Nicola Sturgeon: difference between Salmond and me is I never claimed to be infallible - as it happened

There is an argument between Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, and the convenor, Linda Fabiani, over the latter’s exhortations to the former to keep her questioning short.

Mitchell proceeds to essentially give a speech rather than ask the first minister a question.

She begins by saying the independence of our civil servants matter but either we’ve got the most incompetent civil service or in 13 years the independence has been blurred.

She ends by saying if Sturgeon were re-elected, there would be no checks and balances, as Fabiani interrupts Mitchell telling her some of what she said was appropriate. Fabiani then asks Sturgeon if she wants to respond to any of the points made.

Sturgeon says it is up to the Scottish people to decide who wins the election.

The first minister describes accusations about lack of impartiality and independence as “unfounded”. Attacks on the independence of the criminal justice system and Crown Office are also unfounded, claims Sturgeon.

Mistakes have been made and there is a lot of learning to be done but this is an example of the independent institutions of the country doing their job.

That concludes Sturgeon’s evidence. I will post a summary shortly.

Baillie moves onto the meeting on 2 April 2018 between Salmond and Sturgeon. For what reason did you think he would resign in advance of the meeting?

Sturgeon replies that he was accused of something serious and it was her assumption that he might stand down to protect the party. As it transpired that was not his intention.

You must have known ahead of the 2 April exactly what were the allegations against him if you thought he was going to resign?

Sturgeon dismisses that as a “leap of logic”. She knew there was a general problem.

The first minister says Aberdein seemed very concerned about Salmond’s state of wellbeing and it appeared there was a serious issue affecting the party.

Baillie says Sturgeon would have been clear by the end of the 2 April meeting that it was a government meeting not a party meeting. So why didn’t you report it to civil servants?

The first minister repeats her previous answers to the same question - she did not report it because it would risk the independence and confidentiality of the process. It was not to do with whether it was a government or party meeting. It will be up to James Hamilton, the independent adviser looking into whether she broke the ministerial code, to decide whether it was wrong not to report the meeting, says Sturgeon.

Referring to Sturgeon’s self-referral for potential breach of the ministerial code, Andy Wightman, independent MSP, asks whether it should be up to the independent adviser - in her case James Hamilton - to decide which provisions of the ministerial code may have been breached?

Sturgeon says she has no interest in constraining James Hamilton in his investigation into whether she has broken the ministerial code.

Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, asks about the “precursor meetings” between a senior government official and Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff. Were you aware of them?

Sturgeon was not, she says.

You were not aware of a meeting involving one of your senior government officials?

That is not as unusual as you might think, says Sturgeon.

Baillie says the 29 March meeting between Sturgeon and Aberdein was jointly arranged by both sides. Did you know it was about complaints?

Sturgeon says it depends what you mean by “complaints” - she knew he was coming to see her “about a general concern about Alex”.

Fraser says Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, was adamant in evidence to the committee that her 2 April 2018 meeting with Salmond was government business.

The first minister said her husband did not know the basis for the meeting. She adds that what she decided to do did not relate to its classification as a party or government meeting. Her decision related to confidentiality.

Fraser says after Salmond appeared before the committee a Scottish government spokesperson said there was no evidence to support his claims but evidence has since been produced. Will she withdraw the spokesperson’s comments?

I don’t accept the assumptions and characterisations you are making.

She says there is “zero evidence” of the plot alleged by Salmond against him.

Fraser says contemporaneous statements amount to evidence and Sturgeon should know that as a lawyer.

Sturgeon replies that the people who were involved in the conversations referred to should be spoken to rather than relying on contemporaneous statements of people who were told about the conversations but were not party to them.

Fraser says all through her period in politics she told the Scottish people that they should trust in Salmond. When did you decide he was a “liar” and a “fantasist”?

Sturgeon retorts that she did not use those terms. She has had to reassess her opinion of him and she said he’s probably done the same with relation to her.

Do you owe the people of Scotland for urging them to trust Salmond?

It is unreasonable to expect her to apologise for Alex Salmond, replies Sturgeon.

There will now be another break until 4.30pm.

Maureen Watt, SNP, asks if the first minister agrees with Salmond that she should have told civil servants of their meetings?

Sturgeon doesn’t agree but says Salmond has a stateable case with respect to that - in non-legal jargon that means it was arguable. She also says that Salmond wanted her to tell civil servants because he wanted her to intervene.

Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, wants to go back to the meeting of 29 March 2018, saying he shares the scepticism of his fellow committee member Cole-Hamilton about her claim that she forgot about the meeting.

Sturgeon says she does understand that. She reiterates that it was a “general discussion”. Because of the contact from Sky alleging sexual misconduct against Salmond, the 29 March meeting was not the first time she had heard of such allegations, making it less memorable than might otherwise have been the case, says Sturgeon. “Rightly or wrongly, people can be sceptical about that,” she didn’t remember the 29 March meeting as being particularly significant.

