profits. for the better grant, people will continue to receive grants for the months of average profits, with the system open for claims from late july. profits, with the system open for claims from latejuly. as the economy reopens over the summer, it is fair to target our support towards those most affected by the pandemic. so people whose turnover has fallen by 30% or more will continue to receive the full 80%

grant. people whose turnover has fallen by less than 30% will therefore have less need for taxpayer support and will receive a 30% grant. i can also announce a major improvement in access to the self—employed scheme. when the scheme was launched, the newly self—employed couldn't qualify because they hadn't all filed the 1920 tax return. but as the tax return deadline has now passed, i can announce that provided they filed a tax return by midnight last night, over 600,000 more people, many of whom became self—employed last year, can now claim the fourth and fifth grants. over the course of this crisis, we will have spent £33 billion supporting the self—employed, one of the most generous programmes for self—employed people anywhere in the world. third, we are also extending

our support for the lowest paid and most vulnerable, to support low income households, the universal credit uplift of 20p a week will continue for a further six months —— £20 a week, will beyond the end of the national long—term. because of the national long—term. because of the way that system works operationally, we will need to do so with a one—off payment of £500. over the course of the year, as the economy begins to recover, we are shifting our resources and focus towards getting people into decent well—paid jobs. we have reaffirmed our commitment to end low pay, increasing the national living wage to £8 91 from april, an annual pay rise of almost £350 for someone working full—time on the national

living wage. and my right honourable friends, the education secretary and they work and pensions secretary are taking action to give people the skills they need to getjobs and betterjobs. the research programme, supporting over1 million long—term unemployed people. the number of work coaches doubled, the kick—start scheme funding high—qualityjobs for over a quarter of a million young people. the prime minister's lifetime skills guarantee, giving every ad of the opportunity for a funded level three qualification, and we want businesses to hire new apprentices, so we are paying them to do it —— giving every adult the opportunity. i am to do it —— giving every adult the opportunity. iam increasing payments to £3000 for all new apprentice hires of any age, alongside investing hundred and £26 million of new money to triple the

number of traineeships, we are taking what works to get people into jobs and making it better. (pres) let's take a listen to keir starmer — let's take a listen to keir starmer — the labour leader — who's been responding to the chancellor. the worst crisis of any major economy in the last 12 months. unemployment at 5%, and which the chancellor said, forecast to rise to 6.5%, dated over 2 trillion. i'm sure this budget will look better on instagram —— debt at over 2 trillion. this week's pr video costing taxpayers and i was happy expecting to see a line in the opi forecast for it, but even the chance of�*s film crew will struggle to put a positive spin on this. after the decisions of the last year, and the decade of neglect, we needed a budget to fix the foundations of our economy, to reward our key workers, to protect the nhs and to build a

more secure and prosperous economy for the future. instead, what we got was a budget that papered over the cracks, ratherthan was a budget that papered over the cracks, rather than rebuilding the foundations. a budget that shows the government doesn't understand what went wrong in the last decade, or what is needed in the next. the chancellor may think that this is time for a victory lap, but i'm afraid that this budget won't feel so good for the millions of key workers who are having their pay frozen. forthe workers who are having their pay frozen. for the businesses swamped by debt and the families paying more in council tax, and the millions of people who are out of work or worried about losing theirjob. and although the chancer spoke for almost an hour, we heard nothing about the long—term plan to fix social care. the chancellor may have forgotten about it, but the labour

party never will. the british people will rightly ask, why has britain, why has britain suffered a worse economic crisis than any major economy? the answer is staring us in the face. first, the chancer�*s decisions in the last year, this is the chancellor who blocked a circuit breaker in september, ignoring the science, he told the british people to live with coronavirus and live without fear. if you weeks later, we were forced into an even longer and more painful lockdown. whatever spend the chancer tries to put on the figures today, as a result of his decisions, we have suffered deeper economic damage and much worse outcomes. madam deputy speaker, that is nothing compared with the decade of political choices

the men the briton went into this crisis with an economy built on insecurity —— that meant britain went into this crisis. we have an economy as a result of those ten years with 3.6 million people in insecure work, where wages stagnated for a decade. over a million children living in poverty. and critically, we went into this crisis with 100,000 unfilled posts in the nhs, and where social care was ignored and underfunded for a decade. members opposite voted for all of that. today's budget doesn't even recognise that, let alone rectify. it is clear the chancellor is now betting on a recovery fuelled by consumer spending pet. in fairness, if my next—door neighbour was spending tens of thousands of pounds redecorating their flat, was spending tens of thousands of pounds redecorating theirflat, i'd probably the same. but the central

