I shall give evidence on behalf of ministers and not in a personal capacity.
In January 2018, the Scottish Government received two formal harassment complaints and applied a Government procedure that had been developed in line with legal and human resources advice to investigate the issues that were raised.
The complaints could not be ignored. First, everyone has the right to a safe workplace that is free from harassment. The Scottish Government recognises that as a legal and moral responsibility and as part of its duty of care to all employees. Secondly, the allegations were serious and specific—in fact, three of the alleged incidents were considered sufficiently serious that, on advice, it was deemed necessary to refer them to the police, in case they constituted not only behaviour that was unacceptable in the workplace but criminal behaviour.
The complaints were investigated internally over several months by an investigating officer, following due Government process and drawing on the statements of witnesses that the complainants and Mr Salmond provided. The Scottish Government was in regular contact with Mr Salmond’s lawyers from 7 March 2018 when, following completion of the investigating officer’s initial report, Mr Salmond was informed of the complaints, in line with the procedure.
Mr Salmond’s full, fair and reasonable participation was sought in line with Government procedure and, as has been set out in evidence that has been provided to the committee, he was fully represented throughout via his lawyers. Timescales were extended on three occasions to allow him additional time to respond to the complaints. I specifically and personally instructed that the investigating officer’s report should not be finalised until Mr Salmond had been given a further opportunity to present his position as fully as possible.
The Government procedure specifies the permanent secretary as the decision maker who is responsible for determining whether there is a reasonable belief that a complaint is well founded. That involves considering each cause for concern, weighing up all the evidence that is available, drawing on advice and extant legislation, and setting out the rationale in coming to a view that includes which complaints to uphold and which not to uphold.
I exercised that responsibility with care over several weeks. I questioned and challenged the detail, comprehensiveness, appropriateness, quality and robustness of all the evidence that was presented to me. In keeping with the Government procedure, I did not inform the First Minister that an investigation was under way, but I understand that Mr Salmond informed her. The First Minister did not make any attempt to influence the investigation at any point, nor did she receive a copy of the investigation or decision reports.
I would very much like to provide greater detail on the evidence and rationale for my decisions that are set out in the decision report but, as you know, I am unable to do so due to a dispute with Mr Salmond about whether the report, now reduced by the court, can be shared. However, what the Scottish Government can share, it has shared.
We have followed through on the Deputy First Minister’s commitment in his letter of 26 October to provide the committee with as much material as possible to aid its deliberations. To date, we have provided 598 documents, totalling around 1,900 pages, and 19 hours of evidence by civil service witnesses. In addition, the Scottish Government has taken the unprecedented step of arranging confidential access for committee members to the summary of legal advice ahead of the decision to concede the judicial review on the single ground of a potential perception of bias.
This may be my final appearance at the committee, and I would like to close with three short fundamental points. First, as several of you who have served as ministers know, the civil service serves the Government of the day, which includes implementing Government procedures. The civil service code informs all civil service actions at all times and it requires me, as permanent secretary, to act lawfully, taking, and acting in accordance with, professional advice at all times. I assure the committee that I did just that. The civil service code, along with legal advice, guided and informed every Scottish Government action that is under the committee’s scrutiny—in the development of the harassment procedure, in the investigation of the serious complaints and in the decision making that followed. As the Lord Advocate has confirmed, the position of the Government at all stages of the subsequent judicial review was informed by legal advice and, prior to the decision to concede, based on assessments that the case could be properly defended.
The civil service code and its values of
“integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality”
are statutory, and they are integral to our professional behaviour and judgment. Having spent half of my public service career in the civil service, I hold those values dear, as I know do all civil servants. Although I welcome the committee’s scrutiny and challenge, I robustly and resoundingly reject any attempt to misinterpret, misattribute or misconstrue the role or motives of civil servants who carried out their professional responsibilities in good faith in order to improve the Scottish Government’s workplace culture and, importantly, respond to serious and specific complaints.
That takes me to my second point. As permanent secretary, I am also responsible for the leadership, operation and performance of the organisation. That is why I have acknowledged and apologised on several occasions, rightly, for the procedural failing that came to light. That is also why I have committed to apply valuable learning across the Scottish Government from the outcome of the judicial review, the forthcoming conclusions of the review led by Laura Dunlop QC, the findings of the committee’s inquiry and our own internal review of information management, to ensure that staff have confidence in our commitment and approach to tackling sexual harassment in the workplace. Of course, there is no room for complacency, but you will find evidence that the Scottish Government is making headway in that endeavour in the recent public survey 2020 results, in which we have achieved strong improvement on leading and managing change, our highest-ever score on inclusion and fair treatment, and the lowest-ever proportion of colleagues responding that they had been bullied or harassed at work.
Finally, in my first appearance before the committee, I said that the Scottish Government did not choose the easy path, but it was, and remains, the right path. It was right to create the environment in which the complaints could come forward and it was right to challenge any culture of silence and tolerance, and provide channels to report harassment to ensure that victims feel heard and have their concerns validated. It was right to take the complaints seriously and investigate them fairly, and it was right to defend our actions in doing so in court. Doing nothing was not an option; indeed, if that had been the decision, it would have been strongly and justifiably criticised. I still stand firmly by that position and shall continue to champion the Scottish Government’s work to support staff wellbeing and to build an environment where employees not only expect but are empowered to demand a safe working place free from harassment from wherever it might come. Indeed, convener, I am sure that you would expect nothing less.
11:15