Fraser says her account of the 29 March meeting with Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, as having been impromptu is contradicted by Aberdein and Salmond who say it was organised in advance.

Sturgeon says Aberdein got in touch the day before to ask if she would be around the following day, if that can constitute being pre-arranged.

Fraser asks why would people like Duncan Hamilton, Salmond’s lawyer, and Kevin Pringle, a former party strategist, band together to make up things about what happened.

Sturgeon says she is not alleging that they banded together but they were not in the meeting and must have been told details by a third person.

Cole-Hamilton moves on to the matter of whether Sturgeon agreed to assist Salmond. He says that in her written evidence the first minister says she made clear she would not intervene but in her oral evidence she has referred to letting him down “gently”.

Sturgeon says if Salmond left there with the impression she was intervening that was clearly not the impression she wanted to give him.

The crucial part is that I didn’t intervene.

Cole-Hamilton quotes the written evidence of Duncan Hamilton, Salmond’s lawyer, in which he claimed Sturgeon said “if it comes to it” she would intervene.

Sturgeon says she doesn’t know what “if it comes to it” means.

Cole-Hamilton now asks about the delay in telling the permanent secretary about the 2 April meeting. Sturgeon did not do so until 6 June. Isn’t it the case that you didn’t tell the permanent secretary because you were initially disposed to assist him, the MSP asks?

Sturgeon rejects this. She never had any intention of intervening, she tells the committee. She believes she made the appropriate decision.

Did the permanent secretary tell her to break off communication with Salmond?

Sturgeon said in a letter she made the permanent secretary aware that she was going to tell Salmond that she had informed the permanent secretary of her meetings with her predecessor.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks about Sturgeon’s meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, on 29 March 2018.

She recalls there was an issue about Alex, she needed to see him but it was “in general terms”.

Cole-Hamilton asks what reason Aberdein had for suggesting Salmond might resign as Salmond told the committee he was not thinking of resigning.

Sturgeon is unclear about the specifics, she says Aberdein may just have said he thought Salmond might be thinking of resigning. On 2 April, it was clear quickly he did not have an intention to resign.

Cole-Hamilton questions the credibility of Sturgeon’s assertion she does not remember the 29 March meeting very well given that a colleague of 30 years planning to resign would have been monumental.

Sturgeon reiterates that it’s the 2 April meeting that was the one that sticks with her and it may have “obliterated” her memory of the 29 March meeting.

Cole-Hamilton asks about the fact Sturgeon said nothing to her husband Peter Murrell, SNP CEO, about her fears that Salmond might resign.

Sturgeon says she wanted to hear it from the horse’s mouth.

Cole-Hamilton says this is hard for members to believe given she has said in the past she talked to her husband a lot about party business.

The first minister insists she did not know it was a reality at that point. Had Salmond told her on 2 April he planned to resign then she would have told her husband.

McMillan asks Sturgeon about Salmond’s motivation for attending a meeting with her on 2 April.

She answers that Salmond wanted him to intervene so that there could be mediation. Sturgeon says it was put to her by Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, that Salmond was thinking of resigning but she could not say whether that was surmising by Aberdein or whether it was based on what Salmond had told him.

McMillan asks about Sturgeon saying in her written evidence that she did not want to be cornered by Salmond at the party conference.

Sturgeon responds that the prospect of legal action by Salmond seemed to be increasing and she didn’t want a discussion with him in an ad hoc way, where she would tell him that she had told the permanent secretary she was not going to intervene in the matter.

McMillan reads to Sturgeon Salmond’s claim that she told him she wanted “to assist”.

The first minister says her head was spinning, it was a human situation but she knew straight away she could not intervene. She was probably trying to “soften” things for Salmond and that may have led to Salmond’s interpretation of her offering to assist at that meeting.

Did you meet Salmond again because of the “human” situation, asks McMillan?

Sturgeon says she met him twice more, she was “concerned about him”. The first minister says Salmond suggested she was blocking arbitration but she was not involved in that decision.

Baillie follows up a question from fellow committee member Allan about sisting (this is obtaining a court order stopping or suspending proceedings)

Sturgeon says the government ultimately did not apply for sisting and again denies that there was an attempt to sist the case so that the criminal procedures would overtake the judicial review in timing.

Stuart McMillan, SNP, asks why the government did not send anyone to a hearing on reporting restrictions.

Sturgeon says she understands it is because the government did not oppose the reporting restrictions.

McMillan asks if there has been a judicial review where the government has been told it was going to lose but then won.

Sturgeon answers that she cannot go into details of legal advice.

McMillan refers to the legal advice from 27 September 2018 (published yesterday) and asks whether Sturgeon has any comment on the remarks relating to retrospective application.

That note was addressing each point of challenge, responds Sturgeon. She says Salmond has a view he says backed up by his legal adviser that retrospective application was inappropriate, her government disagreed.

Moving to the advice from Roddy Dunlop on 31 October, Baillie says it makes clear that the prospects for the judicial review are bleak and there is no balancing view.

