NICOLA Sturgeon’s husband has told a Holyrood inquiry he knew his wife was meeting Alex Salmond in their Glasgow home but never asked why.

SNP chief executive Peter Murrell said his wife “told me she couldn’t discuss the details”, despite her telling MSPs last year that it had been about "party" business, suggesting Mr Murrell ought to have been informed.

MSPs are now investigating whether Ms Sturgeon broke the ministerial code by meeting Mr Salmond while he was being investigated by her own officials over alleged sexual misconduct.

Mr Murrell said he was aware that “something serious was being discussed” when the former First Minister called in April and July 2018.

At the time, Mr Salmond was being investigated by Scottish Government officials over allegations of sexual misconduct by two female civil servants and wanted the probe to be dropped.

However Mr Murrell said he had not tried to get to the bottom of the matter.

He said: “I knew about the meetings between Nicola and Alex Salmond at our home on 2 April and 14 July 2018 and I had the sense that something serious was being discussed. 

“Nicola told me she couldn’t discuss the details.

The nature of Nicola’s job means that when she tells me she can’t discuss something, I don’t press it.

“I was not present at these meetings and made no contribution to them.”

The comments appear at odds with a statement Ms Sturgeon made in parliament on 10 January 2019, when she was asked about her meetings with Mr Salmond.

She said: "Like other party leaders here, I have responsibilities as leader of my party and I took part in meetings in that capacity."  

Mr Murrell, who married Ms Sturgeon in 2010, said he only became aware of the complaints against Mr Salmond in August 2018, when they were reported in the media.

Ms Sturgeon had known about them four months earlier.

The cross-party Inquiry is looking at how the Government botched its probe into the sexual misconduct claims. 

Mr Salmond had the exercise set aside in a judicial review at the Court of Session, forcing ministers to admit it had been unfair, unlawful and “tainted by apparent bias” because the lead investigating official had been in prior contact with his accusers.

The collapse of the Government’s case in January 2019 left taxpayers with a £500,000 bill for Mr Salmond’s costs, and the Holyrood inquiry is investigating what happened. 

Nicola Sturgeon told parliament at the time that the inquiry could have whatever material it wanted, but her Government has since withheld evidence on grounds of "legal privilege" and tried to block witnesses.

Under the Scottish Government’s procedure for handling harassment complaints against ministers and former ministers, which was signed off by Ms Sturgeon in December 2017, she should not have known about any particular investigation.

However she told MSPs in January 2019 that Mr Salmond had informed her himself that he was under investigation when he came to her Glasgow home on 2 April.

Despite being told he was under investigation, Ms Sturgeon met him again in Aberdeen before SNP conference on 7 June, and again in her home on 14 July.

She also spoke to him by phone on 23 April and 18 July 2018. 

It was not until the eve of the Aberdeen meeting, two months after the pair's first meeting about the issue, that she told the Government’s top official, permanent secretary Leslie Evans, what he had told her.

She said: “On 2 April, he informed me about the complaints against him, which - of course - in line with the procedure, the permanent secretary had not done. 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. I did not seek to intervene in it at any stage—nor, indeed, did I feel under any pressure to do so.”

Ms Sturgeon’s critics claim her failure to report her contacts with Mr Salmond timeously while he was being investigated was a breach of the Scottish Ministerial Code.

In his written evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Murrell said the SNP took “no action” in relation to the complaints against Mr Salmond before they became public.

“The only discussions would have been after the matter became public in August 2018 and in relation to the Party’s response.”

He added: “I have no direct knowledge of and therefore no comment to make on the development of the Scottish Government complaints policy, the judicial review, the application of the ministerial code and the civil service code, the handling of the complaints by the Scottish Government, or the culture within the Scottish Government.”

Mr Murrell also said he was unaware of any instances where a Government minister had used SNP emails for communicating instead of government ones, despite his wife using an SNP email for out of hours work for years.

He said: "The SNP does not know how the Scottish Government holds information.

"The SNP expects any of its members who hold public office – including ministerial office – to abide by the relevant rules of their office in terms of the appropriate separation of roles.

"The SNP cannot be the arbiter of what is or is not government business as we are not privy to the detail of government business.

"My understanding is that government business is subject to Freedom of Information legislation regardless of the channels it is conducted on.

"I assume therefore that a Minister or SpAd [special adviser] could not use party channels for government business as a way of avoiding transparency.

"I am not aware of any such instances.

"However, it would be entirely appropriate for Ministers to use SNP rather than Scottish Government channels for party political business." 

In a follow-up letter to Mr Murrell, whose evidence was submitted last month, Inquiry convener Linda Fabiani questioned his assertion that he was “unaware” of ministers using SNP communication channels for official business.

She pointed out the Scottish Government admitted last year that the First Minister, four of her cabinet secretaries and one minister had sent material to the government from their personal accounts.

It also emerged last October that Government officials were told in 2015 that the First Minister would only use her personal SNP account, not her government one.

Ms Fabiani wrote: “Given the recent information released by the Scottish Government detailing the number of emails from personal accounts (including snp.org accounts) received by the Scottish Government from Cabinet members (including the First Minister), and previous media coverage suggesting certain matters are directed at the First Minister using an email account other than her ministerial account, the Committee invites confirmation from you whether there have been instances where SNP channels of communication are used by SNP members when acting in a ministerial capacity.”

Mr Fabiani also asked if Mr Murrell had checked with a series of named colleagues to see if the SNP held communications related to the misconduct complaints against Mr Salmond.

These included Ms Sturgeon, her chief of staff, SNP chief operating officer Sue Ruddick, and SNP compliance manager Ian McCann.

She wrote: “If you did not confer with colleagues in this regard I would ask that you now do so and submit further written evidence to the Committee, providing details of any and all communications requested in my original letter that may be relevant. 

“Again, the information we are seeking includes, but is not limited to, emails, minutes, notes, texts, papers and WhatsApp messages from all levels of the SNP. 

“The Committee look forward to receiving your response as soon as is practicable.”