Labour MSP Jackie Baillie asks if, when the committee asked for information in the complaints handling phase, there were still documents which Mr Salmond's legal team had not seen.

He says there were 40 or so documents that his team had never seen before, which he described as "spectacular".

Mr Salmond says the "most spectacular of these, but by no means the only example, is a series of documents which demonstrated that the permanent secretary had met the complainants, one complainant, and telephoned the other" on 6 March 2018.

That was the day before he was informed of any complaints, he adds.

Mr Salmond asks why that was not disclosed in the civil case, and says the Crown Office either did not receive the document or did not disclose it to his team. He says that was "beyond imagination" and an "obstruction of justice".

Ms Baillie also asks if Mr Salmond believes the permanent secretary has discharged her duties in line with the civil service code.

"No," he replies.

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political reporter

Image source, PA Media

Alex Salmond has been asked a series of questions about taking the Scottish government to court.

The action started after he was told of the complaints against him on 7 March 2018 when Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans wrote and asked for his response to them.

The former first minister first asked for mediation with the complainers, then for arbitration over the government’s investigation process. After both were denied, his lawyers drew up papers for a judicial review of the probe, listing a series of ways in which they believed the process was “inherently flawed and unlawful”.

These were submitted to the Court of Session after Ms Evans informed Mr Salmond that she had completed her decision report - which upheld the complaints and said they were “well founded”.

The former party leader resigned his SNP membership and launched a crowdfunder for his legal action.

The government initially said it would defend its position “vigorously”, but after months of legal to-ing and fro-ing was forced to concede the case.

Papers emerged during court-ordered searches which revealed the extent of prior contact between the investigating officer and the complainers - something which the procedure appeared to prohibit.

Although lawyers defended the investigating officer’s conduct, the government agreed that the inquiry had been “procedurally unfair and tainted by apparent bias”. Ms Evans’ decision report upholding the complaints was squashed by the court, and the government ultimately agreed to pay Mr Salmond more than £500,000 in legal expenses.

Image source, PA Media

Mr Salmond tells independent MSP Andy Wightman that many people seemed to hope the criminal case against him would "ride to rescue like the cavalry over the hill" and the civil case would never be heard.

"If you are in a situation where you have a high degree of expectation that you will calamitously lose a civil case then that obviously was a pressing concern," he says.

Mr Salmond won the civil case - the judicial review - in January 2019 and was cleared of criminal charges in March 2020.

He says “sisting” (pausing) the judicial review pending the criminal case was a "huge preoccupation" of the government in September and October 2018.

Margaret Mitchell asks who signed or was responsible for the Scottish government certificate confirming there were no further documents after Mr Salmond had successfully petitioned for more documents.

The Tory MSP argues that "this was a really serious, if not a criminal, offence".

Mr Salmond says: "In terms of the Richter scale of mistakes this is right up there, this is a very big one."

He says he would have hoped someone would have accepted responsibility.

Mr Salmond points out that when he left the Court of Session he said that perhaps Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans should consider her position.

That is because she had claimed ownership of this policy, he adds.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

There has been a lot of detail in this session so far. Mr Salmond’s criticism are broad. But perhaps the most extraordinary so far was his attack on leaders of Scotland’s key institutions – saying that they had failed.

Not only that, he thinks Scotland needs robust institutions if it is to become independent – something he has fought for his entire public life.

He might not have said it explicitly, but some will see that as a suggestion that is not possible under the current leadership – a claim bound to cause damage 10 weeks from a crucial Scottish parliament election.

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political reporter

The committee is looking at how the Scottish government's complaints process was drawn up. Here are some of the key dates:

31 October 2017 - Ms Sturgeon advises cabinet that she has commissioned Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans to review government policies and procedures for reporting sexual harassment, and writes to SNP parliamentarians and staff to outline a “confidential, independent mechanism for reporting inappropriate behaviour”.

4 November - Mark McDonald resigns as early years minister over allegations of harassment. That same day, Sky News makes an inquiry to the SNP media office about claims of inappropriate behaviour by Alex Salmond dating back to 2009. Nicola Sturgeon speaks to him the following day and he denies the allegations.

7 November - The first outline draft of a new complaints handling procedure is drawn up. The same day, the complainer who will be known as “Ms B” first makes contact with officials.

20 November - The complainer who will become known as “Ms A” approaches Nicola Sturgeon’s private secretary to raise concerns. He refers her on to senior managers, and insists he never mentioned it to anyone else.

22 November - Two senior managers meet with Ms A and take a “statement of concern”. The same day, Nicola Sturgeon writes to Leslie Evans to say it would be “fair and reasonable” to include former ministers in the complaints procedure.

24 November - A draft of the procedure is sent to Nicola Sturgeon.

29 November - Managers ask Ms A if she would like to see a draft of the new procedure to “test” it and to help “consider next steps”. Court papers suggest Ms Sturgeon and Ms Evans met that same day.