Sturgeon says lawyers do not continue if a case is not stateable so if Dunlop felt that at that point of time he would not have proceeded.

Baillie picks out advice from Dunlop that says “it makes little sense to continue to defend the indefensible”. She asks Sturgeon if it would not be better for the complainers if the case had been conceded at that time.

Dunlop’s advice read in the whole was that there was a “credible” argument to be made, responds the first minister. It was still for better for the complainants at that stage to proceed, argues Sturgeon.

Baillie questions why certain documents were not revealed in response to a search warrant, and not made available to the judicial review nor the criminal trial.

Sturgeon says documents outside the scope of the warrant would not have been released. She says there is assumption about non-compliance with a search warrant that is not to her knowledge correct.

Baillie tells the first minister the time for reflection has passed. We have been asking for this information for months, there have been two votes in parliament. Baillie asks the legal basis for not giving some specific documents to the committee?

Sturgeon says she has recused herself from the handling of the release of documents but she understands some more documents will be forthcoming.

The convener, Linda Fabiani, intervenes to say the committee shares Baillie’s concerns. Baillie says she finds the release of incomplete legal advice “disrespectful”.

Referring to counsel’s advice on 27 September 2018 Baillie says there were concerns about the policy itself rather than the policy implementation. She has concerns that this policy is still in place.

Reiterating earlier arguments, Sturgeon says she has never read legal advice saying 100% you are going to win - if she did that would concern her because it would be so unusual.

Isn’t it the case that if just one of the petitioner’s grounds are found to be legitimate it could lead to the quashing of the procedure as well as the permanent secretary’s decision?

Sturgeon responds that it “could” but if the government was to choose not to defend legal actions on the basis of advice such as this, no government would ever defend any legal actions.

Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, says Sturgeon has referred to errors, a “litany of failures”, and she appreciates her apology “but you’re not directly responsible are you?”

Sturgeon says she wasn’t responsible for the collapse of the judicial review but as leader she does have to take responsibility for many things.

Tell me why nobody has resigned, nobody has taken responsibility? Two women have been badly let down.

Sturgeon says the complaints against Salmond were “horrendous” for everyone who had to deal with it. Maybe that’s made her too understanding of people, says the first minister, before adding that there are ongoing investigations - including by this committee - which are being awaited.

Baillie asks what happens to any woman alleging harassment in the intervening two years while you look at this?

The procedure is still there for any woman who wishes to come forward, says Sturgeon, but she says she has a “profound concern” about the impact on women who want to come forward. The first minister acknowledges the government’s contribution to this state of affairs.

Baillie asks if Sturgeon understands that it looks like the government doesn’t want to hand over critical information. What will you do to rectify it today?

Sturgeon replies that she takes issue with Baillie’s characterisation of “prevarication” etc. She says she has addressed the release of document earlier in the committee hearing. But the first minister adds that she will reflect on Baillie’s stated frustrations. Once again she claims “mystique” has been built up around documents, which when released have proved not to be as explosive as suggested.

Andy Wightman, independent MSP, asks if it would be fair to say the critical tipping point with respect to the government stance in defending the judicial review action by Salmond was the period from 6 December to 19 December?

Sturgeon says the case was stateable until 11 December so maybe it was the period from 11 to 19 December.

Andy Wightman asks if there was any suggestion in the winding up period, when the government had decided to concede the judicial review, that the petitioner (Salmond) wanted to include some legal grounds relating to the procedure itself rather than the concession being solely about the investigating officer’s contact with two of the complainants?

Sturgeon was not aware of any such suggestion, she says.

Maureen Watt, SNP, asks about whether the interests of the complainants were taken into account when the concession of the judicial review was made.

Sturgeon says as long as the case was stateable and the case appeared credible, the wider public interest came into play. That would have been in the interest of the complainants.

Mitchell claims Sturgeon absolved herself of any responsibility in relation to the public purse and the complainers in order to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up.

The first minister says they have to agree to disagree. She was excluded from the process of investigation.

I would have been using my power to help a friend.

If the committee’s view is she should have intervened, her view of propriety in these things will have been severely challenged, says Sturgeon.

I would have been acting in a way that was improper because I was his friend.

It would have been “deeply inappropriate” to intervene, says Sturgeon.

Reading out a message from Salmond, Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, asks the first minister why arbitration between Salmond and the Scottish government was rejected.

Sturgeon says it was not her decision but there is a question whether arbitration would have been appropriate to resolve public law issues that should be decided in a court.

She adds that it would have been “highly inappropriate” for her to intervene on the behalf of a friend and colleague. She would have been giving him “privileged influence”. If Sturgeon had done that, there would have been criticism justifiably raining down on her head, the first minister says.

Mitchell tells Sturgeon she doesn’t have a blank cheque to defend the government and Salmond’s message to the first minister that it would save money would seem “prudent” and it would have protected the complainers. Mitchell says people need to see why this happened, who is to blame, whereas Sturgeon is just saying the buck stops with her. If Sturgeon had intervened, she would only be criticised for not making it public, claims Mitchell.

