 I don't want to waste time, so I'm moving straight on to the next item of business, a statement by Nicholas Sturgeon on the conclusion of judicial review. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Nicholas Sturgeon, First Minister, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On the 16 and 24 of January 2018, the Scottish Government received two formal complaints of alleged misconduct by Alex Salmond during his time as First Minister. Those complaints came from two separate individuals. The complaints were investigated under the procedure for handling of complaints involving current or former ministers, which I will refer to from here on as the procedure. As members are aware, that procedure was signed off by me and came into force in December 2017. As part of that procedure, I formally delegated responsibility for investigating complaints of this nature to the permanent secretary. The new procedure formed part of a wider review of Scottish Government policies and processes for addressing inappropriate conduct that the permanent secretary was asked by the cabinet to undertake in the wake of the me too allegations. That review was confirmed to Parliament by John Swinney on 31 October 2017. In August 2018, following the conclusion of the investigation into the complaints that were raised about his conduct, Alex Salmond sought a judicial review of the procedure and the way in which it had been applied to him. This morning, the court of session accepted a joint minute from the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond settling the action for judicial review. The permanent secretary issued a statement earlier today detailing the reason for the decision to settle this case. I think that it is also appropriate for these matters to be set out, at least in summary, to Parliament. Therefore, as far as I am able, in light of the terms of the settlement and perhaps more importantly the on-going police investigation, I will seek to provide Parliament in this statement and in the questions to follow with as much detail as I can. The decision to settle the case was taken by the permanent secretary with my support when it became clear that, in one procedural respect only, albeit an important one, the application of the procedure could be perceived to have been flawed. In November 2018, Mr Salmond adjusted his petition for judicial review to advance the ground of challenge based on interaction between the complainants and the person who was subsequently appointed as investigating officer before the complaints were formalised. In late December 2018, the work being undertaken to produce relevant documents to the court in advance of the full hearing that was scheduled for next week led the Government to reassess its position in relation to that ground of challenge in light of the full picture that was then available. After reassessing all the materials available, the permanent secretary concluded that an impression of partiality could have been created based on one specific point, contact between the person appointed as investigating officer and the two complainants in advance of and around the time of their complaints being formalised in January 2018. This prior contact was in the form of welfare support and guidance, which was provided to the women making complaints. It is important to stress, Presiding Officer, that the support and guidance was, in itself, entirely legitimate and indeed entirely appropriate. As was set out in the court of session this morning, the Government does not accept claims that this was in any way encouraging the complaints, nor is there any suggestion that the investigating officer did in fact act in a partial way or that either the investigation or the decisions that were reached were in fact partial. The Scottish Government is also confident that, in all other respects, the procedure that was followed was fair to all concerned. However, as members will be aware, it is a well-established principle that a process such as this must not just be impartial in fact, it must also be seen to be so. It is on that basis that the permanent secretary decided to settle the case and to agree that the decisions that she reached about the complaints at the conclusion of the investigation should, on that ground, alone be set aside. It is important to note, as a simple matter of fact, that today's settlement has no implications one way or the other for the substance of the complaints or for the credibility of the complainants. The judicial review was never about the substance of the complaints, it was about the process of investigating those complaints. It will be open to the Scottish Government to reinvestigate those complaints, subject, of course, to the views of the complainants. However, for reasons that I am sure the chamber will understand, this will be considered only when the on-going police investigation has concluded. It remains my view that the Government was right to begin an investigation when serious complaints were made and not allow them to be swept under the carpet because of the identity of the person complained about. While in this one respect, the operational application of the procedure was flawed, the Scottish Government considers the procedure itself to be robust and it remains in place. However, the permanent secretary has rightly instructed a review of the procedure's application in relation to the specific point that has arisen in order to ensure that employees can have confidence in the process that will be applied should there be a need in future to investigate complaints about ministers or former ministers. There is one final point about the process that I wish to make in light of today's developments. The Government has not at any time made public either the outcome of the investigation or the substance of the complaints and that will remain the case. As I have already briefly mentioned and members will appreciate, there is an on-going police investigation that must be allowed to take its proper course. The Government could also, as I have just observed, reinvestigate those complaints in due course. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me or anyone else, for that matter, to say anything at this stage about the substance of the complaints. Questions have also been raised in the past about meetings that I had with Alex Salmond during the investigation, so I want to address that issue now. I met him on three occasions on 2 April last year at my home in Glasgow, on 7 June in Aberdeen, ahead of the SNP conference, and at my home on 14 July. I also spoke with him on the telephone on 23 April and 18 July. I have not spoken to Alex Salmond since 18 July. On 2 April, he informed me about the complaints against him, which, in line with the procedure that the permanent secretary had not done, and he set out his various concerns about the process. In the other contacts, he reiterated his concerns about the process and told me about proposals that he was making to the Scottish Government for mediation and arbitration. However, I was always clear that I had no role in the process and I did not seek to intervene in it at any stage, nor indeed did I feel under any pressure to do so. In conclusion, it is deeply regrettable—perhaps that is an understatement—that, as a result of a failure in the proper application of one aspect of the procedure that the Scottish Government has had to settle this matter today. The permanent secretary has already, this morning, apologised to all involved in echoing that. I want to express my regret in particular for the difficult position that the complainants have been placed in. I know that the permanent secretary has spoken directly to both women. I can only imagine how difficult the decision to raise concerns as well as the publicity around this investigation and the judicial review must have been for them in recent months. They had every right to expect the process to be robust and beyond reproach in every aspect of it and to reach a lasting conclusion. I am sorry that, on this occasion, that has not been the case. It is fair to say that, in recent months, all organisations have grappled with the challenge of ensuring fair and robust processes for the investigation of complaints, which can sometimes be historic in nature. It is because I personally take that task so seriously that the Scottish Government is determined to learn and apply lessons from this case so that any member of staff who is raising complaints in future can have confidence that every aspect of the process applied will be robust. Ensuring that a robust complaints process is part of the responsibility of every organisation to provide a safe and respectful working environment. I, as First Minister, am determined that the Scottish Government will live up to that responsibility. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that are raised in her statement. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for questions after which she must move to decision time to help the members who wish to ask questions. We are pressing their question-and-speak buttons now, and I will call first Jackson Carlaw, Mr Carlaw, please. I know that this is the subject of an on-going police investigation in which none of us must prejudice. Given the detail in the First Minister's statement, which we received just after 10 past 4, we will wish to reflect further. The First Minister rightly just mentioned the two complainants at the centre of the matter. Obviously, the trouble is that good intentions towards complainants are worth little if the Government cannot meet basic standards of competence. Let's be clear that what we have witnessed today is deeply disappointing, a questionable investigation, and seemingly an SNP civil war played out at the taxpayer's expense to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs. Let me turn to some questions. Firstly, in November last year, the First Minister said this, I am absolutely satisfied that I, the SNP and the Scottish Government have acted entirely appropriately at all stages. Now we learn that this wasn't the case. Why only two months ago was the First Minister confidently insisting that she had got everything right? Did she just not know what was going on within her own office? Secondly, and I think of crucial interest today, Paragraph 12 of the Scottish Government procedure provides for the First Minister being involved at the conclusion of the process only when the outcome of the investigation is complete. In the light of that, why was the First Minister involved in a series of meetings and phone calls with Mr Salmond, about which, with respect to the latter, we are only being told today for the first time? That seems completely inappropriate in terms of the guidance within the procedure that the First Minister herself said that she had signed off just months before. Finally, let me ask this, we have learned a lot in recent months about the need to support victims of sexual harassment. In the wake of today's events, does the First Minister think it more or less likely that complainants will have the confidence to come forward? If this is the example of the Scottish Government, what hope is there of reassuring others? Does she not agree that, above all else, having the confidence to come forward when issues like this arise must be something that people have total confidence in doing? First Minister I thank Jackson Callough for his questions. I hope that he will understand not to respond to the more blatant political elements to that. I do not think that it is appropriate. Some of his comments about civil war are simply ludicrous and I do not think that if I was to