Openness, Transparency and Government (2)

Here are the pages of James Hamilton's report which have been heavily redacted and made incomprehensible.

This section of the report deals with the build up to the 02 April 2018 meeting between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon (in the Sturgeon family home) for which no records exist. 

  

4. Meetings between [Redacted ] and the former Chief of Staff [Redacted ]

4.1. There were meetings [Redacted
] and Mr Geoffrey Aberdein. He had been Chief of Staff (themost senior special adviser) from 2011 to December 2014 during Mr Salmond’s time as First Minister and had left government service when Mr Salmond re- signed as First Minister following the SNP’s defeat in the independence refer- endum. [Redacted

4.2. [Redacted 4.3. [Redacted

]
4.4. [Redacted

]
]

] In the light of the “me too” movement, the increased focus on issues of harassment and in particular historic harassment, and the creation of a new procedure in government to address such issues [Redacted

] if there was anything of that nature, from his time as Chief of Staff, [Redacted

]

4.5. [Redacted ] had remarked the previous week that the content of an official briefing provided for First Minister’s Questions on the issue of sex-ual harassment had changed. Where the briefing had previously given a clear answer of “No” to the question of whether there had been any complaints about current or former ministers, and had stated that fewer than five cases of sexual harassment had been

reported in the civil service, the colleague had noticed that both of those statements had been removed, and a line about concerns having been raised and being considered in line with procedures was now the line that should be used. That line could have referred to either staff or minis-ters and did not state that an investigation was underway into a former minister in general or into

Alex Salmond in particular. Page 16 of 61

4.6. [Redacted ] admits to having been aware at that time of growing rumours about Mr Salmond but claims at that stage not to have been aware of actual complaints made against him. [Redacted

]

4.7. Whilst discussing “me too” in general, [Redacted] described asking Mr Aberdein whether he was aware of anything of concern. [Redacted] said Mr Aberdein had no knowledge in relation to any other minister or former minister, but referred in general terms to two alleged incidents involving Mr Salmond. One was not sexual in nature.

4.8. In relation to the incident that was sexual in nature [Redacted
] gave a general description of the incident which he pre-

sented as being in his view a minor incident,[Redacted
] says that he named the person concerned and that he did

not seem to think it was a particularly significant incident. [Redacted
]

4.9. The conversation about “me too” also covered a 13 November 2017 alle- gation on Sky News that female staff at Edinburgh airport had expressed con- cern to airport managers about what they regarded as “inappropriate behav- iour” which was not specified in the Sky News report. Mr Salmond was reported as “strongly denying” any wrongdoing and nothing more was ever heard of this matter. The alleged Edinburgh Airport incident is further discussed in Chapter 5 below. [Redacted] also referred to “jungle drums” in the media about Mr Salmond ever since the “me too” movement became prominent in October 2017. A number of [Redacted ] had apparently been approached on a number of occasions by reporters to ask if there had ever been complaints about ministers in general and Mr Salmond in particular.

4.10. According to [Redacted ] suggested that Mr Salmond would not cope well with such allegations, but said he wasn’t aware of anything further, and that he and Mr Salmond weren’t really in touch that much anymore and there was no other discussion on the issue.

4.11. Mr Aberdein in his account makes no mention of discussing any of these matters [Redacted ] He states that any reference to Alex Salmond in that first discussion was in the context of media coverage, particularly concerning Alex Salmond's decision to host a show on Russian television around that time which was the subject of much controversy. It is

Page 17 of 61

agreed by both participants that this subject was indeed discussed at this meet- ing.

4.12. Mr Aberdein, however, believes that the main purpose of [Redacted

4.13. [Redacted 4.14. [Redacted

]

]

] says that this resulted from [Redacted] increasing concerns that whether or not there was currently any in-

vestigation into Mr Salmond, it was possible there could be an investigation in the future as it was clear there could be something to investigate.
[Redacted

]

4.15. [Redacted ] claims that in order to [Redacted
] indicated that [Redacted] had a reason to believe there might be a complaint and it could be about Mr Salmond. [Redacted] says that this was an overstatement [Redacted

] says that Mr Aber- dein took this to mean that someone within government had given [Redacted] information about a complaint and began to name individuals who might have done so. He suggested that he would phone some contacts who had previously worked with him who would tell him if there was a complaint. [Redacted] then denied knowing if there was a complaint and advised against making such calls as it seemed highly improper. If this is indeed what happened it would be hardly surprising that Mr Aberdein misunderstood what [Redacted] was saying.

4.16. Mr Aberdein has a very different recollection of this meeting. He states that it is his clear recollection that [Redacted] informed him that the Scottish Government had received official complaints about Mr Salmond. He says that [Redacted] denied knowing the full details of the complaints but did tell him

Page 18 of 61

there were two individual complainers and named one of them.[Redacted ]

4.17. If it were a simple matter of comparing the two accounts it would not be possible to be completely certain whose account is correct, although Mr Aber­ dein's account is more straightforward than the rather complicated account given by [Redacted]. It is difficult to see how there can have been a misunder-standing as to what was actually said despite [Redacted] elaborate explana-tion of how Mr Aberdein could have misunderstood what [Redacted] said.

4.18. However, whether it is the case that [Redacted

] There is no evidence to suggest that the First Minister was aware of Mr Aberdein's version of events before the end of March. If Mr Aberdein's account is correct I think it quite

likely in any event that [Redacted ]

4.19. [Redacted

] would undoubtedly have been well aware that under the Procedure harassment complaints

were required to be treated in confidence and the First Minister was required not to be involved in any way in dealing with such complaints. It seems to me unlikely that the First Minister would have welcomed being potentially compromised by having rumour or gossip about such a complaint

[Redacted

4.20. Mr Aberdein states that it was [Redacted Page 19 of 61