Sturgeon says the government was undoubtedly considering the arguments being made by Salmond’s lawyers for arbitration and they decided it was not an appropriate thing to do.

The first minister insists had she intervened it would be putting the investigation down a track where he avoided the complaints ever coming to a decision and on behalf of a friend, colleague, former boss. It would have been “an egregious breach of my power ... wrong, deeply inappropriate”.

She says had she done this she would not be sitting here today [presumably because she would have been forced to quit]. She once again refers to letting Salmon down “gently” because he was a friend.

Alasdair Allan, Scottish Conservatives, resumes the questioning, asking about what role external counsel play with government generally and whether it differed from the norm in this case.

Sturgeon describes external counsel as having a “big role” in advising government generally. As to their role in this case, she says Allan would be better off asking litigators, government lawyers, but to her it did not seem anything out of the ordinary.

Allan says was a more crucial point a change in advice by law officers as opposed to a change in advice by external counsel.

Sturgeon says the law advocate and law officers have to take account of advice from external counsel.

Allan asks Sturgeon about allegations that the Scottish government considered “sisting” the case (this is obtaining a court order stopping or suspending proceedings) to allow a police investigation to overtake it?

The first minister says sisting was considered at an early stage but it would have been extraordinary if sisting wasn’t discussed given it was a criminal investigation. But she says it’s nonsense to suggest it would have been done to allow a police investigation to overtake the judicial review.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks if the views of the complainers were sought about the decision to proceed after the 31 October 2018 legal advice was issued?

Sturgeon says she doesn’t think so, she certainly didn’t contact them. But she will check if they were contacted and report back to the committee. The first minister says these were not black and white judgments.

Did you consult them at any time of the judicial review?

Sturgeon personally did not. She would want to check if the Scottish government did.

That ends this session, which will resume at 2pm

Fraser says the level of damages awarded - more than £512,000 - indicated displeasure at the government continuing the case and again questions why the government did not drop its case on 6 December?

Sturgeon repeats her sorrow at the loss to taxpayers but says this was not just about Salmond but about a challenge to the entire harassment policy, which could have important ramifications for others.

Fraser moves on to the “astonishing note” of 19 December referring to “extreme professional embarrassment” lawyers have experienced in court. This is catastrophic, isn’t it?

It is catastrophic, Sturgeon agrees. it fundamentally changed the position in the court case. If she had steamed ahead then, the charges being levelled against her with respect to the legal advice would have been justified.

Who is to blame asks Fraser?

Sturgeon replies that as head of the Scottish government she is ultimately responsible and that is why she has apologised today. This committee is part of an attempt to learn the lessons.

Is it true the Scottish government only conceded the judicial review when senior and junior counsel threatened to resign?

That’s not my understanding, replies Sturgeon. She says she’s not aware of them threatening to resign. Sturgeon, a qualified lawyer herself, says lawyers would not continue an unstateable case so if the government had gone ahead they probably would have stood down.

Fraser moves on to more advice on 31 October 2018 and then 6 December. There must be more information, will it be made available?

Sturgeon responds by saying she is happy to look into it. With respect to the 31 October advice, she rejects Fraser’s categorisation of it as showing the case was unwinnable.

Fraser quotes the 31 October advice saying a swift decision is going to have to be taken.

Sturgeon says the solicitor general was at a meeting where it was decided the case was still stateable.

Fraser quotes from the 6 December advice, saying “the least worst advice would be to concede the petition”.

Sturgeon responds saying there was a meeting of law officers of 11 December and the opinion they were expressing was there was no need to drop the case and it was important for the issue to be aired. She says the charge against her is that she wilfully allowed a hopeless judicial review to proceed and therefore broke the ministerial code but she was taking the advice of law officers rather than going against them.

Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, asks about the extent of ministerial overview of the judicial review brought by Salmond over the investigation into harassment allegations against him?

The first minister replies that she was a named party. It was not something that she discussed every day. She says it was “not an unusual degree of involvement or oversight”, pointing out that there have been several judicial reviews against her government.

Fraser asks about the involvement of her chief of staff.

She (the chief of staff) attended three meetings with counsel, Sturgeon says. The chief of staff’s involvement was in no way unusual.

Reading from the external lawyers’ advice on the judicial review, Fraser says he would not characterise it as “confident” - as Sturgeon earlier described it - of victory.

Sturgeon said she cannot recall any advice ever saying there is a 100% chance of victory. This advice is at the more optimistic end of the spectrum, she claims. The first minister refers to legislation on minimum pricing of alcohol and says they would not have gone ahead with the court case on this basis as there was a real risk they would lose but it was an important matter of public policy.

Mitchell says no one would want to come forward because of the way these complainers were treated.

Sturgeon says they are the most important people in this story. They were let down by government mistakes.

Maureen Watt, SNP, refers to Acas guidance which says even if complainers do not want to go to the police, you should still consider this. The government appears to be acting within clear guidance. Are there enough qualified HR officials in the government?

