First Minister Nicola Strugeon on receiving end of a grilling from Ruth Davidson.
By Bill Heaney
“Two years ago, Nicola Sturgeon told the media with regards to the Salmond case: “I … relish the prospect to answer all and every question”.
“On today’s performance, the question is, when is she going to start?”Ms Davidson claimed that the inquiry committee “will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2019; c 14.]
She asked: “The inquiry has requested material and the Government has rejected the request. What has made the First Minister break her word?”
However, the FM claimed Ms Davidson’s submission before parliament was “not an accurate characterisation of the position”.
She added: “As I understand it—and I will come back in a second to say why I am couching it in that way—the only material that has not been provided by the Scottish Government is material about which there is a legal reason why it cannot be provided. That includes the issue of legal privilege, which all organisations must have regard to.
“As I understand it—and this information is publicly available—more than 1,000 pages of material have been made available by the Government, and Government officials have so far given more than 10 hours of oral evidence. The Government has intimated to the committee that it intends to initiate legal proceedings to try to get to a position where it can make more material available that it cannot currently make available due to legal restrictions. All of what I have just said is in the public domain.
“I have recused myself from making decisions about the Scottish Government’s submissions—I advised Parliament of that back at the outset. The reason for that is very simple and absolutely right: part of the remit of the committee is to look at my conduct. I think that it would be wrong if I was the Minister taking decisions about the content of Scottish Government submissions. I am prepared to bet that, if I was in that position, Ruth Davidson and others would be standing here saying that that was deeply wrong and improper.
“I am interested in putting the facts out here. I am not sure how much of what I am about to say is understood by those who are not on the committee. The committee has been in possession of substantial written evidence from me for two months now. That has not been published, which is entirely the committee’s decision.
“However, it is a bit galling for me to hear Conservative members of the committee say that somehow I am not answering questions. I also stand ready to give oral evidence to the committee at any point it chooses to call me. I have not yet been invited to give oral evidence to the committee.
“Any accusations that I am somehow not co-operating with the committee have no substance at all. I have done everything that the committee has asked of me and I will continue to do so because I respect the committee’s process. I am starting to think that that may be the difference between me and Conservative members.”
Ruth Davidson persisted: “I know that the Nicola Sturgeon who is First Minister likes to pretend that she is not the Nicola Sturgeon who is also leader of the Scottish National Party, but I struggle to believe that the Nicola Sturgeon who committed to the chamber 18 months ago to give the inquiry whatever material it requested from her Government is the same Nicola Sturgeon who stands here today saying, ‘I’ve recused myself and it’s nothing to do with me, guv’
“The First Minister did say something that was correct, which was that we saw something utterly unprecedented yesterday. The convener of a committee of this Parliament was forced to write to the courts to get access to documents that it needs because Scottish Government ministers refuse to hand them all over. She has been forced to do so because, in her words: ‘We had hoped to be in a position to hear further oral evidence, but with responses still outstanding from the Scottish Government, the chief executive of the SNP and the former First minister, all of this means that we simply cannot proceed at this stage.
“Two of those demands fall directly within the gift of the First Minister, who is head of the Scottish Government and leader of the SNP. She could ensure with a snap of her fingers that the evidence is provided. Why will she not do so?”
The First Minister said it was “interesting that the letter from the committee’s convener seeks the court’s permission to publish material”
She added: ” The Scottish Government had already intimated to the committee that it was going to initiate legal proceedings in order to put itself in a position where it can provide material that it cannot currently provide because of legal restrictions. The Scottish Government actually wants and intends to do exactly that.
“The material that has not been provided is material that cannot be provided for one legal reason or another. Other than that, and as I have said, 1,000 or more pages of material and 10 hours of oral evidence by Scottish Government officials have already been given.
“It is important, for a variety of reasons, to take the committee seriously. Regarding my role as party leader, a request for evidence was made to the SNP. That is all in the public domain and can be found on the committee’s website. That request was acceded to and evidence was given by the deadline that the committee set. People can go and read the request and the answers that were given. The committee made further requests and did not put a deadline on those, but that material is currently being prepared.
“The idea that the Scottish Government or the SNP is trying to obstruct the committee bears no scrutiny whatsoever.”
Ms Sturgeon said: “I come back to this point: I was asked to give evidence to the committee in a personal capacity and I did that two months ago when I gave substantial written evidence to it. It is not down to me that that has not been published yet. I stand ready at any time—today, next week, the week after that—to turn up at the committee and give evidence to it orally. I have not had an invitation to do that yet.
“When I said earlier that I suspected some of the Conservatives’ motives here, I was met with a cry of “That’s outrageous!” I will say why I fear that what I said is the case. I have given that written evidence and stand ready to give oral evidence when I am invited to do so.
“However, despite presumably knowing that, a Conservative member of the committee issues almost every week political comment to the effect that I am not answering questions. It starts to sound to me like it does not matter to the Conservatives what evidence any of us gives: they have already made up their minds about the outcome that they want the committee to have.”
Ruth Davidson responded: “And yet the funny thing is that the question that I asked her related to a quote from the SNP convener of that committee, so I do not think that it is just a party-political issue.
“If the Scottish Government is not going to fully co-operate with the inquiry, and if the First Minister is not going to keep her word that she will “provide whatever material” the committee requests, I am afraid that she leaves us no option but to come here and ask questions directly to her face. I will therefore ask her one.
“In recent days, private messages purporting to come from the SNP’s chief executive, Peter Murrell, have been published in the media. The messages say that it is a “good time to be pressurising” the police, and “TBH the more fronts he is having to firefight on the better for all complainers.”
“In this case, ‘he’ is Alex Salmond. We do not know whether those messages actually come from the SNP chief executive, but they were passed to the committee, and it deserves answers. I directly ask the First Minister, who is also the leader of the SNP: are those messages genuine or not?”
The First Minister replied: “As I understand it, the obtaining of those messages—and the passing of them to the committee; it appears to me that when they were passed to the committee, they were immediately leaked to the media—is currently a matter of police investigation.
“I am happy to answer any questions before that committee that it wants to ask. People are saying answer—the committee has not asked me. I am not standing here—and I do not think that it is reasonable—to be asked questions about things that other people might or might not have done. Call the people who the messages are purported to come from and ask them the questions; call me and I will answer for myself.
“The issue here is that the committee can convene this afternoon and I will answer questions about my conduct before that committee. It is outrageous that I am in a position right now of having given written evidence to the committee two months ago that has not been published—that is not down to me. I have not been invited to give evidence to the committee, yet I am somehow being accused of not being prepared to answer questions and, in Parliament, being expected to answer on behalf of other people. If people want to take this seriously, treat the committee process with respect and take it seriously.
Ruth Davidson said: “My understanding is that the police inquiry is about how the SNP’s former justice minister received the messages. That does not preclude the First Minister from saying whether they are genuine—she knows that.
“Throughout this affair, the First Minister’s excuse has been that she can swap hats whenever it suits her: Nicola Sturgeon who leads the SNP is not the same person as Nicola Sturgeon who runs the Scottish Government. That is complete nonsense and hides the truth, which is the shabby abuse of power that this affair has revealed.
The First Minister told parliament: “Okay. I have not been invited to give evidence to the committee, so here—[Interruption.] Here it is: I will turn up to the committee next week and give evidence, if the committee invites me.
“I gave written evidence to the committee, meeting its deadline, two months ago. That has not been published. Let me be very clear: I respect the committee’s right to decide what it publishes and when, but I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the evidence that I have submitted has not yet been published. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the committee has not yet invited me to give evidence. I am trying to respect the process of the committee.
“The committee can call me any time that it likes. I will turn up on the date and at the committee room, as the committee asks, and I will give evidence to it. It has not yet asked me to do so.”