An inquiry into the Scottish government’s handling of harassment complaints against Alex Salmond has issued its final report. Here are the main points:

• There were “fundamental errors” in the Scottish government’s harassment procedure. The committee recommends changes to the complaints process.
• Nicola Sturgeon misled their inquiry, according to a majority of the MSPs. They say there is a “fundamental contradiction” in the first minister's evidence - although the SNP members disagreed.
• “Serious flaws” are identified in the handling of a judicial review which led to £500,000 of public money being spent on failed court action.
• The committee says it was “hindered” by the Scottish government, with MSPs complaining of delays and “drip-feeding” of vital documents.

Philip Sim
BBC Scotland political reporter

Image source, PA Media

People perhaps understandably want to take sides in this, to make it Team Sturgeon vs Team Salmond, or parliament vs government, Conservative vs SNP. They want there to be winners and losers from these reports.

What the committee report underlines today is that there are essentially no winners here. The government was, by its own admission, guilty of serious errors which let women down and make it harder for people to come forward with complaints in future.

Numerous questions have been posed on a cross-party basis about how it set up its complaints procedure, how it implemented it, and how it was defended in court.

The committee itself has been riven by partisan battles and constant leaks - even of deeply sensitive testimony - and had its own members both endorsing and condemning its findings before they were even published.

The SNP has been left attacking an institution of the Scottish Parliament, while the Conservatives hurl accusations of lies and corruption at the first minister.

This has been a hugely difficult and potentially damaging episode for Holyrood. And with all of that coming on the eve of a potentially crucial election, the rhetoric is likely to continue to ramp up over the next six weeks.

Alex Salmond told the committee that the name of one of the women who made complaints against him was revealed to his former chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, by a senior Scottish government employee prior to his meeting with Nicola Sturgeon on 2 April 2018.

This was corroborated in evidence from Kevin Pringle and lawyer Duncan Hamilton.

When asked about this, Ms Sturgeon said: "The account that I have been given has given me assurance that what is alleged to have happened at that meeting did not happen in the way that has been described.”

She said Mr Salmond knew the identity of one complainant because he had previously apologised to the person concerned.

In its report, the committee says any breach of confidentiality is a serious matter.

"However, the committee is unable to reach any conclusion on the facts of this alleged breach and any investigation of the same is not for this committee."

Kirsten Campbell
BBC Scotland political correspondent

The detail of this report is highly critical of the Scottish government’s data handling.

It expresses frustration about its own scrutiny role being impeded by the delays in receiving documents from the government.

And it is scathing about the government's failure to disclose key evidence to the court during the judicial review, describing its procedure for document disclosure as seriously flawed.

It questions why the permanent secretary "did not ensure that the relevant information was extracted and processed at a much earlier stage" and concludes that those responsible should be held accountable.

The committee also recommends the next parliament should have a committee to scrutinise the standards of administration provided by the civil service.

Away from the headlines around the first minister's conduct, leaks and splits, the report may actually lead to changes at Holyrood.

Image source, Getty Images

Political expert Professor Sir John Curtice has told BBC Scotland that the public has been "mis-served" by the committee's focus on whether Ms Sturgeon breached the ministerial code.

He said more attention should have been given to the robustness of the complaints procedure.

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor

This committee concludes that the investigation of harassment complaints should be independent of the Scottish government - as did Laura Dunlop QC, who reviewed the process for the government. It says it will look at those findings, so there will be changes there.

In terms of the argument over the first minister’s role, that will be projected into the election campaign, which starts on Thursday.

Before then we’re going to have a final session of First Minister's Questions tomorrow, and later today a vote of no confidence in the first minister - although it is clear that she will win that because she has the support of the Scottish Greens.

We have also to hear from Alex Salmond. What does he make of these findings and what does he do next? Today, incidentally, is the anniversary of him being acquitted of all the sexual assault charges that he faced in a criminal trial.

At some point he will obviously want to state his case, and I don’t think he will give up on the complaints he has pursued throughout all of this.

Image source, PA Media

Former first minister Alex Salmond is also criticised by the committee for repeatedly missing deadlines for the submission of evidence.

It says the actions of both the Scottish government and the former first minister gave the appearance that they only willingly gave information and documentation "that would advance a particular position".

It also criticised Mr Salmond for sending documents directly to committee members rather than using the document-handling procedure to ensure that no material that may inadvertently reveal the identity of a complainer is released.

