Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 04 November 2020
I begin by quoting the words of the First Minister in the chamber on 17 January 2019, because it is worth reminding members of what she said. She stated:
“The inquiries will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request ... My commitment is that the Government and I will co-operate fully with it”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2019; c 14.]
Let us be clear: Nicola Sturgeon was speaking as the First Minister of the Scottish Government, not in a personal capacity, and there were no caveats to what she said. That means that the Government should be committed to openness and transparency, and it should be providing the committee with “whatever material they request”.
The Deputy First Minister is, however, reinterpreting what the First Minister said to mean something completely different. Contrary to what the Scottish Government says, the committee has had partial information; pages of white paper with no information on it at all because it has all been redacted; delayed information; and, in some cases, no information at all.
Information on complaint handling was supposed to be provided to the committee by the end of August. We are now in November and we are no clearer about when that information will be received. I would not object so much if the committee had been established yesterday or even last week, but it was established more than 18 months ago. It should, therefore, be no surprise to the Scottish Government that the committee would want that information.
The question of the judicial review is central to the committee’s remit—a remit that the Scottish National Party agreed with. Understanding the legal advice that was given to the Scottish Government is key to determining whether it pursued the judicial review appropriately or whether it wasted public money. Let us remember that £500,000 was given to Mr Salmond and his lawyers, which was on top of the cost of external counsel for the Scottish Government at £118,000, never mind the cost that we have discovered of a whole array of officials meeting daily in same cases—at least 10 to 12 of them lawyers—and another group meeting three times a week involving comms people, policy officials and special advisers. Then, of course, there were the 17 meetings with counsel. That is a huge investment of public money in just this one case.
There is, of course, precedent for providing the committee with legal advice that has been taken. Government legal advice was provided to the United Kingdom blood inquiry, the sexual abuse inquiry and the trams inquiry. Why is a parliamentary inquiry of less importance and status to the Scottish Government than a public inquiry or, indeed, a Government inquiry into trams?
We need to remember that this is about women who complained about experiencing harassment in the Scottish civil service. With all due respect, they are much more important than trams. They deserve the committee to do its job: to understand what went wrong and why they were failed. For those who come forward in the future, there needs to be trust in a process that is not subject to challenge. When the Scottish Government withholds important information from the committee, that lets down those women and other women in the future.
Despite repeated letters and requests, and despite the convener having put her foot down very publicly—I pay tribute to her for doing so—the Scottish Government continues to stick its fingers in its ears and refuses to provide the information. That is simply not good enough. I hope that, this evening, the Parliament votes for the release of the legal advice that was provided to the Scottish Government. If the Scottish Government ignores the will of the Parliament, we can only assume that it really does have something to hide.
15:12