5 December - Two more senior managers meet with Ms A, and two days later one of them speaks to Ms B on the phone before emailing her with “various options to think about”.

12 December - Nicola Sturgeon and Leslie Evans meet to discuss the latest draft.

14 December - Ms A is sent the latest draft of the procedure, and is told that there are “two other people who are also considering their position”.

20 December - Nicola Sturgeon approves the procedure, and it is now considered “live”.

16 January 2018 - Ms A makes her formal complaint, and the investigation begins the following day. 24 January - Ms B makes her formal complaint, and is interviewed two days later.

8 February - The new procedure for dealing with harassment complaints is published on the government’s intranet. Four days later, Leslie Evans highlights it to staff in her weekly blog.

Mr Salmond says it was clear to everyone that there were "missing" documents in the evidence provided to the judicial review by the Scottish government.

The judge allowed a "commission of diligence" to recover documents from the Scottish government, something Mr Salmond describes as "extraordinary".

Each document strengthened his case, Mr Salmond says.

The documents showed that the government's own pleadings to the court were wrong, inaccurate and misleading, Mr Salmond says.

He says the government's counsel behaved "perfectly honourably" and it was not their fault.

Mr Salmond says both Crown counsel threatened to resign from the case. He says it must be unprecedented for this to happen when you are representing the government.

Image source, Fraser Bremner/Scottish Daily Mail/PA Wire

Mr Salmond tells Murdo Fraser that a whistleblower told his team in October 2018 that a Scottish government press release had wrongly claimed that the new policy on harassment was approved in December 2017 and published at that time.

In fact, it was not published on the Scottish government intranet until February 2018.

"That was after the complaints came in," Mr Salmond says.

"How can complaints come in in January under a policy that was not publicised internally to Scottish government employees until February?"

Mr Salmond says that is when he started to ask questions about the contact between various people in the civil service and complainants, prior to the formal complaints being made.

Mr Salmond told the committe that his total legal bill was £591,689.73, and that he recouped £512,250 from the Scottish government.

He says he recouped a very high percentage of legal expenses because of the lengths they had to go to get documentation from the government.

"The government were prepared to go before the court and say there were no more documents," Mr Salmond says.

He says the government were withholding documents from him, the court and even their own lawyers.

"That is a totally extraordinary position," he says.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser asks Mr Salmond what he was told when he asked for legal advice after being informed in March 2018 that there were complaints against him.

The former first minister says he was told that his legal challenge would have a "very high probability of success".

He says he was reluctant to launch the judicial review because he was the former first minister and he was about to sue the Scottish government.

Mr Salmond says he sent the permanent secretary a letter in June 2018 setting out the grounds for his legal challenge.

Instead of getting a detailed argument back, he was just told that they were satisfied that the process was lawful.

He says there was a firm view from his counsel that they should go ahead, but he remained reluctant and offered legal arbitration.

"If the policy was found to be legal I would submit to the policy," he says.

Image source, PA Media

Committee convener Linda Fabiani turns to the judicial review and the way the complaints process was run.

Mr Salmond says the judicial review was a challenge to the basis of the procedure itself.

He says the judicial review was well under way when documents "were extracted from the government" detailing significant problems with its legal basis.

He adds: "I can't think of anything which could be worse handled in terms of how it was approached."

The former first minister says the principle of "no prior involvement" of the investigator was key.

Mr Salmond says the Scottish government's permanent secretary met one of the complainants and phoned the other in mid-process, before he had been informed of the complaints.

Mr Salmond argued there had been a "pattern of non-disclosure". He said it was not the odd document, it was "a sequence of deliberate suppression of information inconvenient to the government".

Here are some more key points of evidence from the former first minister:

• A complainer’s name was shared with Alex Salmond's former chief of staff in a breach of confidentiality, he says. This allegation apparently contradicts what Nicola Sturgeon said in Holyrood on Thursday. But Mr Salmond says he was told this, and that three other people know this to be true.
• There should be a criminal investigation into leak of information against him published in the Daily Record newspaper, external, according to Mr Salmond. He said he believed there had been a "politically inspired" leak from the government.
• Mr Salmond says Westminster would not have agreed to redact submissions in the way Holyrood did. This comes after a row erupted after part of his written submission was initially published but later redacted when the Crown Office raised concerns.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser asks about the role of the Crown Office and its request that parliament remove some of Mr Salmond's evidence, which had been published by the parliament earlier this week.

Mr Fraser asks if the Crown Prosecution Service in England would have asked the House of Commons to redact evidence it had published.

Mr Salmond says it would not, and that the normal response from any parliament would be to reject any such overtures.

He questions the leadership of the Crown Office.

Mr Salmond says it is an "extraordinary position" that he cannot talk about some of the evidence from his submission before the parliamentary committee.

Image source, Daily Record

Jackie Baillie moves on to talk about the "leak" of the story to the Daily Record, which broke news of the allegations against Alex Salmond in August 2018.