"This resulted in unredacted documents being sent to members," it says.

"Given the focus that the committee has had on confidentiality, this is a very serious situation."

Andrew Kerr
Scottish political correspondent

Everyone is hitting out at the leaking of the report last week.

The committee's convener, SNP MSP Linda Fabiani, says the leaker should have the “dignity and honour" to come forward.

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser said he would welcome any inquiry, while the SNP MSPs on the committee deplored the fact that information was disclosed – as have Labour, the Lib Dems and the independent member, Andy Wightman.

Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told me the leak was entirely predictable due to the high stakes.

“Elections are pending and the future of Scotland is at stake,” he said. It’s rare for any official inquiry to find the source, he added.

Cui bono? Who stands to gain?

Some have described this as an Agatha Christie mystery. Maybe - like in Murder on the Orient Express – everyone has leaked something?

Ms Fabiani said the meeting took place remotely and it’s hard to keep an eye on everyone.

But certainly the leak changed the whole mood music around the report's release.

The committee's report says its scrutiny was "significantly impacted" by the delays in receiving information from the Scottish government and by its constant refusal to release legal advice.

It said it was frustrated by the impression that on occasion it was not been given all of the relevant information because it did not ask exactly the right question.

"This is an unacceptable position for a parliamentary committee to find itself in when trying to scrutinise the Scottish government," it says.

Glenn Campbell
BBC Scotland Political Editor

While the most controversial conclusions in this report are those reached by the opposition majority about the role of Nicola Sturgeon, most of the committee’s findings are unanimous.

There is a great deal of very uncomfortable reading for the civil servants involved in complaint handling and the defence of the process, particularly the Scottish government’s top civil servant, Leslie Evans.

Take a look at paragraphs 598 and 599 for example - where the committee identifies an “individual failing” by Ms Evans in the handling of the legal challenge by Alex Salmond.

It considers that lapse as significant as the “general corporate failing” which led to a “prolonged, expensive and unsuccessful defence” of the case, for which it believes those responsible should be held to account.

The first minister recently told me in an interview that Ms Evans had about a year left on her contract and that she expected her to complete that term.

Image source, PA Media

The head of Scotland's civil service, Permanent Secretary Leslie Evans, is singled out for criticism by the committee.

It says the Scottish government administration, which she heads, was responsible for "a serious, substantial and entirely avoidable situation" in relation to the judicial review process.

It says that the permanent secretary's office co-ordinated the supply of information for the judicial review which went so badly wrong and let to its collapse.

Ms Evans was also one of a few people who had been aware of the prior contact between the investigating officer and the complainers, which ultimately led to the government conceding the case.

"It must be questioned why the permanent secretary in her role and with her knowledge did not ensure that the relevant information was extracted and processed at a much earlier stage," says the report.

"This individual failing is as significant as the general corporate failing already described."

The committee recommends that Ms Evans sets out how she intends to improve her administration's performance on record-keeping.

The report also says a committee should look at the quality and standards of administration provided by the civil service in the next session of parliament.

Image source, daily record

The committee says it is "extremely serious" that the allegations against Alex Salmond were leaked to the Daily Record newspaper in August 2018.

It says the fundamental principle of any complaints process is that confidentiality must be observed throughout.

The committee says the leak was damaging for the two women who made complaints and for Mr Salmond.

The committee notes that the former first minister was at least able to issue a statement to the media denying the allegations.

However, the women who made the complaints had no control over this process nor a voice in it.

The report says it is not for the committee to investigate or speculate on the source of the leak.

"Should the identity of the person who leaked the information ever come to light, they should be held to account for their actions," it says.

Image source, Getty Images

The Holyrood committee faced "obstruction, evasion, deceit and lies" in its investigation into how the Alex Salmond complaints were handled, according to Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser.

The committee member accused people at the heart of government of misleading parliament and the Scottish people.

He denied he was behind "unhelpful" leaks of some of the report's findings last week, but he insisted two government leaks were far more damning.

He told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme: "What the committee report finds is there were two leaks from the Scottish government which potentially are criminal.

"The leak of a complainant's name to Geoff Aberdein, one of Alex Salmond's team, and the leak to the Daily Record of the details of the allegations against Mr Salmond.

"Both of these are potentially criminal acts from a senior official within the Scottish government."

The Scottish Conservatives will hold a vote of no confidence in Nicola Sturgeon later today.