The first minister says the Acas guidance was what she was searching for earlier. She doesn’t know the number of government officials who are and are not HR qualified but says it is a good question.

Andy Wightman, independent, refers to Salmond’s claim that Sturgeon said she was eager “to assist”. Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton, wrote yesterday that Sturgeon said she would intervene. Wightman asks about the contradiction between this evidence and Sturgeon’s written evidence saying she did not offer to intervene.

Maybe I let a colleague down too gently, replies Sturgeon. She says she was intending to be clear. The first minister had no intention of intervening and did not do so, she says. She says she believes her non-intervention to be at the root of Salmond’s anger towards her. Sturgeon makes clear that it was an emotional meeting, dealing with shocking revelations.

Wightman asks if Sturgeon knew of concerns voiced by the police about the Scottish government making a public statement about the allegations?

Sturgeon replies that she did not know at the time “to the best of my recollection”. She does not know what the concerns were but she assumes they didn’t want a public release to get in the way of an investigation.

Mitchell says Police Scotland advised that Scottish government officers were not trained to investigate such allegations or deal with victims. Is it your position that you knew nothing about this, she asks the first minister?

Sturgeon says she cannot answer that question as she does not know the decision-making of the government officials.

Was it appropriate for the Scottish government officials to go ahead and investigate?

Sturgeon replies that it would have been inappropriate not to investigate but says the committee will have to reach its own judgement.

Mitchell says the Police Scotland advice was “crystal clear” but the officials ignored that. Also, the complainants’ right to decide whether to go forward with their complaints was “taken out of their hands”. The Scottish government officials should have been nowhere near that investigation, Mitchell posits.

Sturgeon replies that none of this was reported to her. She cannot say whether the investigating officials always followed the advice. She would “push back” against a suggestion that the Scottish government should not have investigated. On reporting the allegations to the police despite the opposition of the complainers, Sturgeon says it can be appropriate at times. Given there was a police investigation subsequently, the first minister suggests there may have been some cooperation by the complainers.

Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, asks Sturgeon about WhatsApp messages sent between senior party officials that Salmond has claimed point to a conspiracy. She asks if the first minister has asked to see them?

Sturgeon says she has made some efforts and taken in context they are not untoward. She refers to four messages quoted by Salmond in his evidence on Friday. She says she looked at them. She begins trying to explain them taken in context but is cut short by the convenor who says the committee will see messages later and it would be inappropriate to form a view on them before that.

I am satisfied they [the messages] are not as he [Salmond] has suggested.

When was the harassment policy signed off, asks Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives?

Sturgeon says it was signed off on 20 December 2017.

Mitchell says Salmond claims the policy was signed off later and the complaints were made before the policy was signed.

Sturgeon says the complainants came forward initially in November 2017 but made their formal complaints in January 2018. She reiterates that the policy was signed off on 20 December 2017.

Outside of the committee hearing:

Allan asks the first minister if she has a view as to why documents Salmond claims support his position have not been released.

Sturgeon answers that if you are going to put forward the idea there is a concerted, malicious campaign, “you need to evidence that”. If these documents support is view, someone in the police or court would have seen them, the first minister argues. She also claims material has been taken out of context and she has seen nothing that comes close to proving Salmond’s allegation of a conspiracy against him.

Alasdair Allan, SNP, asks if anyone gave her an explanation about the possible press release about the allegations

Sturgeon again explains that it was because of a freedom of information request that would have disclosed some of the information in the said release.

Allan asks Sturgeon whether the Scottish government should have looked into mediation on the allegations and then arbitration of the dispute into the procedure. He has claimed Sturgeon agreed to intervene.

The first minister says “these things were considered”. She said the issue is not whether these should have happened but whether she should have intervened to bring them about and it would have been wrong for her to do so. She adds she got the impression that mediation and arbitrations were “devices” to thwart the natural course of the investigation.

Allan quotes Salmond claiming there was a fishing exercise against him in terms of contacting people about raising complaints. He asks the first minister about her knowledge of this.

Sturgeon responds by saying it was “a duty of care move”. It was not a fishing exercise but it was “perfectly appropriate”. It dismays her to hear claims that people were concocting allegations. Complainers may have supported each other but the idea of a plot is not based in fact or on any credible evidence, says Sturgeon.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Lib Dems, asks Sturgeon when she first became aware that a civil servant had come forward with a complaint about Salmond?

The first minister said she had an awareness that there might be concerns but it wasn’t until 2 April when she saw the permanent secretary’s letter that they became concrete. She says ahead of 2 April she had awareness that there might be a complaint, “a general awareness”, but it was reading the letter that gave her the “knowledge” as opposed to the general awareness. After the 29 March meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, she had “a sense of unease”. She did not have knowledge of specific complaints but “a lingering suspicion” that there might be something.

Can you see why people might feel misled by her version of events? Cole-Hamilton says this has changed as more information became public, referring to interviews with Andrew Marr on the BBC and Sophy Ridge on Sky.