problem in our economy as a deep—rooted insecurity and inequality. this budget isn't the answer to that.— inequality. this budget isn't the answer to that. what people think about the help — answer to that. what people think about the help businesses - answer to that. what people think about the help businesses and i about the help businesses and self—employed? our correspondent, phil mackie, has been to stirchley in birmingham to find out. in suburban birmingham, stokesley is a success story. this confectioner�*s business has grown during the pandemic. the budget offers help but self—reliance and being able to act quickly to the rapidly changing landscape is critical. we don't try to make concrete plans because everything is so fluid. we need to be as adaptable as possible. i think that's one of the reasons why smaller businesses are not doing so badly in those terms, because they are able to pivot

and change their business plans much easier than the larger companies are, because they have so many routes to go down, to pull that off. it's a bit like being a medic at the end of a battle for the chancellor. he needs to triage so many different business winds. whether you are a brewer, an optician or a cafe, it's a crucial difference for small business. at loaf, they have been able to keep going thanks to help. the bakery can keep going but the cookery school is shut, so half the staff are furloughed. we were planning to reassess at the end of the month. i'm glad this furlough scheme has been extended as it is breathing space for us. a lot of bars and cafes are so new that they l don't have much reserve. we're just hoping they keep going. stirchley has suffered from decades of decline, but there has been

a revival in recent years. people and businesses are moving back. jordan lives and works here. she did not qualify for furlough. she believes the upbeat message will help ahead of a vital period. mother's day is imperative for my business. it's the biggest weekend of the calendar year for florists. we need assurances that people are confident to spend some money. we need some good news that money is going to start flowing and people feel happy to get back out on the high street. today's budget is just as much about the message as the detail. now is the time to ease off the brakes and put a smile back on the faces of small business owners. people with low immunity because of health problems, including cancer, are being asked to take part in a study to gauge the level of protection they might receive from coronavirus vaccines.

up to 5,000 patients from around the uk will have their blood tested before and after receiving the vaccine, to check their immunity levels and see how well protected they are against covid. there is currently little evidence on how effective the vaccine is in immuno—compromised patients; it's hoped the researchers will have initial findings within a few months. germany's lockdown looked like it was working — with case numbers down, and the government considering how to re—open society. but new variants are spreading. and many experts warn a third wave of infection has already started. the vaccination programme too is slow, with only 5 percent of the population having had their firstjab. jenny hill reports from dortmund. after a winter in lockdown, this country has had enough. the dortmund philharmonic�*s thrown itself into rehearsals for opening night, but it's germany's politicians who'll set the date.

if you ask me what would i open first, i would take the theatres, opera houses, places where you really control the compliance and the adherence to the working infection control measures. like distance, like wearing a mask, like hand disinfection. for some, there's a fragile optimism in the air. lockdown reduced infections, schools, hairdressers have reopened. angela merkel�*s under pressure to let the rest of society get going. like so many other countries, germany is trying to balance the health of its citizens with other concerns — the economy, society, children's education. but this country, most agree, went into lockdown too late, in the autumn, and its vaccination programme has got off to a slow start. so the pressure is on.

the authorities don't want to get it wrong again. and many warn that germany's already at the beginning of a third wave. case numbers are now rising again. in this lab, which processes tests, they can see that new variants are having an effect. the problem that comes with all the opening is really that there are more opportunities for contact again. and we know now it is very hard to control, even if people stick to generally wearing masks and trying to keep distance. once, you know, more and more contact opportunities are there, the virus doesn't care, it looks for opportunities. and just 5% of the population have had their first vaccines. germans may be rushing back to the salon, but they've rather less enthusiasm for the astrazeneca jab. the government's only giving it to the under 65s and take up is slow. germany, once admired for its calm handling of the pandemic, is hesitant, its response characterised by indecision, its politicians at odds over how to protect the lives, the well—being of its citizens.

