The Holyrood inquiry into the Alex Salmond affair has demanded to know why SNP ministers failed to mention one of his accusers twice meeting a key Nicola Sturgeon aide.

It said the Government was being "deeply disrespectful".

John Swinney only admitted last week that the woman made a “disclosure” to the First Minister’s principal private secretary before filing an official complaint against Mr Salmond.

The meeting had been omitted from all Scottish Government timelines.

Known as Ms A, the woman met John Somers two days running in November 2017.

The following day, Ms Sturgeon confirmed she wanted a draft Government harassment complaints procedure to apply to former ministers as well as current ones.

The Government insists Ms Somers did not discuss Ms A’s disclosure with the First Minister or her chief of staff, and it remains confidential.

A few weeks after the meetings, in January 2018, Ms A and another female civil servant filed formal complaints of sexual misconduct against Mr Salmond, triggering an investigation.

The inquiry is looking at how the Government botched that investigation.

Mr Salmond had the exercise set aside in a judicial review, showing it had been “tainted by apparent bias”, a flaw that left taxpayers with a £512,000 bill for his costs.

Mr Salmond’s supporters claim he was the victim of a high-level plot to stop him making a political comeback and rivalling his estranged successor.

The inquiry has heard that Mr Somers and Ms Sturgeon’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, had been due to be questioned in court about the Ms A meetings for the judicial review.

But because the Government belatedly conceded the civil action this never happened. 

In a new letter to Mr Swinney, inquiry convener Linda Fabiani takes him to task for only providing details on the involvement of Mr Somers on November 6.

She said: “The Committee wants to know why this is the first time this information has been given to the Committee, including why it did not feature in the Scottish Government’s chronology of events relating to the development of the Scottish Government’s harassment policy. 

“The interaction between other officials and the complainants was referenced so the Committee fails to understand why this interaction was never mentioned.”

Ms Fabiani also questioned the Government’s plan to go to court to see if there were documents it could share with MSPs, despite a court undertaking after the judicial review.

Given the inquiry was set up 18 months ago, she said it was “unacceptable” that the Government hadn’t found that out by now. 

She stressed the inquiry wasn’t seeking material covered by the undertaking, in which ministers agreed not to disclose the findings of their botched probe.

With time running out for the inquiry to finish its work, she warned that “in the absence relevant documentation”, MSPs were likely to spend longer grilling witnesses instead.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser said: “The First Minister promised Parliament she would co-operate fully with this vital inquiry.

“We find ourselves in a situation where even the SNP committee convener doesn’t believe that to be the case and is once again heavily criticising the SNP Government for failing to keep their promises.

“The SNP must be fully transparent with the committee otherwise it will only look like they have something murky to hide.”

In an unsual statement accompanying the release of the lettter, Ms Fabiani said: “Week after week the Committee is in a position where it is clear to us that the evidence being shared with the Committee lacks detail and indeed usefulness. This is both deeply problematic and deeply disrespectful.

“I have, on multiple occasions, made it clear exactly what evidence the Committee wants to see. There is no doubt that we have received a large amount of information. But we are receiving very few clear answers.

“I am in a position today where I am, yet again, writing letters to express my frustration at the delay, the prevarication and obfuscation. But this goes beyond frustration. This must end and we will complete our work and do the job given to us by the nation’s Parliament.” 

In a separate letter, Ms Fabiani also told Mr Salmond it was now a matter of “urgency” that he submit his written evidence, after numerous missed deadlines.

The former FM has said legal obstacles, including the threat of prosecution, prevent him from sharing all the material he would like to, in order to give a comprehensive account.

However Ms Fabiani told him it was “imperative” for the inquiry to make progress, and that he should submit what he could now, with possible additional submissions later.

She said MSPs expected to take oral evidence from him in December in its penultimate session, followed by Ms Sturgeon.

Ms Fabiani said: “Your written submission remains outstanding, and has been requested numerous times, most recently in my letter of 6 November. 

“The Committee requires to finalise the timescales of its oral evidence taking for the remainder of its inquiry at this stage. 

“An important strand of this inquiry is to identify what meaningful changes can be made to the Scottish Government’s procedures and practices. 

“The priority therefore is that the Committee must report to Parliament in good time to ensure the report of its findings can be agreed, published, considered, and the recommendations responded to by the Scottish Government. 

“The report and response phase will take months to complete and must be completed before the end of the Parliamentary session for the Committee’s recommendations to be made and for the implementation of meaningful improvements to commence. 

“The Committee requires sufficient detail on your account of the complaints handling phase, the judicial review and the ministerial code phase in an initial submission.

“As set out in previous correspondence, the drafting and submitting of a written submission does not require the processing of all records to be completed and you are aware of what is and is not covered by legal restrictions and the need to navigate through these matters in your submission. 

“The accompanying records, if they can be shared, can be submitted at a later stage.

“I write again to impress upon you the urgency of this matter. The Committee has written separately to the Government on its written evidence and will do so again today. 

“The purpose of this Committee is to hold the Government to account and the Committee will fulfil this task.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is providing all relevant material to the committee and we are even in the process of initiating legal proceedings necessary to get the permission of the Court of Session to allow the release of further documents.”