Sturgeon says early on she was worried that there was an ongoing investigation and she did not want to generate headlines. She says she does understand why “people might see that”

Cole-Hamilton says breaching confidentiality is a sackable offence so are you surprised the senior government official denies telling Geoff Aberdein the name of one of the complainants?

Sturgeon says there is not much more she can say about the issue but claims Alex Salmond told her the name of one complainant and indicated he knew the identity of the other.

You haven’t tried to contact Geoff Aberdein?

Sturgeon says she is respecting the procedures of the committee, which include not contacting fellow witnesses.

Cole-Hamilton says he finds it curious that the day before the Daily Record story appeared the government had prepared a press release with details of the investigation.

Sturgeon answers that it was not her press release. She said she believes the press release was planned because there was a freedom of information request that would have led to the disclosure of some of that information.

Cole-Hamilton says the report was passed to the crown agent against the wishes of the police, was this the right thing to do?

Sturgeon says there were allegations of criminality involved. The Scottish government has a duty to, if it thinks criminal acts have been committed, to do something about that. She says she does not know how strong the objections were from the complainers. She adds that had she done the opposite, she would also have been criticised.

Murdo Fraser, Scottish Conservatives, says the allegation by Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, that he was given the name of a complainant against Salmond by a senior government official has been corroborated by Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton, and former party strategist, Kevin Pringle. Where is the corroboration of the senior government official’s denial of this?

Sturgeon says she can only go on what she has been told about this conversation. She reiterates that Salmond did not mention this at her meeting on 2 April 2018 and that Salmond knew the identity of the two complainants, because he apologised to one of them and identified the other by going through the Scottish government’s Flickr account. She reiterates that she was not a party to this conversation.

Sturgeon adds that she can think of why the name of that complainant might have been known at that time but that does not mean it was revealed in the way that has been said.

Are the police investigating the disclosure of the name of the complainant?

Sturgeon says they are not. She is trying to respect the processes under way, namely this inquiry and the investigation into possible breaches of the ministerial code. Sturgeon adds that the police do not need her authority to investigate.

There will now be a 20-minute break.

Baillie asks when Sturgeon became aware of a leak to the Daily Record, which published two stories containing details of complainants. Where do you consider the leaks came from?

“I don’t know,” Sturgeon says they did not come from her or anyone acting on her behalf. She says Salmond alleged some details must have come from the decision report but she was not sent the decision report.

Baillie says she has been told the Daily Record was given the allegations against Salmond to spike another story it was going to publish about Sturgeon.

The first minister rejects this, saying she has never heard this. She asks Baillie what the story about her was but Baillie says she doesn’t know. The timing would be an incredible coincidence, says Sturgeon.

Why was the leak not reported to the police?

The first minister agrees it was very serious. The government did not benefit in any way from this. She reiterates it did not come from her or anyone under her authority. Sturgeon says there was a review by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which concluded it didn’t come from the government. Baillie disputes this characterisation of the ICO’s conclusions. Sturgeon doesn’t know why it wasn’t investigated by the police.

Who had details and would have leaked them?

Sturgeon says she does not know where the leak came from. Salmond and his lawyers had access to it, she does not know who in the Scottish government had access to it. Pressed by Baillie as to whether she will ask police to investigate, Sturgeon says she will consider it but the ICO looked into potential criminality.

Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour, says at an early meeting, details of complaints and the identity of a complainant were revealed to Salmond’s former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, by a senior government official. Was this authorised by Sturgeon?

Sturgeon says she is restrained by legal constraints but she understands the meeting did not happen as described. Sturgeon adds that she does not recall Salmond showing any knowledge of the identity of the complainants when she met him on 2 April 2018.

She says Salmond would know the identity of the complainants because he had apologised to one of them and there had also been some investigation on his part into Scottish government social media accounts.

She disputes that the name of a complainant was given. Pressed by Baillie whether she is accusing Aberdein and others who said they were present at that meeting of lying, Sturgeon says their version is not accepted by the senior government official involved.

To the best of my knowledge, what is being alleged didn’t happen.

Stuart McMillan, SNP, asks the first minister if she had any involvement in the formal complaints handling process?

No, replies Sturgeon.

McMillan asks if Sturgeon accepts things went wrong and what is being done to prevent things going wrong in future?

Sturgeon answers that she has already apologised this morning for things having gone wrong and steps are being taken to ensure similar mistakes don’t happen again.

Would the government consider an investigation officer being independent of government?

Sturgeon says she would consider any changes.

Did you feel you had a broad base of support for putting in a new policy to tackle sexual harassment?

The first minister says she had a discussion with Theresa May at the time, who had concerns about addressing the issue but she wouldn’t use this to claim the UK government endorsed what the Scottish government was doing. Sturgeon thinks there was general agreement among trade unions that putting in place a policy and applying it to former minister was not unreasonable.

Allan asks why the first minister and deputy first minister have different roles in the new procedure compared with the previous fairness at work policy?