Mr Salmond said there was another story in the newspaper the next day which demonstrated that it had either a copy or an extract from the permanent secretary's decision report.

"Someone had to have given them that document," he says.

Mr Salmond says this caused enormous distress to him and the complainants.

The matter was investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which had "sympathy" with the suggestion that the leak had come from a government employee.

Mr Salmond said the ICO had said it was a criminal leak, but that it had 23 suspects.

"Whoever did that should answer for what is a very, very serious matter which caused enormous distress and the implications that followed," he said.

Mr Salmond said he thought the leak was "politically inspired" and that there should be "further investigation".

He said it was a "hugely serious matter" and that it "does require further police investigation".

Image source, Fraser Bremner/Scottish Daily Mail/PA Wire

Labour MSP Jackie Baillie asks about the confidentiality of the women who had made complaints about Mr Salmond.

At First Minister's Questions on Thursday, she raised the allegation that the name of one of the women had been passed to Mr Salmond while a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon was being arranged.

Ms Sturgeon replied: "To the very best of my knowledge I do not think that happened."

Ms Baillie asked Mr Salmond if he knew whether the name of a complainant was shared during a meeting with Mr Salmond's former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein, as a precursor to the meeting between Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon.

"Yes," replies Mr Salmond.

He says he was told that by his former chief of staff, and that three other people know this to be true.

Independent MSP Andy Wightman asks Mr Salmond why he challenged the policy on the grounds that it was a "retrospective".

He asks if he thought it was not ever competent to investigate complaints of historic sexual harassment as a matter of principle.

Or was it because he thought allegations against him should not be investigated? Mr Wightman asks.

Mr Salmond says he put forward that argument on legal advice.

He says the policy fell at the very first hurdle because there were many things wrong with it, he says.

But if there had been nothing else it may well have fallen on the question of it being retrospective, Mr Salmond says.

"Not just because it was retrospective but because there had been in place at the time a perfectly acceptable robust policy," he says.

Mr Salmond adds that of all the arguments that came forward in terms of the #metoo movement, he was surprised by the need for a specific policy for former ministers of the Scottish government.

Here are the main points so far from the former first minister's evidence:

• "Scotland's leadership has failed" Mr Salmond claims there has been a failure of leadership across government and the civil service, adding: "The failures of leadership are many and obvious but not a single person has taken responsibility, not a single resignation or sacking, not even admonition."

• There is a legal row over what evidence can be heard. Mr Salmond claim he is "severely hampered" in what he can say during the session due to legal constraints. "Even today I appear before you under the explicit threat of prosecution if I reveal evidence for which the committee has asked," he says.
• Asked if he wanted to apologise over his own conduct, Mr Salmond points out he was cleared by a jury and that over the last three years there have been two court cases, two judges and a jury. "I'm resting on the proceedings of these cases," he says.

Alex Cole-Hamilton says Alex Salmond made no mention in his opening statement of the "considerable distress and misery caused to certain women at the heart of this".

The Liberal Democrat MSP asks if Mr Salmond is sorry for some of the "appalling" behaviour he has admitted to.

The former first minister says that is not correct and that in his opening statement he pointed out the huge consequences of the government's illegality for a number of people, specifically mentioning the complainants.

Mr Salmond says over the last three years there have been two court cases, two judges and a jury, and says: "I'm resting on the proceedings of these cases."

Committee convener Linda Fabiani intervenes to remind Mr Cole-Hamilton that Mr Salmond is not on trial and tells him to be more general in his questions.

SNP MSP Maureen Watt says that at the time the new policy on sexual harassment complaints were being drawn up, there was a broad consensus that more needed to be done in light of the #metoo movement.

She asks Mr Salmond if it was not correct to update the policies.

He says the "fairness at work" policy was already in place.

If it needed changing or strengthening there should have been proper consultation with union representatives, he says.

Instead an entirely new policy was developed "at pace" which ended up a "total disaster for all concerned".

Mr Salmond accuses the permanent secretary, the head of Scotland's civil service, of not understanding the policy she was replacing.

Maureen Watt asks Mr Salmond if he would have considered changing the policy on sexual harassment if he had been first minister when the #metoo movement became such a powerful force for change.

He says there were ways of responding that strengthened or amendment the existing policy.

"The last thing you do on subjects like this is rush them through in spatchcock fashion in a matter of days without consultation with the trade unions, in a manner which ended in the Court of Session in total disaster for everyone concerned," he says.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

It’s worth remembering this committee has a wide remit. At first, it’s looking at the formation of the Scottish government's harassment policy.

Mr Salmond’s claims Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code are likely to come later, as her his claims of a "malicious" campaign against him featuring senior people close to Ms Sturgeon.

One thing this committee will want to do is scrutinise the latter claims in particular. Many at Holyrood have accused Mr Salmond of having no evidence.