respond on that basis, I would do justice to the seriousness of the matter at hand. Let me turn to the serious questions. First, Jackson Callough asked about complainants. I think that it is absolutely essential that we keep the interests of complainants at the heart of this. The Scottish Government took steps, as did many other organisations, to put in place a procedure for dealing with complaints of harassment, including complaints of sexual harassment. That procedure, in my view, is robust and remains in place. In one aspect of the application of that procedure, the Scottish Government processes have fallen short and I deeply regret that. That is something that the Scottish Government has to reflect seriously on and that is something that the Scottish Government has got to be determined to learn lessons about. Jackson Callough quoted something that I said I would not quote it back because I do not have the exact terms, but to the effect that I was satisfied with the actions that the SNP, I and the Scottish Government had taken. This is an investigation that has nothing to do with the SNP, so I will refer to myself and the Scottish Government. At that point, I believed that that was the case. Today, with the exception of the one aspect that the Government has conceded, it was flawed. I still believe that all of the aspects of the application of the procedure by the Government was fair and robust. That is no comfort to anybody because that one flaw has led to the decision today. Jackson Callough asked me, did I simply not know what was going on in my Government? Here we get to the nub of it. I did not know what was going on in the investigation because the procedure said I should not know what was going on in the investigation. I was informed by the investigation by Alex Salmond, but I did nothing to intervene in that process as a result of any of that. That is, I think, an important point and one that I am very clear on. Lastly, on whether that makes it more or less likely for complainants to come forward, I am absolutely clear that my responsibility and the Government's responsibility is to make sure that we encourage, enable and empower people with complaints to come forward by putting in place robust procedures and by doing everything that we can to make sure that those processes are beyond reproach. If mistakes are made, as a mistake was made in this case, in good faith but nevertheless a mistake was made, it is absolutely incumbent that lessons are learned in order that we can ensure collectively that we encourage anybody with a complaint to come forward and feel that that complaint is treated seriously and appropriately. Richard Leonard Can I thank the First Minister for her advance sight of her statement? The First Minister cannot be held responsible for the actions of her predecessor, but she is in the end responsible for the actions of this Government. And this Government has let these women down badly. Let's be clear, it takes unflinching courage to step forward and challenge powerful men and powerful institutions, which is why they deserve so much better than this. It's also why it's paramount that their treatment, their access to support and representation and their access to justice must be a priority. This is a question of competence, but it is also a question of trust. If this Government cannot be trusted to deal competently with a case involving a former First Minister of this country, what trust and confidence can other women have in this Government's handling of their complaints of harassment? This is extremely serious, so apart from a review of procedures, what further action is the First Minister now prepared to take to restore trust, to restore confidence in her Government's handling of present and future harassment complaints? I thank Richard Leonard for his questions. I am responsible for the Scottish Government's why I am standing here accountable to Parliament in the right and proper way, not with standing in this case because of the procedure. I was not personally involved in the conduct of the investigation, but nevertheless I absolutely set my responsibility to answer those questions. Now, given the error that has led to the situation that we are in today, I will make sure that appropriate steps are taken to learn and apply any lessons that are required. I have already said that I will say again that I deeply regret the position that two women have been placed in. That is incumbent on not just me but the Government in its entirety to make sure that we give confidence to women in future, that if they come forward with complaints, not just women, if anybody comes forward with complaints, those complaints are treated seriously and the processes applied are robust. Part of that responsibility is to be clear, not to try to make excuses but to be clear in fact of certain things and not allow those to be lost. The Government has put in place a procedure that is robust in all-bar one aspect, which of course is important because it has led to the situation that we are in today, but in every other aspect the Government is confident that that procedure was applied correctly. In terms of the error that was made, the review that has been instructed today by the permanent secretary, I think that it is important to allow that to happen and not to pre-empt any conclusions of that. However, I will happily give an undertaking today to report back to Parliament on the outcome of that review and any steps that have been taken as a result of that. Finally, I think that I said in my statement that the permanent secretary has spoken to the two women involved to apologise to offer support. It will be open in the future for the Scottish Government, dependent on the views of the complainants to reinvestigate those complaints. However, that consideration has to await the conclusion of the police investigation. I understand that the permanent secretary has spoken to or is speaking to in the course of today's trade unions in order to give assurances about how those complaints will be taken forward. I do not want anybody in this chamber to be in any doubt about how seriously I treat that situation. I think that it is incredibly important that people have confidence in processes. It is because of that that I feel so regretful at what has happened here today and feel the responsibility not just for what has happened but to take whatever action is required to ensure that situations such as this cannot happen again in the future. I will undertake to keep Parliament fully updated as that review takes place. We'll leave any. What must be protected in the midst of all this heat is the rights of people to speak up. Big progress was made with the Me Too movement. It gave people who had been silent for so long the confidence that they would be heard. It is important that nothing today stops that and this Parliament should stand together, should speak with one voice on that important issue. This is not a victory for anyone. I understand that the civil service procedure was flawed, but does the First Minister agree that the police must be allowed to get on with their work free from political pressure? I agree entirely with the sentiments and the substance of it. I do not want to sound pedantic. There is one point that I feel is important to stress, partly in the interests of what Willie Rennie is saying. The Scottish Government's procedure is not flawed. The application of that procedure, in one respect, weakened seeds was flawed. I know that that perhaps sounds as if I am nitpicking there, but it is an important distinction. Willie Rennie is absolutely right that a lot of progress has been made since the Me Too allegations came to light. I am not talking about that case, but it feels as if, every step forward, we sometimes take a step back in all of that. It is really important that we all encourage and make people feel that they are able to come forward. That is why I regret deeply what has unfolded today. Willie Rennie is right to say that this is not a victory for anybody. This has no implications one way or the other for the substance of the complaints. It is important for all of us to recognise that there is a police investigation under way, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not say anything that may impinge on that investigation. That investigation, in the interests of everybody concerned here, is allowed to properly take its course. Thank you. I have nine member's mission to ask questions for obvious reasons. I let them these first questions and answers go on for longer. I do not think that I will reach them all, but if I have short questions, we should get through most of them. Ruth Maguire, follow up on any wells, please. We live in a society where women and girls regularly experience harassment and sexism, whether on the street and social settings or, indeed, in their workplace. What would the First Minister say to those women and girls to give them confidence that society can change? What should we all do, men and women, to stand up to those who perpetrate such harassment? Ruth Maguire raises the most important issue at the heart of this general debate. First of all, all of us and I think that all of us in this chamber do make absolutely clear that harassment against women and girls is completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Secondly, we must make sure that the correct procedures are in place for dealing with that and, pertinent to this case—this is where the Scottish Government has not got it right—that every aspect of the application of those procedures is robust and correct. The last thing that I would say, and it is a responsibility that I feel very acutely today, when mistakes are made, there is a recognition of that, a transparency around that and a determination to make sure that we recognise that in order that the process of putting right and learning the lessons of those mistakes helps us, rather than sets this back, actually helps us to encourage women to come forward in the future. That is what I am determined to seek to do. Annie Wells, followed by Stuart McMillan. I know that the permanent secretary has spoken to those two women at the centre of this today, but can I ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government will offer those women in the future? The Scottish Government will, and as I said, as Annie Wells has recognised, the permanent secretary has already spoken to them. The Scottish Government will offer any support that it requires. I should say one of the, I do not know if that is the right word, it is the word that I will use, one of the ironies of this is that it was the giving of support to the women that has led to this situation. The support that was given to the women before their complaints were formalised was entirely legitimate and appropriate. The problem was that the person or one of the people, because not the only person, one of the people involved in the process of giving that support, subsequently became the investigating officer. That created the impression of partiality, although there is nothing to suggest actual partiality. The women will be offered whatever support they need. In due course, as I have said a number of times now, the re-investigation of these complaints is an option, but that consideration requires to await the end of the police investigation. Thank you, Stuart McMillan, followed by Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the First Minister be clear that the outcome of the decision today by the Court of Session is not an issue of guilt or innocence, but a matter of the process of handling a complaint not being properly carried out? Can