2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will publish the legal advice that it received regarding the judicial review into the handling of harassment complaints against the former First Minister, Alex Salmond. (S5T-02691)

The maintenance of legal professional privilege is routine and is an essential part of good government. No Administration since devolution has disclosed legal advice in the context of litigation, and I have expressed my concern about setting a precedent that could hamper future Administrations in receiving candid legal advice. The Government has taken unprecedented steps to share with the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, in confidence, a summary of the legal advice that it received during the judicial review, supplemented by oral evidence by the Lord Advocate.

However, in recent days, a number of accusations have been raised that, if not responded to, could undermine confidence in the Parliament, the Government and our independent justice system. In light of those developments, I have concluded, in line with the terms of section 2.40 of the Scottish ministerial code, that the balance of public interest in these exceptional circumstances now lies in releasing to the committee and for publication the contents of legal advice received by the Government during the judicial review, and in particular the advice from external counsel. The law officers have provided their consent that there are compelling reasons for disclosure in the specific circumstances.

Subject to the completion of the necessary legal notifications, we aim to release the material to the committee this afternoon. In order to address the desire for the information to be available as soon as possible, we have focused on providing information that charts the development of the judicial review and, specifically, the changes in prospects that emerged during that process.

This episode demonstrates the contempt that the Government holds for the Scottish Parliament. For months, the committee has been calling for publication of the legal advice, and there were two votes in Parliament last year calling for it to be published. Only now, at the very last possible moment, when a metaphorical gun is held to the head of the Deputy First Minister and he is threatened with a vote of no confidence does he finally agree to release some legal advice.

We have not yet seen the documents that Mr Swinney refers to. However, last night, Mr Salmond’s lawyers told us that the material that the Scottish Government proposes to release is, in their words,

“highly selective and based on what will cause the least embarrassment to the Government”.

Can the Deputy First Minister therefore assure us that the committee’s request for publication of all relevant documents will be met, or will he continue to cover up the truth?

I will first say that, if I heard Mr Fraser correctly—I might have misheard him, and if so, I will apologise—he said that a gun had been metaphorically held to my head. I do not think that that is appropriate terminology for one Member of Parliament to use to another. Nor was the language that other Conservative MSPs used appropriate—it is wholly inappropriate for one human being to express something in that way to another human being, never mind one member of Parliament to another. I simply say that to get it off my chest.

My second point is that Mr Fraser, as well as being a member of Parliament, is a trained solicitor so, from his professional background, he knows the importance of the principle of legal professional privilege. He knows how central it is to the foundations of the Scottish legal system and to the relationship between clients and advisers, and that, for Government, in litigation, it is central. The Government has wrestled with that difficult issue and we have concluded that, in the public interest, it is right to act in the way that we are now acting.

Finally, Mr Fraser has raised comments made by the solicitors for the former First Minister. I simply encourage Mr Fraser to wait until he sees the information that we publish, and then I am sure that he can apply the independent judgment with which we normally associate him to the material that he sees before him.

Frankly, we can do without Mr Swinney’s manufactured outrage. He and his Government have behaved disgracefully in this whole affair, and he should be apologising to the Parliament for his conduct throughout the episode.

The legal advice that we are now being offered will not be made available to the committee before the First Minister comes to give us evidence at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning. How does the Deputy First Minister propose that members of the committee will be able to pursue with the First Minister or indeed anybody else in the Government questions that might arise from the legal advice, given that it is being produced so late in the day?

The information will be available later on this afternoon, so unless Mr Fraser goes to his bed at 5 o’clock, he can read it tonight.

Friday’s evidence session was extraordinary, to say the least, and it threw up many questions. I wonder whether the Cabinet secretary can answer this question. Which of these is the most serious: a failure to declare a £950 campaign donation; a muddle over an office sublet; or withholding up to 40 documents that have been requested by the police under a search warrant?

It is not for me to offer legal advice across the parliamentary chamber. What is important is that the Government has fulfilled its obligations in providing information to the committee, and we will complete that task this afternoon.