Salmond inquiry news - live: Former leader calls for multiple resignations including Nicola Sturgeon’s husband

Alex Salmond has claimed that a leak to the Daily Record about complaints against him was “politically inspired” as he called for further police investigation into the matter.

“If they [civil servants] do leak, they don't leak to the political editor of the Daily Record. Therefore I think the leak was politically inspired,” Mr Salmond said.

“I think the matter shouldn't be at an end, I think it's a hugely serious matter.”

He added: “Where has been the police investigation ordered by the Crown Office into what has been for many people concerned, not least the complainers, a hugely distressing leak to the Daily Record in August 2018?

“As far as I know there has been nothing said or done by the Crown Office in terms of trying to determine where that leak came from.

“I think it does require further police investigation - I do believe I know the identity but I'm not here to speculate on individuals that I cannot substantiate.”

Former first minister Alex Salmond has called an anti-harassment policy drawn up by Nicola Sturgeon’s government, which covered former ministers for the first time, an “abject disaster”.

When asked if he thought former ministers should have been included in the new policy, Mr Salmond said: “I would like to say about Fairness at Work, it was developed with the unions over an 18-month period.

“It was carefully considered, and above all, it was lawful. The policy which you're examining as part of your inquiry, it was the exact opposite. It was rushed through, and it was unlawful, and was an abject disaster.”

He added: “If you are going to apply a retrospective policy, then get a legal base for it.

“And if you're going to apply any policy, then do it in comprehensive, full discussion with the trade unions - as you found in this committee, that did not happen in this case.

“In my experience, it happened in every workplace policy, but somehow not in this policy.”

Not being able to discuss some parts of his submission is an “intolerable situation”, Alex Salmond has said, adding that this should “not be allowed to continue”.

Mr Salmond went on to accuse the Scottish government of acting in an “irresponsible and unlawful fashion”.

“The description that is most commonly made in the press about the government's policy and what happened is 'botched',” he said.

“Your committee is examining, as is often said, the 'botched policy'.

“The policy wasn't botched. The policy was unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias. Botched doesn't cover it."

Alex Salmond has claimed there has been a “deliberate suppression of information inconvenient” to the Scottish government during investigations arising from complaints made against him.

“You can see that the pattern of non-disclosure goes right through the judicial review, right through the criminal case and right into this committee,” Mr Salmond told the inquiry.

“It's not the odd document that's been missed out, it is a sequence of deliberate suppression of information inconvenient to the government.”

Our economics editor, Ben Chu, has taken a detailed look at what we should expect from Rishi Sunak’s highly-anticipated budget next week:

Alex Salmond has said he first became aware that there had been prior contact between investigators and complainants when a whistleblower raised concerns about a government press release.

“We became aware that something was wrong because a whistleblower in the Scottish government told us in October, by means that was sent to us, that there was something seriously wrong with a government press statement that had been released in late August, when I held a press conference to say I was taking legal action against the government,” Mr Salmond told the inquiry.

“That press statement said this was published for the first time, the policy, and said this policy [had been] approved in December 2017 and published at that time on the Scottish government intranet.

“That press statement, very recently, just a couple of months ago, was revised, because of course it wasn't published at the time. It was published in February. Why is February 2018 important - because that was after the complaints came in.”

He added: “So, obviously, when we got that information, there was a question. How can complaints come in under a policy which wasn't publicised internally to Scottish government employees until February?

“How can complaints come in in January? That obviously doesn't make sense.”

Alex Salmond has criticised Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary and Scotland’s most senior civil servant, for her role in the handling of harassment allegations against him.

“People make mistakes, in terms of the civil service, just like anybody else, government ministers, politicians. It happens all the time. But in terms of the Richter scale of mistakes, this is right up there, this is a very big one,” Mr Salmond said.

The former first minister argued that “you would have hoped, believed, that someone would have accepted responsibility” for this.

He added: “When I walked out of the Court of Session in 8 January 2018, I didn't say 'Leslie Evans should now resign', I did the normal language that perhaps the permanent secretary should now consider her position.

“I did that because I knew she had claimed ownership over this policy, she said in a letter to my lawyers 'it was a policy established by me'. That was her words.

“I thought therefore she had responsibility for the policy, for not conceding timeously in the judicial review and for a range of other things that could have been done. But somebody has to accept responsibility for a calamitous occurrence and defeat.”

Independent MSP Andy Wightman asked former first minister Alex Salmond what grounds for judicial review he was advised would have the highest chance of success.

Mr Salmond said “procedural unfairness” was among them, adding: “One of the strongest arguments, and I’m not competent to judge the strongest argument, but certainly as put to me one of the strongest arguments was the nature of the investigating officer.

“I’m not talking here about the prior involvement that was subsequently discovered, but the nature of how the investigating officer conducts his or her activities.

“It means that in this procedure - totally different from fairness at work and totally different from elsewhere - the investigating officer basically presents the case for the prosecution before the defendant is even informed about the procedure.

“And then the person who is being complained about, instead of being able to present their own case, has to give that case to the same person, to the investigating officer, to present on his or her behalf.

“And that, my legal team told me, is not something that the courts take kindly to.”

Our Whitehall editor, Kate Devlin, reports:

Mr Salmond also alleged there had been “obstruction of justice” as he said Scottish government documents had been improperly withheld from the courts.

He also said that if Ms Sturgeon had been aware that her government was about to lose its case against him, and had proceeded anyway, that would mean the first minister had breached the ministerial code.

The legal advice received by the Scottish Government has not been published.

Alex Salmond has claimed Nicola Sturgeon knew about a complaints procedure launched against him before meeting with her in her home.

He said: “Whether she had any prior knowledge of it I cannot say, but I know that she knew on 29 March.

“The meeting on 29 March was not impromptu, was not accidental, was not popping your head around the door.

“It was a meeting arranged for that purpose and the meeting on 2 April was not popping into Nicola and Peter’s home, it was a meeting arranged for that purpose.”