she confirm that immediate and urgent steps have been taken to ensure that lessons have been learned and that staff can be confident of the procedures in place? As I said in my statement, not just this judicial review, but the lawyers amongst us in particular will know that judicial reviews are not about the substance of issues that are about the processes applied in a particular case. That is the situation here. This judicial review even had it not ended the way it ended today and had gone to the full hearing that was scheduled for next week, it would never have been about the substance. To use Stuart McMillan's language, that is not about guilt or innocence. What has happened today is regrettable. It is regrettable from the perspective of Alex Salmond, as well as the complaints. Everybody involved had a right to expect that this process, in all respects, was robust. However, there are other processes under way, as has already been acknowledged, and it is very important that those processes are allowed to take their course. Lastly, in terms of lessons learned, I have already mentioned the review that the permanent secretary has instructed. As I said to Richard Leonard, I am not going to pre-empt the direction that might go in, but I will ensure that that is thorough, and I will ensure that that happens as quickly as possible and that Parliament is kept fully updated. There have been long-standing concerns about the Scottish Government's transparency. We now know that the First Minister has spoken to Alex Salmond on five separate occasions, none of which are referenced in her diaries. Can I ask if she will now make the content of the meetings public, and if not, why not? The context that I had with Alex Salmond, and I have set out the dates of these today, were not Government meetings. I have known Alex Salmond as a friend and colleague for 30 years. He is not at this present time, but he was then a member of my party. People can make judgments on the decisions that I took. One of the things that I found out in the course of that is that there is no manual for suddenly finding yourself dealing with a situation in which somebody that you have worked with in that way is subject to those accusations. However, I was very, very feminine. I have set out the first meeting that it was him informing me of the complaints after that. He was making me aware of the concerns that he had about the process and that he was proposing mediation and arbitration at no point. That is the key principle for me. I had no role in the process. I did not intervene or seek to intervene. Self-evidently, I did not, because what he was seeking did not happen. That is the important principle and one that I am absolutely satisfied around. I am anxious to be as transparent as possible within the confines of an on-going investigation. Of course, as we move down and out of investigations, if there is more information that the Government can make available to Parliament, then, of course, we will do so. First Minister has just taken a question about support for the complainants, and I agree with offering support. Is it possible that the support could be provided from a third party if the women prefer? Yes, I am sure that that is possible. I will certainly feed that back and any support that... Not just those women, but anybody within the Scottish Government who has concerns or issues about any former minister or other member of staff in the Scottish Government should be offered appropriate support. If that is from outside the Scottish Government, I think that that is something that should be considered. Last question, Donald Cameron. Paragraph 12 of the procedure explicitly provides for the involvement of the First Minister only when the outcome of the investigation is complete. That being so, why did the First Minister consider it appropriate to meet with Alex Salmond not once but three times, have two telephone calls whilst the investigation was on-going? First Minister, I have already responded to that. I was not involved in the procedure. I was not involved in any way in the procedure. I did not intervene in the procedure. I did not seek to intervene. I did not try to influence the course of the investigation. Had I done so, that would have been the subject of absolutely legitimate criticism. All of us reflect on decisions that we take all of the time. I am sure that that will be no different for me in this circumstance as it is on everything else, but I am absolutely satisfied that I acted appropriately and will continue to do so. That concludes questions on the statement. I apologise to Bill Kidd, Daniel Johnson and Rona Mackay, whom I failed to reach. We will now move on to decision time. We turn straight to decision time. The first question is amendment 15243.3, in the name of Jamie Greene, which seeks to amend motion 15243, in the name of Michael Matheson, on ultra-low-emission vehicles, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is amendment 15243.4, in the name of Colin Smyth, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed? Are we all agreed? The next question is amendment 15243.1, in the name of John Finnie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is amendment 15243.2, in the name of Liam McArthur, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Michael Matheson, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15243.2, in the name of Liam McArthur, is yes, 50, no, 67. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion 15243, in the name of Michael Matheson, as amended on ultra-low-emission vehicles, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move in a few moments to members' business in the name of Brian Whittle on Transport Infrastructure in South West Scotland. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats and for the ministers to change seats too.