Sturgeon answers that the world had changed in the light of the MeToo movement and it was important to address perceptions. She says it was best for a first minister to be as far removed as possible so there was no question of a first minister from the same party as the person who was the subject of the complaint being seen to be interfering for political reasons.

Alasdair Allan, SNP, asks Sturgeon to explain her distinction between the application of the procedure for investigating harassment against ministers being declared unlawful, rather than the procedure itself?

The mistake was the investigating officer had had prior contact with the complainers, it was not the fundamentals of the policy that were unlawful, says Sturgeon. If Salmond’s action had gone to full judicial review, it could have established the legality or not of the procedure.

At that time, it would have been difficult to say historic complaints were not a priority issue in the light of the MeToo movement.

Allan puts to Sturgeon Salmond’s assertion in evidence that people were perhaps overreacting in the wake of the MeToo movement.

Sturgeon disagrees and says, three years later, there is an argument there was actually an under-reaction as not enough has changed.

Wightman asks whether Sturgeon aware during the drawing up of the policy of concerns about the legality of applying it retrospectively.

Sturgeon does not recall any such advice.

Wightman asks what efforts were made to inform former ministers that they might be the subject of complaints.

Sturgeon says they weren’t. At one time a draft letter to first minister was drawn up but Sturgeon felt it was not appropriate for what was an HR policy.

Watt asks if, during the drawing up of the new procedure, Sturgeon was aware of allegations against current or former ministers.

Sturgeon says not initially but then a media organisation – Sky – made her aware of allegations against the former first minister but it did not influence her behaviour.

The policy was not put in place because of Alex Salmond.

Should the procedures have been debated in parliament?

No, these are HR (human resources) policies.

Watt says incidents were handled informally in the past, for example staff being moved on so they didn’t have to work with the person they were accusing or an apology was made. Was that appropriate, she asks.

Sometimes it could be appropriate, Sturgeon says, but she expresses concern that there may have been an over-reliance on informal procedures given that some complaints appear not to have come to her.

Why is there a difference in that mediation is open to current minister under fairness at work but was not available to former ministers under the new procedures, Watt asks?

Sturgeon says former ministers could not be investigated under the old fairness at work policy. She says with a current minister they will still be in the workplace, possibly working together so mediation may be appropriate.

Watt says the pre-existing fairness at work policy took about 18 months to be developed but the new procedures, under which Salmond was investigated, were drawn up in a much shorter timeframe.

Sturgeon said they wanted to do it quickly, no cutting corners or inappropriately. It was done with trade union involvement and 18 months would have been too long.

Maureen Watt, SNP, asks why a new procedure was deemed necessary to investigation allegations such as those made against Salmond.

Sturgeon says Salmond’s evidence struck her as saying there should not have been procedures that allowed him to be investigated. Sturgeon says given the MeToo movement, organisations the world over were reviewing their procedures. Allowing historic allegations to be investigated - the policy applied retrospectively - was “appropriate”.

Mitchell asks Sturgeon if she was aware there were complaints made by females. You set yourself up as a champion for women yet didn’t pay much attention to complaints.

Sturgeon says she was not aware of allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Alex Salmond.

Mitchell refers to five SNP ministers.

Sturgeon says she is not aware of what Mitchell is referring to.

Mitchell says we are aware of approaches by around 30 women in reference to five SNP ministerial offices.

Sturgeon says they were not brought to her at the time under the fairness at work policy.

Asked by Mitchell what went wrong, Sturgeon repeats that the government made “a mistake, a very serious mistake” in how it handled the investigation into Alex Salmond.

She says the legal advice shows the Scottish government was confident of defending the judicial review brought by Salmond and that if it were not for the mistake, we do not know who would have won the review.

Margaret Mitchell continues. Openness, transparency and accountability are essential but the deputy first minister has refused to release details of the government’s legal costs for the judicial review. He also refused to reveal the legal advice until last night. Mitchell says some information crucial to the inquiry has still not been received. Is that acceptable?

Sturgeon does not accept that characterisation. She repeats that the government has handed over “substantial” amounts of information. She says not all material is within the control of the government.

There is no intention on the part of the government to withhold relevant material from this committee.

Sturgeon says she has suffered her own frustrations, having been waiting a long time to give evidence while allegations were swirling about. She also says documents said to be damning have not proved as such when released.

Margaret Mitchell, Scottish Conservatives, says that when the inquiry was announced in January 2019 Sturgeon said the government would provide any material requested. Why didn’t that happen?

Sturgeon says she considers that did happen. “Copious amounts of information”, have been made available. The main issue of difference between the committee and the government is legal advice and there is a longstanding convention that governments do not release legal advice, the first minister says.

Sturgeon says that her judgment on informing the permanent secretary of her meetings with Salmond changed when it became clear Salmond was seriously considering legal action against the government.

Regarding to the legal advice published last night, Sturgeon says that as late as 11 December 2018 lawyers were saying there was credible evidence to challenge the judicial review. This only changed at a later date (presumably when the government conceded the case), she says.