Image source, Getty Images

Deputy First Minister John Swinney said the Hamilton report put to rest "months and months of smear and innuendo" aimed at Nicola Sturgeon.

Mr Swinney accepted that the report, published on Monday, showed failures in the way ministers handled the complaints about Alex Salmond.

But he denied accusations from Holyrood committee members that the government had refused to release information.

He told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme: "After the parliament voted twice for the government to release legal information, I took the unprecedented decision of releasing information to the committee for their private consideration.

"They were able to see that information on specific advice that was circulated."

Image source, PA Media

The committee said it had "tried as far as possible to shine a light on what occurred".

But it said this work had been "hindered by the Scottish government's failure to produce key documents which were of interest to us until a very late stage in the inquiry".

The committee said it looked at why the Scottish government was forced to concede the judicial review launched by Alex Salmond in "such an embarrassing and costly manner".

It criticised the "drip feeding of information", with the report stating: "It is clear that at the start of the judicial review process those within the Scottish government managing the judicial review and their counsel did not possess a complete picture of events relating to the handling of the complaints against the former first minister."

The report also notes the "delays and mistakes in identifying and submitting documents".

The committee report says it was the duty of the Scottish government to be "open and candid" with parliament and to publish all relevant material so that the inquiry could do its job.

"To leave it to a committee to have to drag information out of government and other bodies is a wholly unacceptable response to the accountability that is meant to exist by the executive to parliament," it says.

Unless there is full disclosure in future, it says, then only a judge-led inquiry would have the powers to investigate matters to the full extent.

The committee also says that its experience, particularly in trying to obtain government legal advice, suggests that the parliament may have insufficient powers to hold the executive to account.

The report recommends the establishment of a commission to review the relationship between the executive and the legislature and make recommendations for change.

These paragraphs were not agreed to by the four SNP MSPs on the committee.

Image source, PA Media

The committee says the report from James Hamilton, published yesterday afternoon, is the "most appropriate" place to address the question of whether or not the first minister has breached the ministerial code.

Mr Hamilton, a senior Irish lawyer who conducted a separate independent inquiry, cleared Nicola Sturgeon of breaching the code.

His report said Ms Sturgeon had given an "incomplete narrative of events" to MSPs over what she knew and when - but he said this was a "genuine failure of recollection" and was not deliberate.

Mr Hamilton said he was therefore of the opinion that Ms Sturgeon had not breached any of the provisions of the code.

Nick Eardley
Political correspondent

Today’s report from the committee will make more difficult reading for Nicola Sturgeon.

MSPs have spent some time looking into the Scottish government’s handling of allegations against Alex Salmond – and they have a number of concerns.

The most serious allegations are that Ms Sturgeon misled the committee and the doubt they cast on her account of when she first found out about concerns about Mr Salmond.

This will mean the political row continues. But Ms Sturgeon will point to the report by her independent adviser which concluded she did not break the ministerial code. That was always going to be the key moment – and would have been extremely dangerous for Ms Sturgeon if he had concluded she broke the rules.

What does it all mean? Nicola Sturgeon is going nowhere. She will fight May’s election saying her independent adviser cleared her. Her opponents will argue differently.

Image source, Getty Images

Scottish Labour's deputy leader Jackie Baillie said the report highlighted the "catastrophic failings of the Scottish government on a matter of the utmost seriousness and sensitivity".

Ms Baillie, who is member of the committee, said the women who complained about Mr Salmond had been "failed" by the Scottish government.

"Three years on, nobody has yet taken responsibility for this failure," she said.

Ms Baillie insisted the government still does not have a robust and functioning harassment complaints procedure that is fit for purpose.

And she stood by the committee's majority view that Nicola Sturgeon had misled parliament about whether she told Mr Salmond she would intervene.

Ms Baillie said: “The Hamilton report may have exonerated the first minister of breaching the ministerial code, but the catastrophic and myriad failings this committee inquiry has revealed have called into question her judgement.”

The report concludes that it would have been "extremely remiss" for the Scottish government not to have reviewed its policies on tackling workplace harassment.

However, it says the two women who brought forward complaints were badly let down.

"Fundamental errors" were made which called the procedure into question, the report says.

"These errors were compounded by the way in which the judicial review was dealt with by the Scottish government," it says.

"This resulted in over £500,000 of public money being spent on defending a judicial review that ultimately had to be conceded.

"However, this is not just about procedures or public money. It is about ensuring that, in the future, anyone complaining about sexual harassment is not let down in the way these women have been."