The Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish government’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond is in crisis after deep divisions emerged over publication of his evidence to the investigation. During a tense four-hour private meeting on Tuesday, the nine-strong committee voted by five to four against publishing a statement that Salmond says is an essential part of his case alleging that Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code. Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MSPs said the decision raised critical questions about the committee’s ability to properly investigate the botched Scottish government inquiry into allegations Salmond sexually harassed two female officials – claims Salmond has repeatedly denied and of which he was acquitted in court. It is now thought Salmond will refuse to appear before the committee. He had been due to give evidence under oath on Tuesday but pulled out because he insisted the submission be published so he could refer to it. The committee split along party lines: the four Scottish National party MSPs and Andy Wightman, a former Scottish Green MSP now sitting as an independent, voted against releasing it. The two Tory committee members and one each from Labour and the Lib Dems voted to publish it in redacted form. Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s acting leader and a committee member, said: “The decision not to publish this vital evidence is, in my view, a blow to the credibility of the committee, and, by extension, to the parliament itself. The evidence in question is already largely in the public domain and by refusing to publish it, even with appropriate redactions, the committee has denied itself the chance to question the former first minister.” That was echoed by Alex Cole Hamilton, the Lib Dem committee member. “The future of this whole inquiry is in jeopardy but we owe it to the complainers, who must have hated every second of this process, to at least try to reach a conclusion,” he said. “If we are to get to the bottom of how the Scottish government failed the women at the heart of these complaints so terribly, then we must hear from the subject of its investigation.” Salmond has not yet responded, but is reportedly considering staging a press conference before Sturgeon gives evidence to the committee on Tuesday next week. A parliament spokeswoman said it had clear legal advice that publishing the submission would breach court orders, even if it was redacted. That was because it had been leaked and published by the Spectator; Holyrood’s legal advice was it could only be used by the committee if its contents were carefully redacted. The spokeswoman added: “In addition to the issues around Mr Salmond’s submission, there are a number of conditions to his appearance that the committee simply could never meet, including waiving threat of all legal prosecution. It is simply not within the committee’s gift to make such a commitment.” Salmond’s submission to the committee is identical to that given to James Hamilton QC, Ireland’s former director of public prosecutions, who is investigating Sturgeon for allegedly misleading parliament over her dealings with Salmond and her knowledge about the internal inquiry in breach of the ministerial code. MSPs who voted against publication accepted the advice that it is legally impossible to use it now it has been leaked, but also believe Salmond’s evidence is not central to their inquiry into serious failures in the Scottish government’s original investigation into the claims against the former first minister. The government paid Salmond £520,000 in legal costs and about £180,000 on its own legal bills after he won a legal action in 2019 challenging their handling of the investigation, plus at least £50,000 on advice preparing civil servants giving evidence to the Holyrood inquiry.