A HOLYROOD committee set up to investigate how the Scottish Government failed to successfully deal with harassment complaints made against former First Minister Alex Salmond could take the unusual step of questioning witnesses under oath.
Tory MSP Donald Cameron has called for MSPs considering the matter to “take sworn evidence, on oath”.
He made the plea as the committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints met publicly for the first time in an online meeting.
Salmond – who was cleared of 13 sexual offences by a jury in March this year – will be questioned by MSPs, along with his successor Nicola Sturgeon.
Convener Linda Fabiani explained the committee has been set up to “consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers and procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish ministerial code”.
Scotland’s most senior civil servant, permanent secretary Leslie Evans, will be the first witness when the committee starts hearing evidence after Holyrood’s summer recess.
Cameron said under section 26 of the Scotland Act, and rule 12 of Holyrood’s standing orders, committees can question witnesses under oath.
Arguing for this to happen, he said: “It seems absolutely imperative that the evidence we get is as accurate as it can be, and we need the opportunity to test both its credibility and its veracity, not least because we are likely to get conflicting versions of events.
“And secondly, we are dealing with very serious matters involving the highest echelons of the Scottish civil service and the conduct of very senior ministers past and present.
“Taking sworn evidence underscores the gravity of subject matter of this inquiry and will ensure we get the best possible evidence.”
The call was backed by Liberal Democrat committee member Alex Cole-Hamilton, who said: “There will be conflicting stories and it is vital we have confidence in what we as a committee hear.”
The inquiry is taking place after the Court of Session in Edinburgh’s January 2019 ruling that the Scottish Government’s actions in dealing with complaints made against the former First Minister were “unlawful in respect that they were procedurally unfair and that they were tainted with apparent bias”.
With the committee having been established in the wake of that, MSPs raised concerns about what Cole-Hamilton described as “very regrettable delays” in getting written evidence from the Scottish Government. He said: “I don’t they necessarily took our requests as seriously as they may have.”
Committee members stressed their desire to be able to meet in person once they start hearing from witnesses. Cole-Hamilton said: “It is almost impossible to take what is possibly quite sensitive, quite controversial evidence, in a format like this.”
Labour’s Jackie Baillie suggested meeting in Holyrood’s chamber instead of one of the committee rooms as social distancing requirements are likely to still be in place in August.
She stressed: “I don’t think the work of this committee can be conducted on a virtual basis.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel