Sturgeon accused of breaching rules over Salmond inquiry

Nicola Sturgeon is facing intense pressure to refer herself to Scotland’s ethics watchdog for potentially breaking ministerial rules over the Alex Salmond sexual harassment allegations.

Richard Leonard, the Scottish Labour leader, accused her of breaching the ministerial code after Sturgeon admitted she had taken more than two months to tell civil servants she was being lobbied by Salmond over the inquiry, and discussed the case five times with him.

Leonard told her: “First minister, that was a grave error of judgment but it was also a clear potential breach of the ministerial code of conduct.

“After the events of this week, people need to have trust and confidence in the system and that’s why the first minister herself should back a full parliamentary inquiry.”

After raising the issue at first minister’s questions on Thursday, Leonard wrote to Sturgeon urging her to voluntarily refer herself to an independent commission charged with policing the Scottish ministerial code.

Sturgeon said she would consider his request, and later on Thursday the Scottish government confirmed the first minister “would consider any request made to make a referral to the panel of advisers on the ministerial code and the government would, as always, co-operate with any parliamentary inquiry”.

Labour and the Tories argue that the first minister’s five conversations with Salmond about the inquiry raise substantial concerns about the independence and integrity of the civil service investigation.

With fresh questions emerging about the role of her close advisers and her husband, Peter Murrell, the Scottish National party’s chief executive, they are now pressing for Holyrood to launch its own investigation into the affair.

The Scottish government ministerial code states that any meetings on official government business have to be set up through the government office and that detailed records need to be made of those contacts.

It adds: “If ministers meet external organisations or individuals and find themselves discussing official business without an official present – for example at a party conference, social occasion or on holiday – any significant content (such as substantive issues relating to government decisions or contracts) should be passed back to their private offices as soon as possible after the event.”

Sturgeon admitted at first minister’s questions and then later to reporters that she had failed to tell Scottish civil servants that Salmond had met her at her home on 2 April to tell her about the government investigation into two cases of alleged sexual harassment, until two months after the meeting.

That was arranged only a matter of days after Salmond first heard he was under investigation. She admitted the first meeting was arranged after Salmond contacted her chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, who is a government employee, via an intermediary. Lloyd also attended that meeting.

Salmond then called her on 23 April and they both arranged a second meeting in Aberdeen on 6 June, just before the Scottish National party’s conference in the town. Sturgeon insisted that their contacts were a party matter, organised in her role as party leader and his as a member and former leader.

Her admissions also raise questions about the Scottish government’s decision last Thursday to admit defeat in the case on the day that Salmond’s lawyers called for Lloyd and for Sturgeon’s private secretary, John Somers, to give evidence in court on Monday.

After refusing to discuss her contacts with Salmond until the government case collapsed this week, Sturgeon now says she only contacted Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary, in early June because Salmond had told her he was on the brink of launching legal action against the Scottish government.

Sturgeon insisted at first minister’s questions that this did not amount to interference but said she and the government would answer any questions and release any documents sought by a Holyrood inquiry.

“I am satisfied that I conducted myself appropriately in line with all the rules and parliament of course will perform its scrutiny role in the best way it considers necessary,” she said.

Jackson Carlaw, the acting leader of the Scottish Tories, said that was unsustainable. “Discussing the case with the subject of the investigation on five separate occasions is surely getting involved, isn’t it?” he asked her.

Carlaw added later: “This astonishing admission from the first minister drives a coach and horses through her assertion from earlier this week that she met Alex Salmond in purely a party capacity.

“If that was the case, what on earth was her number one adviser as first minister doing there? The first minister has shown an astounding lapse in judgment on more than one occasion.”

In his letter to Sturgeon, Leonard said: “Even if you continue to refuse to accept that you have breached the letter of the ministerial code, it is self-evident that you have breached its spirit.”

As Sturgeon’s political advisers and civil servants struggled to contain the unfolding crisis, they told reporters they would find out whether Evans first learned about Salmond’s imminent legal action because Sturgeon told her. If that was the case, that could amount to interference.

Sturgeon admitted to reporters that her husband, Murrell, was aware that Salmond and she were meeting at their family home in Glasgow but she claimed Murrell was not told about the subject of the conversation. She then met Salmond a second time at her home, on 14 July. They then had a final phone conversation on 18 July – the last time the two had spoken.

Sturgeon continued to state at first minister’s questions that she had done nothing wrong. “When [Salmond] requested a second meeting I was concerned that that could be, so I told the permanent secretary then that I knew about the investigation, about previous meetings, including the reference to a previous legal challenge.

“I told her I supported her decision to investigate and I would not seek to intervene in the investigation in any way. I also said I would make it clear to Alex Salmond again that I would not intervene and that’s what I did on the second meeting and I told the permanent secretary of all subsequent contacts. I did not self-evidently intervene in the process.”