Sturgeon says the claim that anyone acted with malice against Salmond “is not based on any fact”.

The government tried to do the right thing.

She says she is relieved to be finally facing the committee but it also makes her sad because the human elements of this situation have been lost.

Salmond was someone “I cared about for a long time”, says the first minister.

She said watching her predecessor on Friday she looked for evidence of him acknowledging the human impact on others.

I know just from what he told me that his behaviour was not always appropriate.

Sturgeon says there was no recognition of that during Salmond’s evidence to the committee.

She ends by defending her own actions.

The first minister says at the 2 April 2018 meeting with Alex Salmond, he shared a letter with her setting out the allegations against him. He shared details of one incident which she viewed as highly inappropriate.

Regarding her meeting with Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s chief of staff, on 29 March 2018, Sturgeon says her recollection is different from Aberdein’s and he talked about harassment allegations against Salmond in general terms.

She says the specifics of the allegations were only detailed to her on 2 April and that is when they became real and shocking to her.

Sturgeon said she did not record details of the meeting on 2 April because she did not want to undermine the confidentiality of the process that was under way.

The committee hearing has commenced. It is convened by the SNP’s Linda Fabiani who is just setting out the background and rules.

I have already mentioned Salmond’s lawyer, Duncan Hamilton. Other key characters whose names are likely to come up in the committee hearing, include

Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s husband and chief executive of the SNP.

Leslie Evans, permanent secretary to the Scottish government.

Geoff Aberdein, former chief of staff to Salmond.

Liz Lloyd, chief of staff to Sturgeon.

James Wolffe, QC, lord advocate.

Judith MacKinnon, HR specialist and investigating officer.

Barbara Allison, former director of people for the Scottish government.

The legal advice to the Scottish government on the judicial review into the government’s investigation into allegations of harassment against Salmond can be read in full here.

The letter from Salmond’s lawyer is here (pdf).

The Scottish Conservatives have just set out plans to hold votes of no confidence in the deputy first minister, John Swinney, and the first minister Nicola Sturgeon.

The party will propose a vote of no confidence in Swinney is held today to try to force the government into publishing the remaining legal advice. The Scottish Conservatives say the advice published last night contained only excerpts and key evidence had clearly been omitted.

They will also lodge a motion of no confidence in Sturgeon today and seek to hold the vote itself very soon after the legal advice has been published, they say.

The Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ros,s said:

The Scottish Conservatives have seen enough to know that the government ignored legal advice for months and lost more than £500,000 of taxpayers’ money. We also know that evidence from three credible witnesses confirms that Nicola Sturgeon misled the Scottish parliament with numerous false statements.

The evidence published so far is devastating to the first minister and the government. We will table our motion for a vote of no confidence today as a result.

But we still only have the limited amount of legal advice that ministers were willing to release when John Swinney’s job was on the line.

What has been provided is not enough. It does not respect the two votes of the Scottish Parliament or the requests of the Salmond inquiry committee. It is devastating – but there is more.

Good morning. Welcome to live coverage of Nicola Sturgeon’s critical appearance before a committee of MSPs to give evidence on oath on the Scottish government’s unlawful inquiry into complaints against her predecessor, Alex Salmond.

The pressure on the first minister intensified last night when confidential legal advice was released showing Scottish government lawyers had warned Sturgeon and other senior members of her administration that they were likely to lose the judicial review that Salmond launched in August 2018 to investigate its handling of harassment claims against him. The government continued its defence nevertheless.

In a letter to a Holyrood committee, also put out last night, one of Salmond’s lawyers, Duncan Hamilton, backed up several claims made by his client during more than six hours of testimony to the committee on Friday. The letter contains evidence from two witnesses calling into question Sturgeon’s version of events of what she knew and when.

Salmond has accused his one time protege and close friend, of breaking the ministerial code - a charge she has already denied - on multiple occasions.

It’s a complex story but you can read a comprehensive account of the background here.

In brief, it relates to the way the Scottish government investigated allegations of harassment against Alex Salmond. The high court later cleared him of allegations of sexual misconduct.

In 2019, the Scottish government admitted defeat in the aforementioned judicial review into how it handled the investigations, conceding that it had acted unlawfully and paying more than £512,000 to cover his legal costs.

This timeline is very useful for understanding what happened when:

Sturgeon will begin her evidence at approximately 9am. Here is her written submission to the committee (pdf).

Here is a useful guide to some of the key questions she is likely to face:

In brief, they are:

• When did she first learn of concerns about Alex Salmond’s alleged behaviour?
• Why did she agree to meet Salmond and to continue talking to him?
• Did she offer to intervene on Salmond’s behalf at the first meeting?
• Why did Sturgeon take so long to inform the civil service she had met Salmond?
• Did she go against legal advice to abandon the case against Salmond? If so, why?
• What she knew, if anything, about the alleged leak of the name of a complainer against Salmond to the former first minister?