jenny hill, bbc news, dortmund. an explosive device has blown up outside a coronavirus testing centre in a town in the netherlands. the blast caused no injuries but shattered windows. dutch police have cordoned off the street in bovenkarspel, north—east of amsterdam, and begun an investigation. there have been several protests in the netherlands against the continued lockdown. times of crisis create heroes, one of the more unlikely is diminutive diva dolly parton. last year she donated a million dollars to develop the moderna vaccine, and now she's celebrated — in a unique way — getting a dose of her own medicine. well, hey, it's me! i'm finally going to get my vaccine, i'm so excited, i've been waiting a while. i'm old enough to get it and i'm

smart enough to get it. so i'm very happy that i'm going to get my moderna shot today. and i want to tell everybody i think you should get out there and do it, too. i even changed one of my songs to fit the occasion. it goes. # vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, vaccine! # i'm begging of you, please don't hesitate! # vaccine vaccine, vaccine, vaccine! # because once you're dead, then that's a bit too late. #. i know i'm trying to be funny now, but i'm dead serious about the vaccine. i think we all want to get back to normal, whatever that is. and that would be a great shot in the arm, wouldn't it, if we could get back to that? but anyhow, i just wanted to encourage everybody, because the sooner we get to feeling better, the sooner we are going to get back to being normal. so i just want to say to all of you cowards out there, don't be such a chicken squat. get out there. get your shot. think you got it? i got it. 0k! that didn't hurt. just stung a little bit, but that was from the alcohol pad, i think. yeah. right? 0k.

all right. a band aid now, mess up my beauty mark? i'm joking! you do what you got to do. i don't want blood on my clothes! hey, i did it! just to remind you, we're waiting for scotland's first minister nicola sturgeon to resume giving evidence to the inquiry at holyrood into the allegations made by her predecessor alex salmond over the handling of an investigation into sexual harassment claims made against him. that's due to restart in just a few minutes — at two o'clock — we'll take you there the moment it begins. for many of us, grey started the day. a lot of fog and low cloud around. this picture by me was taken by one of weather watchers. you can see the extent of the low cloud around there. some of us, we have some showers in the forecast as well for the remainder of the day. some of the showers on the site will be

quite heavy and potentially thundery as well. over the next few days, afraid amount of cloud and any isolated showers, high pressure largely in charge of things. we have this little system here bringing those showers on the site as we head into the evening hours, and a weak cold front moving in across northern parts of the uk. that is more of a player as we had to the day tomorrow. afternoon temperatures up tomorrow. afternoon temperatures up to about 1a degrees in the south. still quite mild, colderfurther north, only a—5. plenty of still quite mild, colderfurther north, only a—5 . plenty of heavy showers rattling through parts of south wales, southern england the midlands and east anglia. as we move into the evening there are some of these could be heavy and thundery. further north, cold front moving in, bringing a few later showers across northern parts of scotland. for most of us, enough cloud and cloud and mist and fog around tonight, so temperatures largely a few degrees above freezing, not a cold and frosty night, widely. do be prepared for some fairly extensive mist and fog patches around first thing tomorrow morning. light winds, similar to today, tomorrow's weather still quite cloudy for many of us, a

little snow over the highest ground of scotland, fairly light and patchy here. some rain showers pushing into parts of northern england his way to the course of the afternoon, further south most places looking largely dry, if you break the spell speaking to the cloud, critically for the likes of western scotland, north—west england later in the day, but temperatures are in the quite a lot colder than today, roundabout 5-7 lot colder than today, roundabout 5—7 for most of us, perhaps 11 in the far south—west. heading into friday, high pressure is still very much in charge of the weather. another largely dry day, again with light winds. we are likely to see if fair amount light winds. we are likely to see if fairamount of light winds. we are likely to see if fair amount of cloud through the course of the day, it will tend to bubble up and spread out, turning things fairly murky later on, and some early mist and fog patches once again to stop temperatures around about 6—8 for most of us, some brighter skies especially across parts of scotland. as we look further ahead into the weekend, it does remain largely dry and settled. we can start to see something more unsettled later on sunday in the north—west. bye for now.

this is bbc news. i'm simon mccoy. the headlines... "whatever it takes" — the chancellor sets out how the country will recover from the coronavirus pandemic in his budget statement. rishi sunak says he wants to protect businesses and jobs. we will continue doing whatever it takes to support the british people and businesses through this moment of crisis. rishi sunak said the rate of corporation tax paid on company profits will increase to 25% in 2023. that's a rise from 19%. the universal credit top—up of £20 per week will continue for a further six months. the national living wage will rise to £8.91 from april. the furlough scheme, which pays 80% of employees' wages, will be extended until the end of september — and a further 600,000 self—employed people will be eligible for help as access

to grants is widened. but labour leader sir keir starmer told the commons that it was