THE harassment policy at the centre of the so-called Salmond inquiry was legally dubious from the outset because none of the former ministers who could have been targeted by the policy were consulted before it was signed off by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
The National can reveal that the retrospective nature of the policy, which was insisted upon by the current First Minister, was the subject of a letter which was drafted within the Scottish Government for sending to former Labour first ministers Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell, now Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. That letter was never sent, even though trade unions were consulted.
Lord McConnell confirmed the lack of consultation and told The National: “I have no problem with the policy being retrospective, but we are routinely not consulted by the Scottish Government about decisions that affect our time in office.”
It has been known since the day he was acquitted on all charges at the High Court in Edinburgh that former First Minister Alex Salmond had “other evidence” that he wanted to show in public, as he stated that day.
The National can reveal that had the Scottish Government not collapsed its case at the cost to the taxpayer of more than £600,000, the Judicial Review that he instigated would have heard concerns about the retrospective aspect of the policy. Salmond is refusing to comment, however, ahead of his appearance in front of the committee of inquiry which will decide later today when he and Sturgeon will be called to give evidence.
READ MORE: Judge publishes decision which could pave the way for Alex Salmond to appear at inquiry
The National has learned that former ministers were concerned about the retrospective nature of the policy with one from the Labour Party who spoke on condition of anonymity saying that they were never consulted on anything that affected their time in government.
There is no doubt that Sturgeon insisted on the policy being retrospective. As she said in her submission to the committee: “In the light of the #MeToo movement, I sought to ensure that the Scottish Government developed a process that allowed allegations of sexual harassment – including allegations of a historic nature – to be fully and fairly considered.”
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: “As ACAS guidance recommends, an employer should take a complaint of sexual harassment seriously, even if it is made some time after the incident took place.
“As this was an employment policy with the primary purpose of fulfilling our duty of care to employees, letters for former party leaders who were first ministers were considered as a courtesy and not to seek permission, and it was concluded that it was unnecessary for them to issue.”
Former first minister Henry McLeish was also not consulted while Lord Jim Wallace, who was three times acting first minister, told The National: “I have no recollection of ever having been consulted on the retrospective harassment policy.”
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 hereComments are closed on this article