Holyrood agrees to publish explosive Alex Salmond evidence

After two meetings today, the SPCB’s chair, the Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh, said the management group had “collectively agreed that on balance it is possible to publish the submission” with some redactions.

Publication by the parliament means the submission can be included in the inquiry’s final official report, and it can be used as the basis for questioning witnesses.

The decision paves the way for Mr Salmond testify under oath before the committee next week, with Ms Sturgeon due to appear the following week.

Opposition MSPs on the inquiry welcomed the move after suspicions SNP MSPs had not wanted Mr Salmond to testify because of the potential damage to Ms Sturgeon.

The SNP criticised the decision as "utterly bewildering".

READ MORE: Alex Salmond says shady behaviour of Nicola Sturgeon's government 'a disgrace'

The inquiry is looking at how the Scottish Government botched a probe into sexual misconduct claims made against Mr Salmond by civil servants in 2018.

He had the exercise set aside in a judicial review by showing it was “tainted by apparent bias”, a Government flay that left taxpayers with a £512,000 bill for his costs.

He was later charged with sexual assault but cleared on all counts at a High Court trial in March last year.

Mr Salmond originally made a submission to the independent adviser into the Scottish Ministerial Code last month and also sent it to the inquiry.

In it, the former First Minister accused his successor of repeatedly misleading Holyrood about meetings they had about the probe in 2018 and so breaching the ministerial code - a resignation offence Ms Sturgeon denies.

Mr Salmond said he would not give evidence under oath in person unless the material was published by the inquiry, so that it could be included in its final report.

But the inquiry last week refused to publish the material in case it breached court orders, data or privacy laws.

Although the Spectator magazine went to court to seek a variation to an order made by judge Lady Dorrian during Mr Salmond’s trial in order to allow publication, the inquiry continued to refuse to publish this version. 

Mr Salmond’s lawyers therefore submitted a revised version of his evidence in order to put the legality of publication “beyond doubt”.

On Wednesday, the inquiry referred the issue up to the SPCB as the final authority on publication. 

Today's decision by the SPCB means the parliament will now publish the second, revised version, while ignoring the original version at the heart of the Spectator case.

Mr Salmond has been asked to testify on Wednesday, February 24.

In a letter to inquiry convener Linda Fabiani, Mr Macintosh said: “Thank you for your letter and for asking the Corporate Body whether or not it considers that the submission provided by Mr Salmond to your committee can be published in light of the legal obligations to which the Parliament is subject. As you might imagine, the Corporate Body takes these legal obligations very seriously and has given careful consideration to your request.

“Following two meetings of the SPCB today, at which a range of opinions were aired, the SPCB collectively agreed that on balance it is possible to publish the submission by Alex Salmond on the ministerial code.

“The Corporate Body has considered the key elements of the matter you placed before it, but is mindful that this decision in principle to publish must now be followed by the processing of the submission in line with the Committee’s evidence handling statement.

“Finally, I wish to record that Andy Wightman MSP, did not take part in the meeting of the SPCB at which our decision was reached, given he is a member of your committee.” 

READ MORE: Last-minute plea for help in fixing SNP's Hate Crime Bill

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser, who sits on the inquiry, said: “This is the right decision. The public deserve to know how £500,000 of taxpayers’ money was lost and why women were so badly let down.

“We must hear Alex Salmond’s side of the story to uncover what really happened. This welcome decision makes that possible.”

Labour MSP Jackie Baillie said: “This decision is most welcome and should pave the way for Mr Salmond appearing before the Committee next week.

“From the very outset of this process I have been clear that I believe the Committee has the right to consider any evidence that may be relevant to its work, and I am glad that the Scottish Parliament’s Corporate Body has agreed.

“This Committee is dutybound to get to the bottom of this sorry affair that frittered away over £500,000 of public money and which let down the women involved so badly.

“I look forward to questioning Mr Salmond next week and I hope that his evidence and that provided by the First Minister will go some way to helping the Committee in drawing its conclusions.”

Liberal Democrat Alex Cole-Hamilton said the decision was a "watershed moment" in the saga. 

He said: "This will allow our committee to invite Mr Salmond next week and ask him critical questions about that submission and by extension put those same questions to the First Minister.

"This should give us the clarity that we need to get to the bottom of what went wrong and in particular what the First Minister knew about the failed investigation into Mr Salmond and hopefully allow us to give some peace to the women who were failed by this process." 

Ms Sturgeon last week she did "not consider" she had breached the ministerial code, and would made that case "very, very robustly" to the inquiry.

Her spokesman said publication of the submission "changes nothing" because "she has always expected to be questioned on its contents".

He added: "The only frustration is that she has still not had the chance to rebut the claims and conspiracy stories that have been levelled at her - and has lost count of how many times she has agreed to appear before the committee, only for the date to be postponed."

SNP MSP George Adam said: “People across Scotland will be utterly bewildered that the corporate body of the national parliament has ignored clear legal advice and decided to publish information which it knows could jeopardise the court-ordered anonymity of complainants in a sexual offences case. 

“The message it is in danger of sending is that women should not dare seek to hold powerful men to account if they believe they have been mistreated. 

“We have to ask the question of the corporate body members – if it had been their wife, their mother, their daughter or their sister at the centre of this, would they have made the same decision?”